Radiographic lead migration in percutaneous spinal cord stimulator trials

INTRODUCTION

Lead migration during spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trials is relatively neglected in the literature and presents a different set of challenges compared with fully implanted leads. There is no consensus on what constitutes a clinically significant amount of radiographic lead migration during SCS trials. We wished to evaluate the incidence and extent of radiographic lead migration during percutaneous SCS trials, to investigate the risk factors for lead migration and whether this has impacted on trial success.

METHODS

This prospective observational study of percutaneous SCS trials took place in a tertiary referral center in the UK between April 2021 and January 2022. Radiographs of SCS lead position were taken at baseline and prior to lead removal. Lead migration ≥50% of a vertebral level was deemed significant.

RESULTS

One hundred trials were included comprising 162 leads. Mean migration distance was 0.55 vertebral levels (SD 0.85) or 12.5 mm (SD 18.2) in a caudal direction. Significant radiographic migration occurred in 50% of all leads (81 of 162 leads), at least one lead in 62% of cases and all leads in 44% of cases. Radiographic lead migration was not found to be associated with reduced trial success. A single lead and mechanical anchors were associated with greater incidence of lead migration.

CONCLUSION

Radiographic lead migration of approximately half of a vertebral level in a caudal direction can be expected during percutaneous SCS trials and this can be anticipated by siting leads half of a vertebral level higher to accommodate for this. Additional factors should be considered in the setting of radiographic lead migration to determine whether this can be considered clinically significant.

Case report: Dorsal root ganglion stimulator lead fracture

BACKGROUND

One of the unique advances in neuromodulation for chronic pain has been spinal cord stimulators (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion stimulators (DRG-S). These devices have aided in conditions such as neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndromes, failed back surgery, and peripheral neuropathies. With these benefits, however, complications from implantable stimulators have included lead fractures and migration. The authors reviewed a lead migration, kinking, and subsequent fracture event involving a patient with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) II, who was treated with a DRG-S.

CASE PRESENTATION

The case report follows this patient, from their past medical history to assessment of appropriate qualifications for neuromodulation, to successful surgical placement, to follow-up care. The authors further monitored assessment of inefficacy of pain relief, and identification of lead migration and kinking through imaging. In the process of removal, due to lead stress, lead fracturing occurred. After lead removal, the leads were fully replaced, and the patient was followed up and experienced improved pain relief.

CONCLUSION

The case report assesses probable mechanisms of lead fracture and considerations for physicians for future assessment and triage of neuromodulation efficacy.

Pocket pain following spinal cord stimulator generator implantation: A narrative review of this under-reported risk

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment option for chronic pain. Pain over the implantable pulse generator, or pocket pain, is an incompletely understood risk of SCS implantation which may limit the efficacy of treatment and patient quality of life. The goal of this narrative review is to analyze the literature to gain a more thorough understanding of the incidence and risk factors for the development of pocket pain to help guide treatment options and minimize its occurrence in the future.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted investigating the development of pocket pain in patients with SCS for the management of a variety of pain conditions.

RESULTS

In total, 305 articles were included in the original database search and 50 met the criteria for inclusion. The highest level of evidence for papers that specifically investigated pocket pain was level III. Four retrospective, observational analyses included pocket pain as a primary outcome. The remainder of the included studies listed pocket pain as an adverse event of SCS implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a relative dearth of primary literature that examines the incidence, characteristics, and health economic implications of pocket pain in patients with SCS. This highlights the need for large-scale, high-quality prospective or randomized controlled trials examining pocket pain. This may ultimately help prevent and reduce pocket pain leading to improved efficacy of treatment and greater patient quality of life.

Variables associated with nonresponders to high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation

INTRODUCTION

The use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy to treat chronic pain continues to rise. Optimal patient selection remains one of the most important factors for SCS success. However, despite increased utilization and the existence of general indications, predicting which patients will benefit from neuromodulation remains one of the main challenges for this therapy. Therefore, this study aims to identify the variables that may correlate with nonresponders to high-frequency (10 kHz) SCS to distinguish the subset of patients less likely to benefit from this intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center observational study of patients who underwent 10 kHz SCS implant. Patients were divided into nonresponders and responders groups. Demographic data and clinical outcomes were collected at baseline and statistical analysis was performed for all continuous and categorical variables between the two groups to calculate statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

