Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Real-World Evidence and Outcomes Data

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Central Neuropathic Pain After Spinal Cord Injury: A Single-Center Case Series

Purpose

Central neuropathic pain (CNP) following spinal cord injury (SCI) presents a formidable therapeutic challenge, affecting over 50% of the patients post-SCI. For those who experience CNP, conventional treatments often prove insufficient. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) emerges as a potential intervention for chronic pain after SCI that is unresponsive to pharmacotherapy and supportive measures. However, the efficacy of SCS in alleviating CNP is notably limited. The objective of our study was to evaluate novel stimulation paradigms in SCS for patients with severe CNP after SCI, based on our extensive experience.

Patients and Methods

From a pool of 112 patients treated with SCS for chronic neuropathic pain in the Department of Neurosurgery and Neurology, we selected eight individuals (4 males and 4 females) with CNP for our case series. Burst and high frequency SCS was applied. The assessment involved utilizing the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI), and the EQ-5D quality of life scale before surgery and during a 12-month follow-up period.

Results

Over the course of the one-year follow-up, only two patients experienced satisfactory relief from pain, demonstrating the effectiveness of the stimulation. Moreover, high-frequency and burst SCS failed to show improvement in the remaining six patients.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that, despite the incorporation of new stimulation paradigms such as burst stimulation and high-frequency stimulation, SCS does not exhibit significant effectiveness in treating neuropathic pain in patients after SCI. These findings highlight the ongoing challenge of treating CNP and emphasize the importance of investigating alternative therapeutic strategies for this group.

Defining Short- and Long-Term Programming Requirements in Patients Treated With 10-kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

High-frequency spinal cord stimulation (10-kHz SCS) has been shown to be an effective treatment for refractory low back pain and neck pain with and without limb pain in clinical trial and real-world studies. However, limited information is available in the literature on the type and frequency of programming parameters required to optimize pain relief.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective trial and postimplant clinical and system device data were analyzed from consecutive patients with neck pain and low back pain, with and without limb pain, from a single clinical site, including both thoracic and cervical lead placement. Best bipole, stimulation parameters, and outcomes, including pain relief, change in opioid medication use, sleep, and daily function, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 92 patients in the trial, 70 received a permanent implant. Of these, the mean duration of follow-up was 1.8 ± 1.3 years. Pain relief of ≥50% at the last follow-up was achieved by 64% of patients implanted; in addition, 65% reduced their opioid medication use; 65% reported improved sleep, and 71% reported improved function. There was some consistency between the "best" bipole at trial and permanent implant, with 82% of patients within one bipole location, including 54% of permanent implants who were using the same best bipole as at trial. After permanent implant, device reprogramming was minimal, with ≤one reprogramming change per patient per quarter required to maintain pain outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In the study, 10-kHz SCS was an effective therapy for treating chronic pain, whereby a high responder rate (≥50% pain relief) was achieved with short time to pain relief in trial and maintained with limited device programming after permanent implant. The data presented here provide insight into the programming required during the trial and implant stages to obtain and maintain therapeutic efficacy.

Improved Outcomes and Therapy Longevity after Salvage Using a Novel Spinal Cord Stimulation System for Chronic Pain: Multicenter, Observational, European Case Series

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is proven to effectively relieve chronic neuropathic pain. However, some implanted patients may face loss of efficacy (LoE) over time, and conversion to more recent devices may rescue SCS therapy. Recent SCS systems offer novel stimulation capabilities, such as temporal modulation and spatial neural targeting, and can be used to replace previous neurostimulators without changing existing leads. Our multicenter, observational, consecutive case series investigated real-world clinical outcomes in previously implanted SCS patients who were converted to a new implantable pulse generator. Data from 58 patients in seven European centers were analyzed (total follow-up 7.0 years, including 1.4 years after conversion). In the Rescue (LoE) subgroup (n = 51), the responder rate was 58.5% at the last follow-up, and overall pain scores (numerical rating scale) had decreased from 7.3 ± 1.7 with the previous SCS system to 3.5 ± 2.5 (p < 0.0001). Patients who converted for improved battery longevity (n = 7) had their pain scores sustained below 3/10 with their new neurostimulator. Waveform preferences were diverse and patient dependent (34.4% standard rate; 44.8% sub-perception modalities; 20.7% combination therapy). Our results suggest that patients who experience LoE over time may benefit from upgrading to a more versatile SCS system.

