All bursts are equal, but some are more equal (to burst firing): burstDR stimulation versus Boston burst stimulation

Examining the Duration of Carryover Effect in Patients With Chronic Pain Treated With Spinal Cord Stimulation (EChO Study): An Open, Interventional, Investigator-Initiated, International Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVES

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical treatment for severe, chronic, neuropathic pain. It is based on one to two lead(s) implanted in the epidural space, stimulating the dorsal column. It has long been assumed that when deactivating SCS, there is a variable interval before the patient perceives the return of the pain, a phenomenon often termed echo or carryover effect. Although the carryover effect has been problematized as a source of error in crossover studies, no experimental investigation of the effect has been published. This open, prospective, international multicenter study aimed to systematically document, quantify, and investigate the carryover effect in SCS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible patients with a beneficial effect from their SCS treatment were instructed to deactivate their SCS device in a home setting and to reactivate it when their pain returned. The primary outcome was duration of carryover time defined as the time interval from deactivation to reactivation. Central clinical parameters (age, sex, indication for SCS, SCS treatment details, pain score) were registered and correlated with carryover time using nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney/Kruskal-Wallis) for categorical data and linear regression for continuous data.

RESULTS

In total, 158 patients were included in the analyses. A median carryover time of five hours was found (interquartile range 2.5;21 hours). Back pain as primary indication for SCS, high-frequency stimulation, and higher pain score at the time of deactivation were correlated with longer carryover time.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the existence of the carryover effect and indicates a remarkably high degree of interindividual variation. The results suggest that the magnitude of carryover may be correlated to the nature of the pain condition and possibly stimulation paradigms.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03386058.

Prospective Six-Month Analysis of Multiarea Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Correlating Intraoperative Neuromonitoring With Postoperative Programming and Clinical Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

DeRidder burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown superior relief from overall pain to traditional tonic neurostimulation therapies and a reduction in back and leg pain. However, nearly 80% of patients have two or more noncontiguous pain areas. This affects the ability to effectively program stimulation and deliver long-term efficacy of the therapy. Multiple DeRidder burst region programming is an option to treat multisite pain by interleaving stimulation at multiple areas along the spinal cord. Previous intraoperative neuromonitoring studies have shown that DeRidder burst stimulation provides broader myotomal coverage at a lower recruitment threshold. The goal of this study is to correlate intraoperative electromyogram (EMG) threshold and postsynaptic excitability with postoperative paresthesia thresholds and optimal burst stimulation programming.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Neuromonitoring was performed during permanent implant of SCS leads in ten patients diagnosed with chronic intractable back and/or leg pain. Each patient underwent the surgical placement of a Penta Paddle electrode through laminectomy at the T8-T11 spinal levels. Subdermal electrode needles were placed into lower extremity muscle groups, in addition to the rectus abdominis muscles, for EMG recording. Evoked responses were compared across multiple trials of burst stimulation in which the number of independent burst areas was varied. After intraoperative data collection, all patients were programmed with single- and multiarea DeRidder burst. Intermittent dosing was delivered at 30:90, 120:360, 120:720, and 120:1440 (seconds ON/OFF) intervals. Numerical rating scale (NRS) and Patient Global Impression of Change scores were evaluated at one, two, three, four, and six months after permanent implant.

RESULTS

The thresholds for EMG recruitment after DeRidder burst differed across all patients owing to anatomical and physiological variations. After a 30-second dose of stimulation, the average decrease in thresholds was 1.25 mA for two-area and 0.9 mA for four-area DeRidder burst. Furthermore, a 30-second dose of multisite DeRidder burst produced a 0.25 mA reduction in the postoperative paresthesia thresholds. Across all patients, the baseline NRS score was 6.5 ± 0.5, and the NRS score after single or multiarea DeRidder burst therapy was 2.87 ± 1.50. Eight of ten patients reported a ≥50% decrease in their pain scores through the six-month follow-up visit. Pain outcomes using intermittent multiarea stimulation with longer OFF times (120:360, 120:720, 120:1440) were comparable to those using single-area DeRidder burst at 30:90 up to six months after implant with patient preference being two-area DeRidder burst.

CONCLUSIONS

This study aims to evaluate the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring to optimize stimulation programming for multisite pain and correlate it with postoperative programming and efficacy. These results suggest that multisite programming can be used to further customize DeRidder burst stimulation to each individual patient and improve outcomes and quality of life for patients receiving SCS therapy for multisite pain.