The study population comprised of 237 patients, of which 67.51% were responders and 32.49% were nonresponders. There was a statistically significant difference of high levels of kinesiophobia, high self-perceived disability, greater pain intensity, and clinically relevant pain catastrophizing at baseline in the nonresponders compared to the responders. A few variables deemed potentially relevant, such as age, gender, history of spinal surgery, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use, psychiatric illness, and opioid utilization at baseline were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Our study is the first in the neuromodulation literature to raise awareness to the association of high levels of kinesiophobia preoperatively in nonresponders to 10 kHz SCS therapy. We also found statistically significant differences with greater pain intensity, higher self-perceived disability, and clinically relevant pain catastrophizing at baseline in the nonresponders relative to responders. It may be appropriate to screen for these factors preoperatively to identify patients who are less likely to respond to SCS. If these modifiable risk factors are present, it might be prudent to consider a pre-rehabilitation program with pain neuroscience education to address these factors prior to SCS therapy, to enhance successful outcomes in neuromodulation.

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring and spinal cord stimulator implantation

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is one of the most dreaded complications after spinal cord stimulation (SCS) implantation surgery. As a result, intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) has been proposed to avoid accidental damage to nervous structures under anesthesia and confirm positioning for optimal stimulation. Our study uses a large administrative claims database to determine the 30-day risk of SCI after SCS implantation.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases from 2016 to 2019. Adult patients undergoing SCS surgical procedures with at least 90 days of follow-up, IONM use, the type of sedation used during the procedure, and subsequent SCI were identified using administrative codes. In addition, logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between various risk factors and subsequent SCI.

RESULTS

A total of 9676 patients underwent SCS surgery (64.7% percutaneous implants) during the study period. Nine hundred and forty-four (9.75%) patients underwent SCS implantation with IONM. Conscious sedation, Monitored Anesthesia Care anesthesia, and general anesthesia were used in patients with 0.9%, 60.2%, and 28.6%, respectively. Eighty-one (0.8%) patients developed SCI within 30 days after SCS implant surgery. The SCI rate was higher in the group that underwent IONM (2% vs 0.7%, p value <0.001) during the implantation procedure, reflecting the underlying risk. After adjustment for other factors, the OR of SCI is 2.39 (95% CI: 1.33 to 4.14, p value=0.002) times higher for those with IONM than those without IONM.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased SCI risk among patients with IONM likely reflects higher baseline risk, and further research is needed for risk mitigation.

Does high-frequency stimulation of sensory axons break the causal link between pain relief and paresthesia?

Neurostimulation produces unnatural cutaneous sensations with potent analgesic effects in pain syndromes. In this issue of Neuron, Sagalajev et al.1 demonstrate that these sensations are an epiphenomenon and explain how high-frequency stimulation can provide analgesia without these unnecessary sensations.

4. Painful diabetic polyneuropathy

INTRODUCTION

Pain as a symptom of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) significantly lowers quality of life, increases mortality and is the main reason for patients with diabetes to seek medical attention. The number of people suffering from painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN) has increased significantly over the past decades.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy was retrieved and summarized.

RESULTS

The etiology of PDPN is complex, with primary damage to peripheral nociceptors and altered spinal and supra-spinal modulation. To achieve better patient outcomes, the mode of diagnosis and treatment of PDPN evolves toward more precise pain-phenotyping and genotyping based on patient-specific characteristics, new diagnostic tools, and prior response to pharmacological treatments. According to the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group, a presumptive diagnosis of "probable PDPN" is sufficient to initiate treatment. Proper control of plasma glucose levels, and prevention of risk factors are essential in the treatment of PDPN. Mechanism-based pharmacological treatment should be initiated as early as possible. If symptomatic pharmacologic treatment fails, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) should be considered. In isolated cases, where symptomatic pharmacologic treatment and SCS are unsuccessful or cannot be used, sympathetic lumbar chain neurolysis and/or radiofrequency ablation (SLCN/SLCRF), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGs) or posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) may be considered. However, it is recommended that these treatments be applied only in a study setting in a center of expertise.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of PDPN evolves toward pheno-and genotyping and treatment should be mechanism-based.