Patient profiling and outcome assessment in spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and/or leg pain (the PROSTIM study): a study protocol

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment option in the multidisciplinary approach to chronic back and leg pain. Nevertheless, careful patient selection remains crucial to provide the most optimal treatment and prevent treatment failure. We report the protocol for the PROSTIM study, an ongoing prospective, multicentric and observational clinical study (NCT05349695) that aims to identify different patient clusters and their outcomes after SCS. Patients are recruited in different centers in Europe. Analysis focuses on identifying significant patient clusters based on different health domains and the changes in biopsychosocial variables 6 weeks, 3 and 12 months after implantation. This study is the first to include a biopsychosocial cluster analysis to identify significant patient groups and their response to treatment with SCS.

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.

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.

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.

A case series of new radicular pain following the insertion of spinal cord stimulator

Purpose

Although spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a safe procedure, equipment-related, biological and neurological complications have been observed in previous research, particularly case reports. No reports of new neuropathic pain in the absence of neurological deficit or positive MRI findings have been described. We detail three cases of new-onset radicular pain in the L5/S1 dermatome following insertion of SCS.

Methods

This was a retrospective case series of three patients. Details of clinical background, indications for SCS and events occurring during insertion and further management were recorded.

Results

All three cases were technically difficult and required multiple epidural entry levels, with repeated passage of the electrode into and within the epidural space. All cases involved accessing epidural space T12/L1 and L1/L2. A possible explanation for the new-onset radicular pain could concern oedema to the conus medullaris, resulting from repeated passage of the electrode at the T12/L1 level. Alternative explanations could be direct trauma to transiting nerve roots, neuroplastic changes resulting in peripheral and central sensitisation and immune-mediated nerve injury.

Conclusion

MRI imaging should be analysed prior to the SCS procedure to identify the level of the conus medullaris, with the aim of avoiding repeated passage of electrodes at that level. Unintended neurological adverse events should be discussed with patients during the consent process. Careful patient selection and psychological screening may also help identify patients who may be unlikely to respond to SCS therapy. Further reporting of new radiculopathic pain following SCS insertion is required to strengthen understanding of its potential causes.

Deep brain stimulation for phantom limb pain

Phantom limb pain is a rare cause of chronic pain in children but it is associated with extremely refractory pain and disability. The reason for limb amputation is often due to treatment for cancer or trauma and it has a lower incidence compared to adults. The mechanism of why phantom pain exists remains uncertain and may be a result of cortical reorganisation as well as ectopic peripheral input. Treatment is aimed at reducing both symptoms as well as managing pain related disability and functional restoration. Neuromodulatory approaches using deep brain stimulation for phantom limb pain is reserved for only the most refractory cases. The targets for brain stimulation include the thalamic nuclei and motor cortex. Novel targets such as the anterior cingulate cortex remain experimental as cases of serious adverse effects such as seziures have limited their widespread uptake. A multidisciplinary approach is crucial to successful rehabilitation using a biopsychosocial pain management approach.

Patient Selection for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Treatment of Pain: Sequential Decision-Making Model - A Narrative Review

Despite the well-known efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in chronic pain management, patient selection in clinical practice remains challenging. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the factors that can influence the process of patient selection for SCS treatment. A sequential decision-making model is presented within a tier system that operates in clinical practice. The first level incorporates the underlying disease as a primary indication for SCS, country-related reimbursement rules, and SCS screening-trial criteria in combination with underlying psychological factors as initial selection criteria in evaluating patient eligibility for SCS. The second tier is aligned with the individualized approach within precision pain medicine, whereby individual goals and expectations and the potential need for preoperative optimizations are emphasized. Additionally, this tier relies on results from prediction models to provide an estimate of the efficacy of SCS in the long term. In the third tier, selection bias, MRI compatibility, and ethical beliefs are included, together with recent technological innovations, superiority of specific stimulation paradigms, and new feedback systems that could indirectly influence the decision-making of the physician. Both patients and physicians should be aware of the different aspects that influence patient selection in relation to SCS for pain management to make an independent decision on whether or not to initiate a treatment trajectory with SCS.