Ninety-Hz Spinal Cord Stimulation-Induced Analgesia Is Dependent on Active Charge Balance and Is Nonlinearly Related to Amplitude: A Sham-Controlled Behavioral Study in a Rodent Model of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND

Ninety-Hz active-recharge spinal cord stimulation (SCS) applied at below sensory-threshold intensity, as used with fast-acting subperception therapy spinal cord stimulation, has been shown clinically to produce significant analgesia, but additional characterization is required to better understand the therapy. This preclinical study investigates the behavioral effect of multiple 90-Hz SCS variants in a rodent model of neuropathic pain, focusing on charge balance and the relationship between 90-Hz efficacy and stimulation intensity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Rats (n = 24) received a unilateral partial sciatic nerve ligation to induce neuropathic pain and were implanted with a quadripolar lead at T13. Mechanical hypersensitivity was assessed before, during, and after 60 minutes of SCS. After a prescreen with 50-Hz SCS 67% motor threshold ([MT], the positive control), rats underwent a randomized-crossover study including sham SCS and several 90-Hz SCS paradigms (at 40% MT or 60% MT, either using active or pseudopassive recharge) (experiment 1, n = 16). A second, identical experiment (experiment 2) was performed to supplement data with 90-Hz SCS at 20% and 80% MT (experiment 2, n = 8).

RESULTS

Experiment 1: At 40% MT, 90-Hz active-recharge SCS produced a significantly larger recovery to baseline than did 90-Hz pseudopassive SCS at both tested intensities and sham SCS. Experiment 2: Only the 90-Hz SCS active recharge at 40% MT and 50-Hz SCS positive control caused mean recovery to baseline that was statistically better than that of sham SCS.

CONCLUSIONS

The degree to which 90-Hz SCS reduced mechanical hypersensitivity during stimulation depended on the nature of charge balance, with 90-Hz active-recharge SCS generating better responses than did 90-Hz pseudopassive recharge SCS. In addition, our findings suggest that the amplitude of 90-Hz active-recharge SCS must be carefully configured for efficacy.

Interphase Gaps in Symmetric Biphasic Pulses Reduce the Therapeutic Window in Ventral Intermediate Nucleus of the Thalamus-Deep Brain Stimulation for Essential Tremor

INTRODUCTION

Symmetric biphasic pulses enlarge the therapeutic window in thalamic deep brain stimulation in patients with essential tremor. Adding an interphase gap to these symmetric biphasic pulses may further affect the therapeutic window.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine patients (16 hemispheres) were included in this study. Biphasic pulses (anodic phase first) with interphase gaps of 0, 10, 20, 50, and 100 μs were tested, in random order. The outcome parameters were the therapeutic threshold (TT) and side-effect threshold (SET), and thus also the therapeutic window (TW).

RESULTS

Increasing interphase gaps lowered both SET and TT (linear mixed-effects model; p < 0.001 and p < 0.001). Because SET decreased predominantly, increasing interphase gaps resulted in smaller TWs (linear mixed-effects model; p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Introducing an interphase gap in a symmetric biphasic pulse may lead to less selectivity in fiber or neuronal activation. Our findings show that, in the context of anode-first biphasic pulses, the use of zero-interphase gaps results in the largest TW.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT05177900.

The HortONS study. Treatment of chronic cluster headache with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and occipital nerve stimulation: study protocol for a prospective, investigator-initiated, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a debilitating primary headache disorder. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has shown the potential to reduce attack frequency, but the occipital paresthesia evoked by conventional (tonic) stimulation challenges a blinded comparison of active stimulation and placebo. Burst ONS offers paresthesia-free stimulation, enabling a blinded, placebo-controlled study. Identification of a feasible preoperative test would help select the best candidates for implantation. This study aims to explore ONS as a preventive treatment for CCH, comparing burst stimulation to tonic stimulation and placebo, and possibly identifying a potential preoperative predictor.

