Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 7, 2026

Treating Low Back Pain in Failed Back Surgery Patients with Multicolumn-lead Spinal Cord Stimulation
Published on: June 26, 2018
Restorative Neurostimulation Therapy Compared to Optimal Medical Management: A Randomized Evaluation (RESTORE) for
Frank Schwab1, Nagy Mekhail2, Kiran V Patel3
1Northwell Health Orthopaedic Institute at Lenox Hill, 130 East 77th Street, Black Hall 7th, 11th, and 12th Floors, New York, NY, 10075, USA. fschwab@northwell.edu.
Introduction:
Many interventional strategies are commonly used to treat chronic low back pain (CLBP), though few are specifically intended to target the distinct underlying pathomechanisms causing low back pain. Restorative neurostimulation has been suggested as a specific treatment for mechanical CLBP resulting from multifidus dysfunction. In this randomized controlled trial, we report outcomes from a cohort of patients with CLBP associated with multifidus dysfunction treated with restorative neurostimulation compared to those randomized to a control group receiving optimal medical management (OMM) over 1 year.
Methods:
RESTORE is a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Candidates were assessed for CLBP associated with multifidus dysfunction, with no indication for or history of lumbar spine surgery. Participants were randomized to either restorative neurostimulation with the ReActiv8 system or OMM. The primary endpoint was a comparison of the mean change in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between the treatment and control arms at 1 year, and secondary endpoints included pain (numeric rating scale [NRS]) and health-related quality of life (EuroQol Five-Dimension [EQ-5D-5L]).
Results:
A total of 203 patients, average age 47 years, and with an average 11-year history of low back pain, were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was a statistically significant demonstration of a clinically relevant mean improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between restorative neurostimulation and OMM arms: ODI (-19.7 ± 1.4 vs. -2.9 ± 1.4; p < 0.001). Additionally, improvements in both the numeric rating scale (NRS) (-3.6 ± 0.2 vs. -0.6 ± 0.2; p < 0.001) and EuroQol Five-Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) (0.155 ± 0.012 vs. 0.008 ± 0.012; p < 0.001) were statistically and clinically significant in the restorative neurostimulation arm compared to the OMM arm.
Conclusion:
The RESTORE trial demonstrates that restorative neurostimulation is a safe, reversible, clinically effective, and highly durable option for patients suffering with nonoperative CLBP associated with multifidus dysfunction. This demonstration of treatment superiority over OMM through 1 year is a significant milestone in addressing a major health burden and unmet clinical need.
Trial Registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04803214.
More Related Videos
08:33Author Spotlight: Methodologies and Advancements of Chronic Pain Management Research
Published on: January 5, 2024
06:28Biomechanical Changes Related to Low Back Pain: An Innovative Tool for Movement Pattern Assessment and Treatment Evaluation in Rehabilitation
Published on: December 13, 2024