Passive Recharge Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation Provides Sustainable Improvements in Pain and Psychosocial Function: 2-year Results From the TRIUMPH Study

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, international, multicenter, single-arm, post-market study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess long-term safety and effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation using a passive recharge burst stimulation design for chronic intractable pain in the trunk and/or limbs. Herein we present 24-month outcomes from the TRIUMPH study (NCT03082261).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Passive recharge burst spinal cord stimulation (B-SCS) uniquely mimics neuronal burst firing patterns in the nervous system and has been shown to modulate the affective and attentional components of pain processing.

METHODS

After a successful trial period, subjects received a permanent SCS implant and returned for follow-up at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in physical, mental, and emotional functioning observed after 6 months of treatment were maintained at 2 years. Pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) scores dropped below the population norm. Health-related quality of life on EQ-5D improved across all domains and the mean index score was within one standard deviation of norm. Pain reduction (on NRS) was statistically significant (P < 0.001) at all timepoints. Patient reported pain relief, a stated percentage of improvement in pain, was consistent at all timepoints at 60%. Patients reported significant improvements across all measures including activity levels and impact of pain on daily life. At 24 months, 84% of subjects were satisfied and 90% would recommend the procedure. Subjects decreased their chronic pain medication intake for all categories; 38% reduced psychotropic and muscle relaxants, 46% reduced analgesic, anti-convulsant and NSAIDs, and 48% reduced opioid medication. Adverse events occurred at low rates without unanticipated events.

CONCLUSION

Early positive results with B-SCS were maintained long term. Evidence across multiple assessment tools show that B-SCS can alleviate pain intensity, psychological distress, and improve physical function and health-related quality of life.Level of Evidence: 3.

Subcutaneous Stimulation as Add-on Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Significantly Increases the Total Electrical Charge per Second: Aspects on Stimulation Parameters and Energy Requirements of the Implanted Neurostimulators

OBJECTIVE

In our previous multicenter randomized controlled trial, we demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) as add-on therapy to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of chronic back pain in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) or failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). To our knowledge, no previous study has investigated the effect of PNFS as an add-on to SCS on the energy consumption of the implanted neurostimulators. Therefore, in this study, we compared the specific stimulation parameters and energy requirements of a previously unreported group of patients with only SCS with those of a group of patients with SCS and add-on PNFS. We also investigated differences that might explain the need for PNFS in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed 75 patients with complete sets of stimulation parameters, with 21 patients in the SCS-only group and 54 patients in the SCS + PNFS group. Outcome measures were average visual analog scale score, SCS parameters (voltage, frequency, and pulse width), SCS charge per second, and total charge per second. We analyzed baseline characteristics and differences between and within groups over time.

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable patient characteristics at baseline and showed a significant decrease in back and leg pain. SCS charge per second did not significantly differ between the groups at baseline or at 12 months. The total charge per second was significantly higher in the active SCS + PNFS group than in the SCS-only group at baseline; in the SCS + PNFS group, this persisted for up to 12 months, and the SCS charge per second and total charge per second increased significantly over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that add-on PNFS increases the total charge per second compared with SCS alone, as expected. However, further research is needed because our results do not directly explain why some patients require add-on PNFS to treat low back pain.

