Modeling dermatome selectivity of single-and multiple-current source spinal cord stimulation systems

A recently published computational modeling study of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) predicted that a multiple current source (MCS) system could generate a greater number of central points of stimulation in the dorsal column (DC) than a single current source (1CS) system. However, the clinical relevance of this finding has not been established. The objective of this work was to compare the dermatomal zone selectivity of MCS and 1CS systems. A finite element method (FEM) model was built with a representation of the spinal cord anatomy and a 2×8 paddle electrode array. Using a contact configuration with two aligned tripoles, the FEM model was used to solve for DC field potentials across incremental changes in current between the two cathodes, modeling the MCS and 1CS systems. The activation regions within the DC were determined by coupling the FEM output to a biophysical nerve fiber model, and coverage was mapped to dermatomal zones. Results showed marginal differences in activated dermatomal zones between 1CS and MCS systems. This indicates that a MCS system may not provide incremental therapeutic benefit as suggested in prior analysis.

[1]  G. Barolat,et al.  Spinal Geometry and Paresthesia Coverage in Spinal Cord Stimulation , 1998, Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society.

[2]  Kerry Bradley,et al.  Dorsal column steerability with dual parallel leads using dedicated power sources: a computational model. , 2011, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE.

[3]  Dominique M. Durand,et al.  MODELING OF MAMMALIAN MYELINATED NERVE FOR FUNCTIONAL NEUROMUSCULAR STIMULATION. , 1987 .

[4]  J Holsheimer,et al.  Morphometry of human superficial dorsal and dorsolateral column fibres: significance to spinal cord stimulation. , 2002, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[5]  Xiaoyi Min,et al.  Computational modeling analysis of a spinal cord stimulation paddle lead reveals broad, gapless dermatomal coverage , 2014, 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[6]  P. Wall,et al.  Pain mechanisms: a new theory. , 1965, Science.

[7]  J. Holsheimer,et al.  Optimum electrode geometry for spinal cord stimulation: The narrow bipole and tripole , 1997, Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing.

[8]  Warren M Grill,et al.  Model-based analysis and design of nerve cuff electrodes for restoring bladder function by selective stimulation of the pudendal nerve , 2013, Journal of neural engineering.

[9]  W A Wesselink,et al.  Effect of anode-cathode configuration on paresthesia coverage in spinal cord stimulation. , 1997, Neurosurgery.

[10]  Dongchul Lee,et al.  Predicted effects of pulse width programming in spinal cord stimulation: a mathematical modeling study , 2011, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[11]  Warren M. Grill,et al.  Sensitivity analysis of a model of mammalian neural membrane , 1998, Biological Cybernetics.

[12]  M. Moffitt,et al.  Spinal Cord Stimulation: Engineering Approaches to Clinical and Physiological Challenges , 2009 .

[13]  D. Durand,et al.  Modeling the effects of electric fields on nerve fibers: Determination of excitation thresholds , 1992, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.