Complications of Spinal Cord Stimulators-A Comprehensive Review Article

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Spinal cord stimulation has been increasing in influence as an option to regulate pain, especially in the chronic pain patient population. However, even with the numerous changes made to this technology since its inception, it is still prone to various complications such as hardware issues, neurological injury/epidural hematoma, infections, and other biological concerns. The purpose of this article is to thoroughly review and evaluate literature pertaining to the complications associated with percutaneous spinal cord stimulation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lead migration is generally the most common complication of percutaneous spinal cord stimulation; however, recent utilization of various anchoring techniques has been discussed and experienced clinical success in decreasing the prevalence of lead migration and lead fractures. With newer high-frequency systems gaining traction to improve pain management and decrease complications as compared to traditional systems, rechargeable implantable pulse generators have been the preferred power source. However, recent findings may suggest that these rechargeable implantable pulse generators do not significantly increase battery life as much as was proposed. Intraoperative neuromonitoring has seen success in mitigating neurological injury postoperatively and may see more usage in the future through more testing. Though the occurrence of infection and biological complications, including dural puncture and skin erosion, has been less frequent over time, they should still be treated in accordance with established protocols. While many complications can arise following percutaneous spinal cord stimulator implantation, the procedure is less invasive than open implantation and has seen largely positive patient feedback. Hardware complications, the more common issues that can occur, rarely indicate a serious risk and can generally be remedied through reoperation. However, less common cases such as neurological injury, infections, and biological complications require prompt diagnosis to improve the condition of the patient and prevent significant damage.

Analysis of spinal canal diameter in the placement of thoracic spinal cord stimulator paddle leads

BACKGROUND

Neurologic deficit is known as a rare complication of thoracic spinal cord stimulator (SCS) paddle lead implantation, but many believe its incidence after SCS paddle lead placement is under-reported. It is possible that imaging characteristics may be used to help predict safe paddle lead placement.

OBJECTIVE

This imaging study was undertaken to determine the minimum canal diameter required for safe paddle lead placement.

METHODS

Patients who underwent thoracic laminotomy for new SCS paddle lead placement from January 2018 to March 2023 were identified retrospectively. Preoperative thoracic canal diameter was measured in the sagittal plane perpendicular to the disc space from T5/6 to T11/12. These thoracic levels were chosen because they span the most common levels targeted for SCS placement. Patients with and without new neurologic deficits were compared using a Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

Of 185 patients initially identified, 180 had thoracic imaging available for review. One (0.5%) and 2 (1.1%) of 185 patients complained of permanent and transient neurologic deficit after thoracic SCS placement, respectively. Patients with neurologic deficits had average canal diameters of <11 mm. The average canal diameter of patients with and without neurologic deficits was 10.2 mm (range 6.1-12.9 mm) and 13.0 mm (range 5.9-20.2), respectively (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative neurologic deficit is an uncommon complication after thoracic laminotomy for SCS paddle lead placement. The authors recommend ensuring a starting thoracic canal diameter of at least 12 mm to accommodate a SCS paddle lead measuring 2 mm thick to ensure a final diameter of >10 mm. If canal diameter is <12 mm, aggressive undercutting of the lamina, a second laminotomy, or placement of smaller SCS wire leads should be considered.

Incidence and Management of Hardware-Related Wound Infections in Spinal Cord, Peripheral Nerve Field, and Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery: A Single-Center Study

INTRODUCTION

Neuromodulation using deep brain stimulation (DBS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), and peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) to treat neurological, psychiatric, and pain disorders is a rapidly growing field. Infections related to the implanted hardware are among the most common complications and result in health-related and economic burden. Unfortunately, conservative medical therapy is less likely to be successful. In this retrospective study, we aimed to identify characteristics of the infections and investigated surgical and antimicrobial treatments.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of patients with an infection related to DBS, SCS, and/or PNFS hardware over an 8-year period at our institution. Data were analyzed for type of neurostimulator, time of onset of infection following the neurosurgical procedure, location, and surgical treatment strategy. Surgical treatment of infections consisted of either a surgical wound revision without hardware removal or a surgical wound revision with partial or complete hardware removal. Data were further analyzed for the microorganisms involved, antimicrobial treatment and its duration, and clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Over an 8-year period, a total of 1,250 DBS, 1,835 SCS, and 731 PNFS surgeries were performed including de novo system implantations, implanted pulse generator (IPG) replacements, and revisions. We identified 82 patients with infections related to the neurostimulator hardware, representing an incidence of 3.09% of the procedures. Seventy-one percent of the patients had undergone multiple surgeries related to the neurostimulator prior to the infection. The infections occurred after a mean of 12.2 months after the initial surgery. The site of infection was most commonly around the IPG, especially in DBS and SCS. The majority (62.2%) was treated by surgical wound revision with simultaneous partial or complete removal of hardware. Microbiological specimens predominantly yielded Staphylococcus epidermidis (39.0%) and Staphylococcus aureus (35.4%). After surgery, antimicrobials were given for a mean of 3.4 weeks. The antimicrobial regime was significantly shorter in patients with hardware removal in comparison to those who only had undergone surgical wound revision. One intracranial abscess occurred. No cases of infection-related death, sepsis, bacteremia, or intraspinal abscesses were found.