Neural Recruitment During Conventional, Burst, and 10-kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation for Pain

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a popular neurostimulation therapy for severe chronic pain. To improve stimulation efficacy, multiple modes are now used clinically, including conventional, burst, and 10-kHz SCS. Clinical observations have produced speculation that these modes target different neural elements and/or work via distinct mechanisms of action. However, in humans, these hypotheses cannot be conclusively answered via experimental methods. Therefore, we utilized computational modeling to assess the response of primary afferents, interneurons, and projection neurons to conventional, burst, and 10-kHz SCS. We found that local cell thresholds were always higher than afferent thresholds, arguing against direct recruitment of these local cells. Furthermore, although we observed relative threshold differences between conventional, burst, and 10-kHz SCS, the recruitment order was the same. Finally, contrary to previous reports, axon collateralization produced complex changes in activation thresholds of primary afferents. These results motivate future work to contextualize clinical observations across SCS paradigms. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the first computational modeling study to investigate neural recruitment during conventional, burst, and 10-kilohertz spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain within a single modeling framework. The results provide insight into these treatments' unknown mechanisms of action and offer context to interpreting clinical observations.

Concept of the Number Needed to Treat for the Analysis of Pain Relief Outcomes in Patients Treated with Spinal Cord Stimulation

In the rapidly evolving field of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), measures of treatment effects are needed to help understand the benefits of new therapies. The present article elaborates the number needed to treat (NNT) concept and applies it to the SCS field. We reviewed the basic theory of the NNT, its calculation method, and its application to historical controlled trials of SCS. We searched the literature for controlled studies with ≥20 implanted SCS patients with chronic axial back and/or leg pain followed for ≥3 months and a reported responder rate defined as ≥50% pain relief. Relevant data necessary to estimate the NNT were extracted from the included articles. In total, 12 of 1616 records were eligible for inclusion. The records reported 10 clinical studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials, 2 randomized crossover trials, and 1 controlled cohort study. The studies investigated traditional SCS and more recently developed SCS modalities, including 10 kHz SCS. In conclusion, the NNT estimate may help SCS stakeholders better understand the effect size difference between compared treatments; however, interpretation of any NNT should take into account its full context. In addition, comparisons across trials of different therapies should be avoided since they are prone to interpretation biases.

The anatomy of pain and suffering in the brain and its clinical implications

Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage. Chronic pain, with a prevalence of 20-30 % is the major cause of human suffering worldwide, because effective, specific and safe therapies have yet to be developed. It is unevenly distributed among sexes, with women experiencing more pain and suffering. Chronic pain can be anatomically and phenomenologically dissected into three separable but interacting pathways, a lateral 'painfulness' pathway, a medial 'suffering' pathway and a descending pain inhibitory pathway. One may have pain(fullness) without suffering and suffering without pain(fullness). Pain sensation leads to suffering via a cognitive, emotional and autonomic processing, and is expressed as anger, fear, frustration, anxiety and depression. The medial pathway overlaps with the salience and stress networks, explaining that behavioural relevance or meaning determines the suffering associated with painfulness. Genetic and epigenetic influences trigger chronic neuroinflammatory changes which are involved in transitioning from acute to chronic pain. Based on the concept of the Bayesian brain, pain (and suffering) can be regarded as the consequence of an imbalance between the two ascending and the descending pain inhibitory pathways under control of the reward system. The therapeutic clinical implications of this simple pain model are obvious. After categorizing the working mechanisms of each of the available treatments (pain killers, psychopharmacology, psychotherapy, neuromodulation, psychosurgery, spinal cord stimulation) to 1 or more of the 3 pathways, a rational combination can be proposed of activating the descending pain inhibitory pathway in combination with inhibition of the medial and lateral pathway, so as to rebalance the pain (and suffering) pathways.

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.

Men and Women Respond Equally Well to Spinal Cord and Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

The influence of gender on outcomes in individuals undergoing treatment for chronic pain is unclear. This retrospective, single-site study explored the impact of gender on pain, quality of life (QoL), revisions, and explants in patients with failed back surgery syndrome or visceral pain, who received a fully implanted 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS), burst SCS, or dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The following data were collected from paper and electronic records: gender, age, chronic pain diagnosis, system, baseline and follow-up scores (average pain [visual analog scale, VAS], worst pain [VAS], QoL [EQ-5D-3L]), revisions, and explants. Data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANCOVAs controlling for age, chi-square tests of independence and logistic regression.

