Background
This prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, crossover study, compared the therapeutic efficacy of BurstDR SCS delivered using a lead implanted with the conventional paresthesia mapping approach to a lead implanted with an anatomic placement approach.
Methods
Patients with chronic back pain were implanted with two leads, one using paresthesia-mapping approach (PM) and the second using anatomical placement (AP). Stimulation contacts were chosen using the standard mapping procedure for the paresthesia lead or such that the activated bipole was overlapping the T9-T10 junction for the anatomical lead. During the trial period patients tested each lead for two weeks in random order. Successful patients received permanent implants using their preferred AM or PM approach and were followed for 1 year with follow-up visits at 3, 6 and 12 months.
Results
Forty-two out of fifty-two patients achieved at least 50% pain relief and proceeded to permanent implant. Twenty patients were profound responders (≥80% pain relief) on at least one lead. For the forty-two patients, the baseline average back pain was 78.9±12 mm on the VAS scale. Twenty-one patients preferred the PM approach while twenty patients preferred the PM approach. Pain scores of both approaches, as well as quality of life and disability measures were significantly different from baseline at all follow-ups they were not different between themselves. Ninety-one percent of patients were satisfied with BurstDR therapy at 3 months. 
Conclusions
The results suggest that similar clinical outcomes can be obtained without performing paresthesia mapping and implanting the leads using only anatomical imaging references.

08 - INTRAOPERATIVE PARESTHESIA-MAPPING IS NOT REQUIRED FOR LEAD PLACEMENTS INVOLVING BURSTDR STIMULATION: RESULTS OF THE PROSPECTIVE, MULTICENTER, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLINDED CRISP STUDY