METHODS

An investigator-initiated, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial is conducted, including 40 patients with CCH. Eligible patients complete a trial with the following elements: I) four weeks of baseline observation, II) 12 weeks of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) of the occipital nerves, III) implantation of a full ONS system followed by 2 week grace period, IV) 12 weeks of blinded trial with 1:1 randomization to either placebo (deactivated ONS system) or burst (paresthesia-free) stimulation, and V) 12 weeks of tonic stimulation. The primary outcomes are the reduction in headache attack frequency with TENS and ONS and treatment safety. Secondary outcomes are treatment efficacy of burst versus tonic ONS, the feasibility of TENS as a predictor for ONS outcome, reduction in headache pain intensity (numeric rating scale), reduction in background headache, the patient's impression of change (PGIC), health-related quality of life (EuroQoL-5D), self-reported sleep quality, and symptoms of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS). Data on headache attack characteristics are registered weekly. Data on patient-reported outcomes are assessed after each trial phase.

DISCUSSION

The study design allows a comparison between burst ONS and placebo in refractory CCH and enables a comparison of the efficacy of burst and tonic ONS. It will provide information about the effect of burst ONS and explore whether the addition of this stimulation paradigm may improve stimulation protocols. TENS is evaluated as a feasible preoperative screening tool for ONS outcomes by comparing the effect of attack prevention of TENS and tonic ONS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (trial registration number NCT05023460, registration date 07-27-2023).

Regional Coverage Differences With Single- and Multi-Area Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation for Treatment of Chronic Pain

INTRODUCTION

Burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown superior relief from overall pain and a reduction in back and leg pain compared with traditional tonic neurostimulation therapies. However, nearly 80% of patients have two or more noncontiguous pain areas. This can provide challenges in effectively programming stimulation and long-term therapy efficacy. Multiarea DeRidder Burst programming is a new option to treat multisite pain by delivering stimulation to multiple areas along the spinal cord. This study aimed to identify the effect of intraburst frequency, multiarea stimulation, and location of DeRidder Burst on the evoked electromyography (EMG) responses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Neuromonitoring was performed during permanent implant of SCS leads in nine patients diagnosed with chronic intractable back and/or leg pain. Each patient underwent the surgical placement of a Penta Paddle electrode via laminectomy at the T8-T10 spinal levels. Subdermal electrode needles were placed into lower extremity muscle groups, in addition to the rectus abdominis muscles, for EMG recording. Evoked responses were compared across multiple trials of burst stimulation in which the number of independent burst areas were varied.

RESULTS

The thresholds for EMG recruitment with DeRidder Burst differed across patients owing to anatomic and physiological variations. The average threshold to evoke a bilateral EMG response using single site DeRidder Burst was 3.2 mA. Multisite DeRidder Burst stimulation on up to four stimulation programs evoked a bilateral EMG response at a threshold of 2.5 mA (∼23% lower threshold). DeRidder Burst stimulation across four electrode pairs resulted in more proximal recruitment (vastus medialis and tibialis anterior) than did stimulation across two pairs. It also resulted in more focal coverage of areas across multiple sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Across all patients, multisite DeRidder Burst provided broader myotomal coverage than did traditional DeRidder Burst. Multisite DeRidder Burst stimulation provided focal recruitment and differential control of noncontiguous distal myotomes. Energy requirements were also lower when multisite DeRidder Burst was used.

The Invasive Management of Pain: Diagnosis and New Treatment Options

Both the diagnosis and treatment of pain are evolving, especially in interventional approaches. Diagnosis of low back pain combines old and new methodologies, in particular, it involves an expanded role for ultrasound. While low back pain is a common complaint, there are many etiologies to the condition which must be explored before a final diagnosis can be made and treatment planned. Tumors and infections are rarely involved in low back pain but should be ruled out in the initial phase itself since failing to address them early can have devastating consequences. Some invasive treatments seem promising in the management of low back pain. Treating musculoskeletal pain with regenerative medicine, such as platelet-rich plasma, holds great promise. Autologous blood products are safe and may help stimulate the body's own responses for regeneration. The so-called "orthobiologics" play a role in sports medicine and the treatment of musculoskeletal pain. Neuromodulation, especially spinal cord stimulation, is undergoing a renaissance with new waveforms, devices, and a greater albeit incomplete understanding of its mechanisms of action. Spinal cord stimulation is not a first-line therapy and not all patients or all back problems respond to this treatment. Nevertheless, the therapy can be safe, effective, and cost-effective with appropriate patient selection. Radiofrequency ablation of nerves in the form of neurotomy can be effective in reducing the pain of osteoarthritis. These procedures, including the newer cooled radiofrequency neurotomy, can restore function, reduce pain, and may potentially have an opioid-sparing effect. Technical expertise in nerve and anatomy is needed for the use of this technique. This review article aims to provide updated information on some invasive intervention techniques in pain management.