RESULTS

The final sample comprised 387 patients (176 males and 211 females). Males were significantly older compared to females (mean difference: 2.33 years, p = 0.044). Controlling for age, baseline average pain was significantly lower in males than females (mean difference: -0.32, p = 0.049). Males and females responded equally well to 10 kHz SCS and burst SCS as well as DRG stimulation. A greater percentage of males (5%) than females (1%) had revisions due to lead fractures. Additionally, more females (13%) than males (6%) had an explant due to insufficient pain relief. Female gender and older age were associated with greater likelihood of having an explant compared to male gender and younger age.

CONCLUSION

Gender may play an influential role in pain severity at baseline but have little effect at follow-up. To help identify which patients may undergo a revision or explant, gender and age could be important factors and should be further scrutinized. Even though men and women responded equally well to SCS and DRG stimulation, more men had a revision due to lead fractures, and more women were explanted due to insufficient pain relief.

Novel Intermittent Dosing Burst Paradigm in Spinal Cord Stimulation

INTRODUCTION

Intermittent dosing (ID), in which periods of stimulation-on are alternated with periods of stimulation-off, is generally employed using 30 sec ON and 90 sec OFF intervals with burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS). The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using extended stimulation-off periods in patients with chronic intractable pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, feasibility trial evaluated the clinical efficacy of the following ID stimulation-off times: 90, 120, 150, and 360 sec with burst waveform parameters. After a successful trial (≥50% pain relief) using ID stimulation, subjects were titrated with OFF times beginning with 360 sec. Pain, quality of life, disability, and pain catastrophizing were evaluated at one, three, and six months after permanent implant.

RESULTS

Fifty subjects completed an SCS trial using ID stimulation settings of 30 sec ON and 90 sec OFF, with 38 (76%) receiving ≥50% pain relief. Pain scores were significantly reduced from baseline at all time points (p < 0.001). Improvements in quality of life, disability, and pain catastrophizing were aligned with pain relief outcomes; 45.8% of the subjects that completed the six-month follow-up visit used an OFF period of 360 seconds.

CONCLUSIONS

ID burst SCS effectively relieved pain for six months. The largest group of subjects used IDB settings of 30 sec ON and 360 sec OFF. These findings present intriguing implications for the optimal "dose" of electricity in SCS and may offer many advantages such as optimizing the therapeutic window, extending battery life, reducing recharge burden and, potentially, mitigating therapy habituation or tolerance.

Burst spinal cord stimulation for central neuropathic pain: Two case reports

INTRODUCTION

Central neuropathic pain can result from any type of injury to the central nervous system. Treatment of central neuropathic pain is very challenging. Recently, a novel stimulation paradigm, called burst stimulation, has been presented as an excellent alternative in a group of patients with intractable central neuropathic pain. We report 2 cases where burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS) was applied in patients with neuropathic pain due to spinal cord injury (SCI) or traumatic brain injury.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 52-year-old man who underwent posterolateral fusion surgery for a T12 bursting fracture after a fall 11 years prior developed disabling pain in the anterolateral part of his right thigh. His neuropathic pain following SCI was refractory to various treatment modalities. A 65-year-old man had complained of intractable, cold, throbbing, and shooting pain mainly in his left lower limb during rehabilitation since undergoing a craniotomy 9 years prior for multiple brain injuries caused by a motorcycle accident.

DIAGNOSIS

Both of these 2 cases were diagnosed with central neuropathic pain syndrome caused by SCI or traumatic brain injury.

INTERVENTIONS

Burst SCS were proposed to alleviate the significant refractory pains that were resistant to various medications and stimulation was delivered to the patient in an alternating pattern between traditional tonic and burst waveforms.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of burst SCS in central neuropathic pain is desirable considering the severity of pain in such patients, the refractory nature of their pain, and the paucity of alternative therapeutic options.