CONCLUSION

Our data did show the predominance of S. epidermidis and S. aureus as etiologic organisms in hardware-related infections. Infections associated with S. aureus most likely required (partial) hardware removal. Aggressive surgical treatment including hardware removal shortens the duration of antimicrobial treatment. Clear strategies should be developed to treat hardware-related infections to optimize patient management and reduce health- and economic-related burden.

Spinal Cord Stimulators and Intrathecal Pain Pump Removal Versus Retention During Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Matched Cohort Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine risks associated with posterior lumbar arthrodesis after spinal cord stimulator (SCS) and intrathecal pain pump (IPP) insertion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

SCS and IPPs aid in the management of chronic back and radicular pain. Little is known regarding the risks of subsequent fusion with these devices in place.

METHODS

The PearlDiver Mariner database was queried for spinal fusion between 2010 and 2020. Study groups were created for indwelling SCS or IPP and matched to a separate cohort without SCS or IPP. Subgroups were created for those who had their device removed and those who retained their device at the time of surgery. Complications up to 2 years postoperatively were reviewed and confounding variables were controlled using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Four thousand five hundred three patients had an indwelling SCS/IPP and underwent posterior lumbar fusion. Compared with patients without history of an SCS/IPP, patients undergoing a lumbar fusion with an SCS/IPP which was removed or retained had higher rates of revision surgery at 1 year [7.3% vs. 5.0%, odds ratio (OR) =1.48, P <0.001] and 2 year (10.8% vs. 7.0%, OR =1.59, P <0.001). For all time intervals, there were higher odds of instrumentation failure (2 y: OR =1.65, P <0.001), and pulmonary complications (2 y: OR =1.18, P <0.001). At 2 years, there were higher odds of surgical site complications (OR 1.15, P =0.02) and urinary complications (OR=1.07, P =0.04). There were no differences in complications up to 2 years postoperatively in patients with an SCS/IPP who had their devices retained or removed ( P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a history of spinal cord stimulators and intrathecal pain pumps are at increased risk of mechanical complications and revision fusion compared with patients without these devices. Patients with an SCS or IPP have similar rates of complications during lumbar fusion whether the device is removed or retained.

Complications of Spinal Cord Stimulator Trials and Implants: A Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used for decades to alleviate chronic pain. A growing body of literature suggests that the procedure is not without risks. Understanding the risks of SCS implantation can help treating physicians formulate individualized care plans that promote patient safety and minimize risks.

RECENT FINDINGS

The overall complication rate associated with SCS has been reported to be 31.9 to 43%. The most common complication in the literature appears to be electrode migration. Other complications ranging in rates of occurrence include hematoma formation, infection, spinal cord injury, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak. Case reports of syrinx formation, foreign body reaction, and fibrosis have also been described. Our review shows that there are strategies available to reduce and prevent complications. In addition, close monitoring and early intervention may prevent some of the adverse neurological outcomes. Nevertheless, additional research regarding patient and procedural factors is necessary to improve the safety profile of this intervention.

Efficacy and Safety of Cervical and High-Thoracic Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation Therapy for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome of the Upper Extremities

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate analgesic and safety considerations for high thoracic and cervical dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neuromodulation for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). We hypothesized that DRG neuromodulation would provide sustained analgesia with complications like that of low thoracic or lumbar electrode implantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center, retrospective study was conducted of patients with CRPS I or II of the upper extremities, refractory to previous therapies, who were treated with DRG neuromodulation in the upper thoracic and cervical spine. The primary outcome was successful DRG therapy, defined as ≥ 50% pain relief on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) 0 to 10 pain scale at six months after implantation. A secondary outcome was a reduction in daily opioid use after DRG therapy.

RESULTS

After a DRG stimulation trial, 17 of 20 patients (85%) had ≥ 50% improvement in NRS pain and underwent a permanent pulse generator implant, with 100% endorsing ≥ 50% pain relief at six months. Mean NRS pain scores before DRG neuromodulation were 9.3 ± 1.1, with a mean reduction of 5.5 (95% CI, 4.5-6.6; p < 0.001) at six months. Ten patients were taking opioids at baseline; the median (interquartile range) dose was 45 mg (23 to 120) morphine equivalents (MME), which was reduced to 20 MME (15 to 40) at six months. The median reduction in daily MME use was -25 (95% CI, -100 to 20; p = 0.099). Six of 20 patients (30%) experienced a complication: three had lead migration; two experienced paresthesias; and one had a reduction in shoulder mobility. One patient had symptoms of a reversible spinal cord compression immediately after implant, requiring emergent electrode removal.