BurstDR spinal cord stimulation rebalances pain input and pain suppression in the brain in chronic neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

Chronic pain is processed by at least three well-known pathways, two pain provoking pathways including a medial 'suffering' and lateral 'painfulness' pathway. A third descending pain pathway modulates pain but is predominantly inhibitory. Chronic pain can be seen as an imbalance between the two pain-provoking and the pain inhibitory pathways. If this assumption is correct, then the imbalance between pain input and pain suppression should reverse and normalize in response to successful, i.e., pain reducing burstDR spinal cord stimulation, one of the current treatment options for neuropathic pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifteen patients, who received spinal cord stimulation for failed back surgery were included in this study, using source localized electrical brain activity and connectivity recording via EEG to identify the purported imbalance.

RESULTS

BurstDR spinal cord stimulation induces a significant change in EEG activity in both the left and right somatosensory cortex (SSC) for both θ and γ oscillations. In the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), we observed a significant drop in both α and β oscillations. This reduction is accompanied by a change in pain intensity and suffering. BurstDR spinal cord stimulation is also associated with a reduction in θ at the pregenual anterior cingulate cortex (pgACC). Analyzing effective connectivity indicates that for the θ band, more information is sent from the pgACC to the left and right SSC. For α, increased information is sent from the pgACC to the dACC and both the left and right SSC. This is associated with a reduced θ-γ coupling in the SSC and reduced α-β coupling in dACC.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that chronic pain is indeed an imbalance between the ascending and descending pathways in the brain and that burst spinal cord stimulation can normalize this imbalance in the brain.

Advances in Spinal Cord Stimulation

Neuromodulation, specifically spinal cord stimulation (SCS), has become a staple of chronic pain management for various conditions including failed back syndrome, chronic regional pain syndrome, refractory radiculopathy, and chronic post operative pain. Since its conceptualization, it has undergone several advances to increase safety and convenience for patients and implanting physicians. Current research and efforts are aimed towards novel programming modalities and modifications of existing hardware. Here we review the recent advances and future directions in spinal cord stimulation including a brief review of the history of SCS, SCS waveforms, new materials for SCS electrodes (including artificial skins, new materials, and injectable electrodes), closed loop systems, and neurorestorative devices.

Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation in Pregnancy: First Clinical Experiences

OBJECTIVES

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. It is based on the delivery of electric impulses to the spinal cord, traditionally in a regular square-wave pattern ("tonic" stimulation) and, more recently, in a rhythmic train-of-five "BurstDR" pattern. The safety of active SCS therapy in pregnancy is not established, and recommendations are based on limited casuistic evidence. We present in this study clinical data on a case series of six women treated with burst SCS during pregnancy. In addition, we present the ultrasonographic flow measurements of fetal and uteroplacental blood flow in a pregnant patient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were included if they had been implanted with a full SCS system at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, between 2006 and 2020 and received active burst SCS stimulation during a pregnancy. Telephone interviews were conducted, including details on SCS therapy, medication, pregnancy course and outcome, and health status of the offspring. In one patient, the uteroplacental and fetal blood flow was assessed in gestational week 29 by Doppler flow measurements performed during both ON and OFF phases of the SCS system.

RESULTS

Six patients were included with a total of 11 pregnancies. Three pregnancies ended in miscarriages, all in the same patient who had preexisting significant risk factors for miscarriage. Eight resulted in a live-born child with normal birth weight for gestational age; seven were born at term, and one was born late preterm, in gestational week 36. Ultrasonographic Doppler flow, measured in one patient, was normal and did not reveal any immediate changes between burst SCS ON and OFF. Seven children were reported healthy with normal neurodevelopment and one physically healthy but with developmental delays.

CONCLUSIONS

The data presented in this study add to the accumulating evidence of the safety of SCS in pregnancy.