Advances in the interventional management of neuropathic pain

The management of neuropathic pain, defined as pain as a result of a lesion or disease in the somatosensory nervous system, continues to be researched and explored. As conventional methods demonstrate limited long-term efficacy, there is a significant need to discover therapies that offer both longitudinal and sustained management of this highly prevalent disease, which can be offered through interventional therapies. Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), gabapentinoids, lidocaine, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and capsaicin have been shown to be the most efficacious pharmacologic agents for neuropathic pain relief. With respect to infusion therapies, the use of intravenous (IV) ketamine could be useful for complex regional pain syndrome, fibromyalgia, and traumatic spinal cord injury. Interventional approaches such as lumbar epidurals are a reasonable treatment choice for up to 3 months of pain relief for patients who failed to respond to conservative treatment, with a “B” strength of recommendation and moderate certainty. Neuroablative procedures like pulsed radiofrequency ablation work by delivering electrical field and heat bursts to targeted nerves or tissues without permanently damaging these structures, and have been recently explored for neuropathic pain relief. Alternatively, neuromodulation therapy is now recommended as the fourth line treatment of neuropathic pain after failed pharmacological therapy but prior to low dose opioids. Finally, the intrathecal delivery of various pharmacologic agents, such as quinoxaline-based kappa-opioid receptor agonists, can be utilized for neuropathic pain relief. In this review article, we aim to highlight advances and novel methods of interventional management of neuropathic pain.

Retrospective analysis on the effect of spinal cord stimulation on opioid consumption

Aim: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is used to clinically manage and/or treat several chronic pain etiologies. A limited amount is known about the influence on patients' use of opioid pain medication. This retrospective analysis evaluated SCS effect on opioid consumption in patients presenting with chronic pain conditions. Materials & methods: Sixty-seven patients underwent a temporary trial device, permanent implant or both. Patients were divided for assessment based on the nature of their procedure(s). Primary outcome was change in morphine equivalent dose (MED), ascertained from preoperative and postoperative medication reports. Results: Postoperative MED was significantly lower in patients who received some form of neuromodulation therapy. Pretrial patients reported an average MED of 41.01 ± 10.23 mg per day while post-trial patients reported an average of 13.30 ± 5.34 mg per day (p < 0.001). Pre-implant patients reported an average MED of 39.14 ± 13.52 mg per day while post-implant patients reported an average MED of 20.23 ± 9.01 mg per day (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between pre-trial and pre-implant MED, nor between post-trial and post-implant MED. Of the 42 study subjects who reported some amount of pre-intervention opioid use, 78.57% indicated a lower MED (n = 33; p < 0.001), 16.67% indicated no change (n = 7) and 4.76% (n = 2) indicated a higher MED, following intervention. Moreover, SCS therapy resulted in a 26.83% reduction (p < 0.001) in the number of patients with MED >50 mg per day. Conclusion: Spinal cord stimulation may reduce opioid use when implemented appropriately. Neuromodulation may represent alternative therapy for alleviating chronic pain which may avoid a number of deleterious side effects commonly associated with opioid consumption.

Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Cervical Dystonia with Intractable Pain: A Pilot Study

Pain is the most common and disabling non-motor symptom in patients with cervical dystonia. Here, we report four patients with painful cervical dystonia in whom burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the cervical region produced sustained and significant improvements in both dystonic pain and motor symptoms. Further studies need to be performed to investigate the clinical efficacy of burst SCS for patients with cervical dystonia.

Sub-Perception and Supra-Perception Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Pain Syndrome: A Randomized, Semi-Double-Blind, Crossover, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The introduction of modern sub-perception modalities has improved the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in refractory pain syndromes of the trunk and lower limbs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of low and high frequency SCS among patients with chronic pain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomised, semi-double-blind, placebo controlled, four period (4 × 2 weeks) crossover trial was conducted from August 2018 to January 2020. Eighteen patients with SCS due to failed back surgery syndrome and/or complex regional pain syndrome were randomised to four treatment arms without washout periods: (1) low frequency (40-60 Hz), (2) 1 kHz, (3) clustered tonic, and (4) sham SCS (i.e., placebo). The primary outcome was pain scores measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) preoperatively and during subsequent treatment arms.