CONCLUSIONS

DRG neuromodulation for patients with CRPS of the upper extremities produced clinically important analgesia and reduced opioid use for ≥ six months but was associated with one serious complication.

Combined cervical and thoracic spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is conventionally placed at either cervical or thoracic spinal regions to treat chronic pain. However, for patients with multiarea pain, concomitant cervical and thoracic SCS (ctSCS) may be necessary to provide sufficient coverage. It remains unknown whether ctSCS is effective and safe. Thus, we aimed to survey the existing literature and assess the efficacy and safety of ctSCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines to investigate pain, functional, and safety outcomes related to ctSCS. Articles between 1990 and 2022 available through PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were included if they assessed these outcomes in the context of ctSCS. Data extracted from articles included study type, number of ctSCS implantations, stimulation parameters, indications for implantation, complications, and frequency. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

Three primary studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall, ctSCS was effective in providing analgesia. Pain severity was captured with patient-reported pain scales and changes in analgesic requirements. Various metrics were used to quantify quality of life and functional outcomes. Failed back surgery syndrome was the most common indication for ctSCS implantation. Implanted pulse generator pocket pain was the most common postoperative adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limited evidence available, ctSCS seems to be effective and generally well tolerated. The dearth of relevant primary literature illustrates a knowledge gap, and future studies are needed to better clarify the efficacy and safety profile of this SCS variant.

The contralateral oblique fluoroscopic view is associated with a lower incidence of postdural puncture headache in patients undergoing percutaneous spinal cord stimulation

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a minimally invasive therapy that is increasingly used to treat refractory neuropathic pain. Although this technique has a low incidence of serious long-term adverse sequelae, the risk of complications such as inadvertent dural puncture remains.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this article was to determine the impact of the contralateral oblique (CLO) fluoroscopic view incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) during spinal cord stimulator implantation as compared to lateral fluoroscopic view.

METHODS

This was a single academic institution retrospective analysis of electronic medical records spanning an approximate 20-year time period. Operative and postoperative notes were reviewed for details on dural puncture, including technique and spinal level of access, the development of a PDPH, and subsequent management.

RESULTS

Over nearly two decades, a total of 1637 leads inserted resulted in 5 PDPH that were refractory to conservative measures but responded to epidural blood patch without long-term complications. The incidence of PDPH per lead insertion utilizing loss of resistance and lateral fluoroscopic guidance was 0.8% (4/489). However, adoption of CLO guidance was associated with a lower rate of PDPH at 0.08% (1/1148), p < 0.02.

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of the CLO view to guide epidural needle placement can decrease the odds of a PDPH during percutaneous SCS procedures. This study further provides real-world data supporting the potential enhanced accuracy of epidural needle placement in order to avoid unintentional puncture or trauma to deeper spinal anatomic structures.

Cephalad extraspinal spinal cord stimulator lead migration & salvage: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation is an important therapy option for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain of spinal or peripheral etiology. As with any implantable device, complications may arise. These must be promptly identified and managed to maintain patients in successful therapy.

CASE REPORT

We report an unusual case of cephalad and extraspinal lead migration requiring surgical intervention in order to salvage therapy.

CONCLUSION

Lead migration is one of the most common complications of spinal cord stimulation, and left untreated can lead to loss of therapy and possible device explant. A strategy for correcting this issue is needed, and we present an unusual case to consider when faced with a loss of therapy from lead migration.

Multiphase Spinal Cord Stimulation in Participants With Chronic Back or Leg Pain: Results of the BENEFIT-02 Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of a new charge-distributed multiphase stimulation paradigm during an extended spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blind, feasibility study included participants with chronic low back and/or leg pain and baseline numerical rating scale (NRS) for overall pain intensity ≥6. After a successful commercial SCS trial, participants were randomized to multiphase SCS therapy A (approximately 600-1500 Hz) or B (approximately 300-600 Hz), delivered via an investigational external pulse generator and existing leads during an 11-to-12-day testing period. Primary end points were mean NRS change from baseline to final in-office visit for each multiphase therapy and between therapies. Secondary end points included mean NRS change from end of commercial trial to final study visit and incidence of device-related adverse events (AEs). Additional measures included patient-reported outcomes collected at home through electronic watches and written diaries. Power usage was compared between multiphase and commercial therapies.

