Montage is MRI compatible and they upped the platform to do some limited combo-like therapy.
Nevro is also MRI compatible fwiw.
Hitachi or Two Point Hospital?My bad I thought this thread was about something else.
). There are some upcoming webinars going through this science and it is wildly different than any other explanation of SCS mechanism that I have seen from any company. It is also not a black box, any doctor can see their programming. 
How does one company feel about you whoring for other companies?I have implanted all systems and routinely do about 60% medtronic, 30% abbott, remainder grab bag.
Used to do a lot of Nevro and my results were not Senza-like, my facility couldn’t afford Senza 2 batteries and senza 1 was just so big patients didn’t like it. They don’t like abbot proclaim 7 either fwiw. Abbott has a 5 year warranty on their Proclaim XR; but that is really just a new logo on Proclaim 5 and the bold XR settings to make it last 5 years are clinically unlikely, to be nice about it. I’ve had more than a few burn out in less than 2 years. The back pain responder rate is not published in the SUNBURST study but I is in the package insert and was about 39% so I would not use this for back pain.
Medtronic Intellis has best in class full body MRI conditionality. Mri can be performed w fractured leads, IPG doesn’t have to be fully charged, and in general is most accepted by radiology centers. It is also the smallest IPG, and has a 9 year warranty because the novel battery technology has less than 5% fade at 9 years.
Abbott requires MRI mode but can’t enter if there are any contacts with high impedance.
Boston curiously made their latest and greatest wave writer system to have a weird introducer and not be MRI conditional. Silly.
The results from the DTM-SCS study with Medtronic has made DTM the first line therapy in my practice for a patient suitable for a rechargeable. 80% of patients had >50% back pain relief and 63% of patients had >80% back pain relief. Average back pain relief per VAS was 74% and leg pain 72%.
For those of you not familiar with DTM and the rational design of the waveform to target the neuro-glial interaction should do some reading (substantiated by basic science preclinical work with transcriptomics describing a phenotype change in). There are some upcoming webinars going through this science and it is wildly different than any other explanation of SCS mechanism that I have seen from any company. It is also not a black box, any doctor can see their programming.
The next webinar is 4/28. If anyone needs the link to register it is here:
The Evolution of DTM™ SCS and its Impact on Patients
app.medtroniclearn.com
Relevant disclosures: I am a consultant and investigator for Abbott, Medtronic, and Nevro, among others.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
.
I have implanted all systems and routinely do about 60% medtronic, 30% abbott, remainder grab bag.
Used to do a lot of Nevro and my results were not Senza-like, my facility couldn’t afford Senza 2 batteries and senza 1 was just so big patients didn’t like it. They don’t like abbot proclaim 7 either fwiw. Abbott has a 5 year warranty on their Proclaim XR; but that is really just a new logo on Proclaim 5 and the bold XR settings to make it last 5 years are clinically unlikely, to be nice about it. I’ve had more than a few burn out in less than 2 years. The back pain responder rate is not published in the SUNBURST study but I is in the package insert and was about 39% so I would not use this for back pain.
Medtronic Intellis has best in class full body MRI conditionality. Mri can be performed w fractured leads, IPG doesn’t have to be fully charged, and in general is most accepted by radiology centers. It is also the smallest IPG, and has a 9 year warranty because the novel battery technology has less than 5% fade at 9 years.
Abbott requires MRI mode but can’t enter if there are any contacts with high impedance.
Boston curiously made their latest and greatest wave writer system to have a weird introducer and not be MRI conditional. Silly.
The results from the DTM-SCS study with Medtronic has made DTM the first line therapy in my practice for a patient suitable for a rechargeable. 80% of patients had >50% back pain relief and 63% of patients had >80% back pain relief. Average back pain relief per VAS was 74% and leg pain 72%.
For those of you not familiar with DTM and the rational design of the waveform to target the neuro-glial interaction should do some reading (substantiated by basic science preclinical work with transcriptomics describing a phenotype change in
The next webinar is 4/28. If anyone needs the link to register it is here:
The Evolution of DTM™ SCS and its Impact on Patients
Relevant disclosures: I am a consultant and investigator for Abbott, Medtronic, and Nevro, among others.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
www.medtronic.com
I am the opposite as I'm in an ivory tower setting. I work primarily with Medicaid/Medicare train wrecks that have complex comorbidities, need interventions as a carrot to get off drugs, and have already been worked over by multiple surgeons and interventionalists. My patient population does not qualify for most studies. In my patient's, Nevro has been dismal. These folks mostly prefer some tonic/paresthesia based feedback in the region of their pain, even if their primary program is something else.
Would be great to have independently funded/academic/private head-to-head waveform studies or a comprehensive meta analysis (domestic/international) of all these weak , small, RCTs to gain further understanding/power of current programming techniques.oh nm. I found the study.
impressive...
I mean the 3 month study objective.
Clinical Evidence - Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy
See clinical evidence supporting Medtronic spinal cord stimulation therapies for chronic pain.
the study primary endpoint is at 3 months. data suggests benefit, but if you are going to use an endpoint of 3 months, why not compare it to, say. using the SCS and doing a TF with NS or making nonexistent changes to programming?
id like to see what the data shows at 6 and 12 months, which are secondary endpoints.
Unfortunately, I tell patients these devices remained implanted, for, over 6 to 12 years...
your patient population is best not served with SCS or ITP.
Lol so true. Our reps can barely spell DTM and have no clue what it means.
I’m in private practice but we have a great contract with our local Medicaid (it’s a privately managed subcontractor) that actually pays quite nicely for stim. That said I’ve only done a couple on that group due to the psychosocial baggage that makes many of them poor candidates. I’m straight fee for service and do implants at an ASC so I’m highly incentivized to “kick the tires” on anything that pays but I have no desire to tie myself to those patients permanently, or have them going out into the community telling everyone I implanted them and told them that was the end of the line when it didn’t help.