RESULTS

Pain scores (VAS) reported during the preoperative period was M (SD) = 8.13 (0.99). There was a 50% reduction in pain reported in the low frequency tonic treatment group (M (SD) = 4.18 (1.76)), a 37% reduction in the 1 kHz treatment group (M (SD) = 5.17 (1.4)), a 34% reduction in the clustered tonic settings group (M (SD) = 5.27 (1.33)), and a 34% reduction in the sham stimulation group (M (SD) = 5.42 (1.22)). The reduction in pain from the preoperative period to the treatment period was significant in each treatment group (p < 0.001). Overall, these reductions were of comparable magnitude between treatments. However, the modality most preferred by patients was low frequency (55% or 10 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

The pain-relieving effects of SCS reached significance and were comparable across all modes of stimulation including sham. Sub-perception stimulation was not superior to supra-perception. SCS was characterised by a high degree of placebo effect. No evidence of carryover effect was observed between subsequent treatments. Contemporary neuromodulation procedures should be tailored to the individual preferences of patients.

Batch Bayesian optimization design for optimizing a neurostimulator

Recently, spinal epidural neurostimulation is being considered for rehabilitation of persons suffering from partial spinal-cord injury. The neurostimulator must be programmed by a neurosurgeon, yet little work has been done to develop rigorous methods for optimally programming the device. We propose an adaptive design to efficiently optimize programming of the neurostimulator based on specified interim evaluations of patient reported preferences. Preferences for the eligible device configurations are estimated after each interim analysis through a conditionally autoregressive model that assumes preference for one configuration is related to preferences for neighboring configurations. Using the adaptively updated preferences, a group of configurations is programmed into the device for the patient to evaluate during the next follow-up period. This selection is based on a balance of device exploration and preference maximization. We repeat this process until a specified stopping rule or the calibration end is reached. We show simulation studies to evaluate the overall quality of the adaptive calibration for various configuration selection strategies and the effects of stopping it early.

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

Introduction: Since the introduction of burst spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain, several companies have developed their own version of burst stimulation, which is confusing the marketplace and clinicians of what burst stimulation truly is, the value and utilization of the therapy.Areas covered: We review those two burst stimulation designs and notice important differences. The original burstDR^TM stimulation tries to mimic physiologic burst firing, which involves closely spaced high frequency sodium spikes nested on a calcium mediated plateau. This is realized by generating a train of 5 monophasic spikes of increasing amplitude with passive charge balance after the last spike, in contrast to the other burst designs which involve a version of cycling 4-5 spikes each being individually actively charge balanced spikes.Expert opinion: Based on the neurobiology of burst firing as well as abductive reasoning we like to clarify that burstDR^TM is a true physiologic burst stimulation, and that other versions being called burst stimulation are essentially clustered tonic stimulation. This differentiating terminology will prevent confusion for healthcare providers, regulators, and the marketplace of what burst stimulation is.

The Long-Term Response to High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome After Conversion From Standard Spinal Cord Stimulation: An Effectiveness and Prediction Study

OBJECTIVES

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is nowadays available with several stimulation paradigms. New paradigms, such as high dose (HD-)SCS, have shown the possibility to salvage patients who lost their initial pain relief. The first aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of HD-SCS after conversion from standard SCS. The second aim is to develop a model for prediction of long-term response of HD-SCS after unsatisfactory standard SCS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-eight patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) who are treated with standard SCS were enrolled in the study. Self-reporting questionnaires and outcomes were assessed before conversion and at 1, 3, and 12 months of HD-SCS. Longitudinal mixed models were used to determine the effectiveness of HD-SCS. Logistic regression and classification and decision tree analyses were performed to predict responders (NRS decrease ≥2/10) after 12 months of HD-SCS.

RESULTS

Significant time effects were found for both low back and leg pain responders, suggesting the effectiveness of HD-SCS after conversion. Logistic regression models revealed the importance of pain intensity scores, medication use, paresthesia coverage (for back pain) and EQ5D (for leg pain) as predictors for being a responder after 12 months of HD-SCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Converting patients with unsatisfactory responses from standard SCS to HD-SCS may be an effective strategy to obtain and maintain pain relief in a challenging subgroup of patients with FBSS refractory to standard SCS. The prediction models may guide clinicians in their decision making when considering conversion to HD-SCS in patients with FBSS experiencing inadequate response to standard SCS.