RESULTS

A total of 122 participants initiated a commercial trial; 77 were randomized to a multiphase arm, and 65 completed the study. Reductions in mean NRS scores from baseline to final study visit were significant for multiphase therapy A and B (-4.3 and -4.7, respectively; both p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in mean NRS reduction or percent pain relief between multiphase therapies. In an additional analysis, 63.9% of participants reported greater pain relief with multiphase than with commercial SCS therapy in the at-home setting. On average, multiphase required less power than did commercial devices. One non-serious device-related AE was reported, and no infections occurred during the extended trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiphase SCS effectively reduced pain in participants with chronic low back and/or leg pain during a trial, with no unanticipated device-related AEs reported. Future studies should evaluate long-term effectiveness of multiphase stimulation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03594266.

Dorsal Root Entry Zone Lesioning Following Unresponsive Spinal Cord Stimulation for Post-Traumatic Neuropathic Pain

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root entry zone (DREZ) lesioning are important therapeutic options for intractable post-traumatic neuropathic pain (PNP). However, surgical choice is controversial due to the need to maximize pain relief and reduce complications. This study aims to retrospectively analyze the effect and complications of DREZ lesioning for patients with PNP who were unresponsive to SCS and provide a surgical reference.

METHODS

Demographic data and surgical characteristics of patients with PNP who underwent DREZ lesioning after an unresponsive SCS were reviewed. Long-term outcomes including numeric rating scale, global impression of change, and long-term complications were assessed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate pain-free survival.

RESULTS

Of 19 patients with PNP, 8 had brachial plexus injury (BPI), 7 had spinal cord injury, 2 had cauda equina injury, 1 had intercostal nerve injury, and 1 had lumbosacral plexus injury. All patients were unresponsive or had a recurrence of pain after SCS, with an average pain-relief rate of 9.3%. After DREZ lesioning, the mean numeric rating scale scores significantly decreased from 7.6 ± 1.5 to 1.8 ± 1.7, with an average pain-relief rate of 75.3%. Seven patients (36.8%) experienced worsened neurologic dysfunction at the last follow-up. Patients with BPI had a significantly better outcome than other pathologies (P < 0.001) after DREZ lesioning.

CONCLUSIONS

DREZ lesioning is an effective alternative procedure to SCS for patients with PNP who have lost limb function. Particularly for those with BPI, DREZ lesioning has shown good efficacy and can be considered a preferred surgical option.

A Novel, Paresthesia-Free Spinal Cord Stimulation Waveform for Chronic Neuropathic Low Back Pain: Six-Month Results of a Prospective, Single-Arm, Dose-Response Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this prospective, single-blinded, dose-response study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel, paresthesia-free (subperception) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) waveform designed to target dorsal horn dendrites for the treatment of chronic neuropathic low back pain (LBP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-seven participants with chronic neuropathic LBP were implanted with a commercial SCS system after a successful trial of SCS therapy. Devices were programmed to deliver the investigative waveform (100 Hz, 1000 μs, T9/T10 bipole) at descending stimulation perception threshold amplitudes (80%, 60%, 40%). Programs were evaluated at six, ten, and 14 weeks, after which participants selected their preferred program, with more follow-up at 26 weeks (primary outcomes). Participants were blinded to the nature of the programming. Pain score (visual analog scale [VAS]), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and health status (36-Item Short Form [SF-36]) were measured at baseline and follow-ups. Responder rate, treatment satisfaction, clinician global impression of change, and adverse events (AEs) also were evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean (± SD) baseline VAS was 72.5 ± 11.2 mm. At 26 weeks (n = 26), mean change from baseline in VAS was -51.7 mm (95% CI, -60.7 to -42.7; p < 0.001), with 76.9% of participants reporting ≥50% VAS reduction, and 46.2% reporting ≥80% VAS reduction. BPI, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-36 scores were all statistically significantly improved at 26 weeks (p < 0.001), and 100% of participants were satisfied with their treatment. There were no unanticipated AEs related to the study intervention, device, or procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel, paresthesia-free stimulation waveform may be a safe and effective option for patients with chronic neuropathic LBP eligible for SCS therapy and is deliverable by all current commercial SCS systems.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered on anzctr.org.au with identifier ACTRN12618000647235.

Precise management system for chronic intractable pain patients implanted with spinal cord stimulation based on a remote programming platform: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (PreMaSy study)

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical technique used in patients with chronic intractable pain, and its effectiveness and safety have been validated by multiple studies. However, to maintain an optimal and steady long-term effect is still challenging. Here, we report a new management paradigm integrating smartphone application and remote programming. Chronic pain patients with SCS implants can monitor their pain status on the phone and change stimulation parameters accordingly. The PreMaSy study is a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of this precise management system.