Effect of Spinal Cord Burst Stimulation vs Placebo Stimulation on Disability in Patients With Chronic Radicular Pain After Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The use of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain after lumbar spine surgery is increasing, yet rigorous evidence of its efficacy is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of spinal cord burst stimulation, which involves the placement of an implantable pulse generator connected to electrodes with leads that travel into the epidural space posterior to the spinal cord dorsal columns, in patients with chronic radiculopathy after surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disorders.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This placebo-controlled, crossover, randomized clinical trial in 50 patients was conducted at St Olavs University Hospital in Norway, with study enrollment from September 5, 2018, through April 28, 2021. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent two 3-month periods with spinal cord burst stimulation and two 3-month periods with placebo stimulation in a randomized order. Burst stimulation consisted of closely spaced, high-frequency electrical stimuli delivered to the spinal cord. The stimulus consisted of a 40-Hz burst mode of constant-current stimuli with 4 spikes per burst and an amplitude corresponding to 50% to 70% of the paresthesia perception threshold.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was difference in change from baseline in the self-reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; range, 0 points [no disability] to 100 points [maximum disability]; the minimal clinically important difference was 10 points) score between periods with burst stimulation and placebo stimulation. The secondary outcomes were leg and back pain, quality of life, physical activity levels, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 50 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52.2 [SD, 9.9] years; 27 [54%] were women), 47 (94%) had at least 1 follow-up ODI score and 42 (84%) completed all stimulation randomization periods and ODI measurements. The mean ODI score at baseline was 44.7 points and the mean changes in ODI score were -10.6 points for the burst stimulation periods and -9.3 points for the placebo stimulation periods, resulting in a mean between-group difference of -1.3 points (95% CI, -3.9 to 1.3 points; P = .32). None of the prespecified secondary outcomes showed a significant difference. Nine patients (18%) experienced adverse events, including 4 (8%) who required surgical revision of the implanted system.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with chronic radicular pain after lumbar spine surgery, spinal cord burst stimulation, compared with placebo stimulation, after placement of a spinal cord stimulator resulted in no significant difference in the change from baseline in self-reported back pain-related disability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03546738.

Study protocol: Effects of active versus passive recharge burst spinal cord stimulation on pain experience in persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2: a multicentre randomized trial (BURST-RAP study)

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown to be an effective treatment for patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS Type 2). The method used to deliver electrical charge in SCS is important. One such method is burst stimulation. Within burst stimulation, a recharge pattern is used to prevent buildup of charge in stimulated tissues. Two variations of burst waveforms are currently in use: one that employs active recharge and one that uses passive recharge. It has been suggested that differences exist between active and passive recharge paradigms related to both efficacy of pain relief and their underlying mechanism of action. Active recharge has been shown to activate both the medial spinal pathway, engaging cortical sensorimotor areas involved in location and intensity of pain, and lateral pathway, reaching brain areas involved with cognitive-emotional aspects of pain. Passive recharge has been suggested to act via modulation of thalamic neurons, which fire in a similar electrical pattern, and thereby modulate activity in various cortical areas including those related to motivational and emotional aspects of pain. The objective of this randomized clinical trial is to assess and compare the effect of active versus passive recharge Burst SCS on a wide spectrum of pain in PSPS Type 2 patients.

Methods

This multicentre randomized clinical trial will take place in 6 Dutch hospitals. PSPS Type 2 patients (n=94) will be randomized into a group receiving either active or passive recharge burst. Following a successful trial period, patients are permanently implanted. Patients complete the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) (primary outcome at 6 months), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS), Patient Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (PVAQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Quality of Life (EQ-5D), Oswestery Disability Index (ODI), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and painDETECT questionnaires (secondary outcomes) at baseline, after trial, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months following implantation.

Discussion

The BURST-RAP trial protocol will shed light on possible clinical differences and effectivity of pain relief, including emotional-motivational aspects between active and passive burst SCS in PSPS Type 2 patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05421273. Registered on 16 June 2022. Netherlands Trial Register NL9194. Registered on 23 January 2021.

Advances in Pain Medicine: a Review of New Technologies

Purpose of Review

This narrative review highlights the interventional musculoskeletal techniques that have evolved in recent years.

Recent Findings

The recent progress in pain medicine technologies presented here represents the ideal treatment of the pain patient which is to provide personalized care. Advances in pain physiology research and pain management technologies support each other concurrently.

Summary

As new technologies give rise to new perspectives and understanding of pain, new research inspires the development of new technologies

Success with dorsal root entry zone lesioning after a failed trial of spinal cord stimulation in a patient with pain due to brachial plexus avulsion

Pain caused by brachial plexopathy (BP) represents a challenging clinical problem with few effective therapeutic options. Here, we present a patient with severe, painful BP after a high-impact motor vehicle accident who failed conservative treatments. A trial of cervical spinal cord stimulation was completed using multiple waveforms (tonic, BurstDR, and 10 kHz) over 14 days with only 30% to 40% pain reduction. Subsequently, he underwent dorsal root entry zone lesioning with a significant decrease in his pain 1 year later. Surgical exploration revealed extensive damage and avulsion of his cervical roots that was not observed on a previous brachial plexus magnetic resonance imaging. We discuss the etiology and diagnosis of traumatic BP, possible reasons for the failed spinal cord stimulation trial, and implications for management.

