Remote Neurostimulation Programming via Patient Programmer

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems require frequent in-person follow-up visits for programming adjustments, which can be burdensome for patients and may result in non-optimized therapy due to limited patient programmer functionality and lack of expertise.

Innovation Solution

A method and system for remote programming of neurostimulation therapy devices, where a clinician generates a stimulation program, transfers it to a patient programmer, and limits the initial amplitude to a minimal dose, allowing the patient to adjust the amplitude safely and effectively.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If in-person follow-up sessions are used for programming adjustments, then programming accuracy and patient monitoring are improved, but patient burden and time loss increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveprogramming accuracyVSAvoidpatient time loss

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

A remote communication system acts as an intermediary between the clinician and patient, enabling programming adjustments to be made remotely. The system transmits programming instructions and patient feedback through communication channels (phone, internet), eliminating the need for in-person visits while maintaining programming accuracy through clinician guidance.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Solution Approach 2:

The patient is empowered to perform programming adjustments themselves under remote clinician guidance. The patient programmer device enables self-adjustment of stimulation parameters, reducing dependency on frequent clinic visits and giving patients control over their own therapy optimization.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

2Device complexity

If patient programmer functionality is limited, then device complexity is reduced, but programming capability and therapy optimization are worsened

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvepatient programmer complexityVSAvoidprogramming capability

Core Design Contradiction:

Device complexityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

Programming functionality is segmented between two devices: the patient programmer handles basic operations and simple adjustments, while the clinician programmer provides advanced programming capabilities. This segmentation allows each device to be optimized for its specific function, keeping the patient device simple while maintaining overall system versatility through the clinician's access to full capabilities.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

3Ease of operation

If patients lack expertise in programming, then ease of operation is improved, but programming effectiveness and therapy optimization are worsened

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvepatient ease of operationVSAvoidtherapy optimization effectiveness

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system incorporates feedback mechanisms where patients report their experiences and observations to clinicians, who then adjust programming parameters accordingly. This feedback loop compensates for patients' lack of programming expertise by enabling clinicians to make informed adjustments based on patient responses, maintaining therapy optimization effectiveness.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The clinician acts as an intermediary who translates patient needs into appropriate programming adjustments. Rather than requiring patients to have programming expertise, the system enables patients to communicate their experiences, and the clinician interprets this information to make optimal programming decisions remotely.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Measurement precision

If frequent reprogramming visits are required, then programming precision is improved, but patient burden and system cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvetherapy optimization precisionVSAvoidpatient burden

Core Design Contradiction:

Measurement precisionVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

Clinicians perform preliminary programming setup during initial in-person visits, configuring basic parameters and teaching patients how to use the device. This preliminary action reduces the need for frequent follow-up visits by establishing a foundation that patients can build upon with remote guidance, thereby maintaining precision while reducing burden.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

Remote communication systems serve as intermediaries that enable frequent programming adjustments without requiring physical patient travel. Through phone calls, messaging, or telehealth platforms, clinicians can guide patients through programming changes, maintaining therapy precision while eliminating the harmful factor of patient burden associated with frequent clinic visits.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentUS12268888B2Remote follow-up of neurostimulation system

Publication Date: 2025.04.08 BIOTRONIK SE & CO KG

AI summary

A method for remote programming a therapy device for neurostimulation comprises: generating a stimulation program for the therapy device by means of a clinician programmer; transferring the stimulation program to a patient programmer; loading the stimulation program on the therapy device from the patient programmer; and increasing a stimulation amplitude of the stimulation program by means of the patient programmer. An initial stimulation amplitude setting of the stimulation program is limited to a minimal dose amplitude.