METHODS

Patients with chronic intractable pain will be screened for eligibility, and 82 participants are anticipated to be enrolled in this trial. After the electrode implantation, the stimulation effectiveness will be tested. Participants with a reduction of more than 50% in the visual analog scale (VAS) will receive implantation of an implantable pulse generator and randomized (1:1) into the experimental group or control group. All participants will be asked to take online follow-ups and complete assessments using a smartphone application. Daily pain characteristic assessments and monthly quality of life questionnaires are integrated into the App, and participants will be required to complete these assessments. The daily VAS for pain intensity will be monitored and a threshold will be set based on baseline VAS score. The interventional appointment will be scheduled once the threshold is reached. The primary outcome is the health condition and quality of life assessed by the five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). Utility values of EQ-5D-5L will be assessed at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months post-operative.

DISCUSSION

The PreMaSy study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a novel App-based, patient-centered, self-assessment management system for chronic intractable pain. A randomized controlled trial is designed to test the non-inferiority of this precise management system compared to the monthly online follow-ups. It is also expected to yield valuable experiences regarding precision medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05761392. Registered on March 07, 2023.

Exploring Psychophysical and Neurophysiological Responses to Intra-Epidermal Electrical Stimuli in Patients With Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2 with a Spinal Cord Stimulator

There is a lack of measures that provide insights into how spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modulates nociceptive function in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS-T2). Recently, we observed altered nociceptive detection thresholds (NDTs) in response to intra-epidermal electrical stimulation (IES) on the feet of PSPS-T2 patients when dorsal root ganglion stimulation was turned on. Furthermore, we observed altered NDTs and evoked potentials (EPs) in response to IES on the hands of PSPS-T2 patients. To explore whether EPs were obstructed by SCS artifacts, we applied IES twice to the hands of patients with SCS turned on (SCS-ON/ON group). To explore possible confounding effects of SCS outside the stimulated area, we repeated IES on the hands of these patients, once with SCS turned off and subsequently once with SCS turned on (SCS-OFF/ON group). The results demonstrated that EPs were not obstructed by SCS artifacts. Additionally, NDTs and EPs did not significantly change between measurements in the SCS-ON/ON and the SCS-OFF/ON groups. Therefore, the results suggested that possible confounding effects of SCS outside the nociceptive system did not interfere with the detection task performance. This work warrants further exploration of NDT-EP phenomena in response to IES at the painful feet of patients.Clinical Relevance-This work contributes to developing a clinical tool to explore psychophysical and neurophysiological biomarkers for observing modulating effects of SCS in patients with PSPS-T2.

Spinal Cord Injury Community Personal Opinions and Perspectives on Spinal Cord Stimulation

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) clinical trials are evaluating its efficacy and safety for motor, sensory, and autonomic recovery following spinal cord injury (SCI). The perspectives of people living with SCI are not well known and can inform the planning, delivery, and translation of SCS.

Objectives

To obtain input from people living with SCI on the top priorities for recovery, expected meaningful benefits, risk tolerance, clinical trial design, and overall interest in SCS.

Methods

Data were collected anonymously from an online survey between February and May 2020.

Results

A total of 223 respondents living with SCI completed the survey. The majority of respondents identified their gender as male (64%), were 10+ years post SCI (63%), and had a mean age of 50.8 years. Most individuals had a traumatic SCI (81%), and 45% classified themselves as having tetraplegia. Priorities for improved outcome for those with complete or incomplete tetraplegia included fine motor skills and upper body function, whereas priorities for complete or incomplete paraplegia included standing and walking, and bowel function. The meaningful benefits that are important to achieve are bowel and bladder care, less reliance on caregivers, and maintaining physical health. Perceived potential risks include further loss of function, neuropathic pain, and complications. Barriers to participation in clinical trials include inability to relocate, out-of-pocket expenses, and awareness of therapy. Respondents were more interested in transcutaneous SCS than epidural SCS (80% and 61%, respectively).

Conclusion

SCS clinical trial design, participant recruitment, and translation of the technology can be improved by better reflecting the priorities and preferences of those living with SCI identified from this study.

Role of patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain: a comprehensive narrative review

Background/importance

Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy is crucial and is traditionally performed with clinical selection followed by a screening trial. The factors influencing patient selection and the importance of trialing have not been systematically evaluated.

Objective

We report a narrative review conducted to synthesize evidence regarding patient selection and the role of SCS trials.

Evidence review

Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for reports (any design) of SCS in adult patients, from their inception until March 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were carried out using DistillerSR. Data were organized into tables and narrative summaries, categorized by study design. Importance of patient variables and trialing was considered by looking at their influence on the long-term therapy success.