Ultra-Low Energy Cycled Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation Yields Robust Outcomes in Pain, Function, and Affective Domains: A Subanalysis From Two Prospective, Multicenter, International Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

DeRidder's burst stimulation design has become a key spinal cord stimulation (SCS) waveform because it reduces the intensity of pain as well as its associated emotional distress. The brain pathways underlying these outcomes may also allow for the effects of stimulation to carry over after stimulation is turned off, making it amenable to intermittent application. Here, the utility of intermittently cycled burst was evaluated using data from two large real-world prospective studies (TRIUMPH, REALITY).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects used intermittent dosing in a 1:3 ratio (30 sec on, 90 sec off; N = 100) in TRIUMPH and 1:12 ratio in REALITY (30-sec on, 360-sec off; N = 95) for six months. Pain intensity (0-10 numeric rating scale), pain-related emotions on the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS), and physical function on PROMIS questionnaires were compared with preimplant baseline ratings and by group.

RESULTS

In both groups, mean pain intensity decreased by nearly 50% relative to baseline, PCS scores significantly decreased, and physical function improved. Importantly, no differences between the 1:3 and 1:12 groups were identified. A high proportion, 80% and 77% of the 1:3 and 1:12 groups, respectively, were considered responders on a multiple measures. No adverse events were associated with intermittent stimulation.

DISCUSSION

Intermittent cycling of burst SCS lowers the overall electric charge delivered to the spinal cord and preserves battery consumption, without compromising pain relief and associated symptoms.

Differential Modulation of Dorsal Horn Neurons by Various Spinal Cord Stimulation Strategies

New strategies for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic pain have emerged in recent years, which may work better via different analgesic mechanisms than traditional low-frequency (e.g., 50 Hz) paresthesia-based SCS. To determine if 10 kHz and burst SCS waveforms might have a similar mechanistic basis, we examined whether these SCS strategies at intensities ostensibly below sensory thresholds would modulate spinal dorsal horn (DH) neuronal function in a neuron type-dependent manner. By using an in vivo electrophysiological approach in rodents, we found that low-intensity 10 kHz SCS, but not burst SCS, selectively activates inhibitory interneurons in the spinal DH. This study suggests that low-intensity 10 kHz SCS may inhibit pain-sensory processing in the spinal DH by activating inhibitory interneurons without activating DC fibers, resulting in paresthesia-free pain relief, whereas burst SCS likely operates via other mechanisms.

Prospective Analysis Utilizing Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for the Evaluation of Inter-Burst Frequencies

Background

Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) uses electromyography (EMG) responses to determine myotomal coverage as a marker for dermatomal coverage.

Objective

These responses can be utilized to evaluate the effects of stimulation platforms on the nervous system.

Methods

Eight patients were tested at inter-burst frequencies of 10 Hz, 20 Hz, 30 Hz, and 40 Hz using DeRidder Burst stimulation to determine the amplitude of onset of post-synaptic signal generation. Three patients had additional data recording amplitude of onset of tonic stimulation prior to and post DeRidder Burst stimulation at each inter-burst frequency. This represented post-synaptic excitability.

Results

In all patients, the DeRidder Burst waveform generated EMG responses under all inter-burst frequencies including temporal summation, deeper fiber recruitment, and compounded action potentials. There was a non-significant decrease of 7.6-7.8% in amplitudes to generate response under 40 Hz, compared to the other frequencies. However, there was a 73.1% reduction in energy requirements at 10 Hz. The enhanced post-synaptic excitability effect was demonstrated at all frequencies.

Conclusion

DeRidder Burst has similar effects of temporal summation, deeper fiber recruitment, and compounded action potentials under IONM at 40 Hz, 30 Hz, 20 Hz, and 10 Hz. In addition, the hyperexcitability phenomenon was also observed regardless of the frequency. This demonstrates that postsynaptic responses captured via IONM may be a sensitive biomarker to SCS mechanism of action. In addition, lower inter-burst frequencies may have a similar clinical effect on pain relief thus reducing power consumption even further than current dosing paradigms.