Findings

Among 7321 citations, 201 reports consisting of 60 systematic reviews, 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 41 observational studies (OSs), 51 registry-based reports, and 13 case reports on complications during trialing were included. Based on RCTs and OSs, the median trial success rate was 72% and 82%, and therapy success was 65% and 61% at 12 months, respectively. Although several psychological and non-psychological determinants have been investigated, studies do not report a consistent approach to patient selection. Among psychological factors, untreated depression was associated with poor long-term outcomes, but the effect of others was inconsistent. Most RCTs except for chronic angina involved trialing and only one RCT compared patient selection with or without trial. The median (range) trial duration was 10 (0–30) and 7 (0–56) days among RCTs and OSs, respectively.

Conclusions

Due to lack of a consistent approach to identify responders for SCS therapy, trialing complements patient selection to exclude patients who do not find the therapy helpful and/or intolerant of the SCS system. However, more rigorous and large studies are necessary to better evaluate its role.

Spinal cord stimulation for low back pain

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical intervention used to treat persistent low back pain. SCS is thought to modulate pain by sending electrical signals via implanted electrodes into the spinal cord. The long term benefits and harms of SCS for people with low back pain are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects, including benefits and harms, of SCS for people with low back pain.

SEARCH METHODS

On 10 June 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and one other database for published trials. We also searched three clinical trials registers for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials comparing SCS with placebo or no treatment for low back pain. The primary comparison was SCS versus placebo, at the longest time point measured in the trials. Major outcomes were mean low back pain intensity, function, health-related quality of life, global assessment of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Our primary time point was long-term follow-up (≥ 12 months).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with 699 participants: 55% of participants were female; mean age ranged from 47 to 59 years; and all participants had chronic low back pain with mean duration of symptoms ranging from five to 12 years. Ten cross-over trials compared SCS with placebo. Three parallel-group trials assessed the addition of SCS to medical management. Most studies were at risk of performance and detection bias from inadequate blinding and selective reporting bias. The placebo-controlled trials had other important biases, including lack of accounting for period and carryover effects. Two of the three parallel trials assessing SCS as an addition to medical management were at risk of attrition bias, and all three had substantial cross-over to the SCS group for time points beyond six months. In the parallel-group trials, we considered the lack of placebo control to be an important source of bias. None of our included studies evaluated the impact of SCS on mean low back pain intensity in the long term (≥ 12 months). The studies most often assessed outcomes in the immediate term (less than one month). At six months, the only available evidence was from a single cross-over trial (50 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that SCS probably does not improve back or leg pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo. Pain was 61 points (on a 0- to 100-point scale, 0 = no pain) at six months with placebo, and 4 points better (8.2 points better to 0.2 points worse) with SCS. Function was 35.4 points (on a 0- to 100-point scale, 0 = no disability or best function) at six months with placebo, and 1.3 points better (3.9 points better to 1.3 points worse) with SCS. Health-related quality of life was 0.44 points out of 1 (0 to 1 index, 0 = worst quality of life) at six months with placebo, and 0.04 points better (0.16 points better to 0.08 points worse) with SCS. In that same study, nine participants (18%) experienced adverse events and four (8%) required revision surgery. Serious adverse events with SCS included infections, neurological damage, and lead migration requiring repeated surgery. We could not provide effect estimates of the relative risks as events were not reported for the placebo period. In parallel trials assessing SCS as an addition to medical management, it is uncertain whether, in the medium or long term, SCS can reduce low back pain, leg pain, or health-related quality of life, or if it increases the number of people reporting a 50% improvement or better, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Low-certainty evidence suggests that adding SCS to medical management may slightly improve function and slightly reduce opioid use. In the medium term, mean function (0- to 100-point scale; lower is better) was 16.2 points better with the addition of SCS to medical management compared with medical management alone (95% confidence interval (CI) 19.4 points better to 13.0 points better; I2 = 95%; 3 studies, 430 participants; low-certainty evidence). The number of participants reporting opioid medicine use was 15% lower with the addition of SCS to medical management (95% CI 27% lower to 0% lower; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events with SCS were poorly reported but included infection and lead migration. One study found that, at 24 months, 13 of 42 people (31%) receiving SCS required revision surgery. It is uncertain to what extent the addition of SCS to medical management increases the risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, adverse events, or serious adverse events, because the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data in this review do not support the use of SCS to manage low back pain outside a clinical trial. Current evidence suggests SCS probably does not have sustained clinical benefits that would outweigh the costs and risks of this surgical intervention.