Spinal cord stimulation for nonspecific limb pain versus neuropathic pain and spontaneous versus evoked pain

Current Evidence Lacking to Guide Clinical Practice for Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain in Spinal Cord Injury: A Review of the Literature and a Proposal for Future Study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Chronic pain is commonly reported in individuals with spinal cord injuries (SCIs), with recent prevalence reported as high as 80%. Uncontrolled pain is known to decrease quality of life, attenuate mood, and impact sleep. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of refractory pain was first used in the SCI population in 1972. To date there have been no randomized controlled trials examining the effect of SCS on neuropathic pain post-SCI. A literature review in 2009 identified 27 studies, the majority prior to 2000, that included at least 1 patient with SCI. Given the significant advancements in the field of SCS, this review examines the updated evidence of SCS for the treatment of neuropathic pain in individuals with SCI and provides guidance on future investigations.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. All published reports, case series, and clinical trials reviewing SCS for neuropathic pain that included at least 1 individual with SCI were included.

RESULTS

The initial search identified 376 reports, of which 22 met inclusion criteria, for a total of 69 patients. All reports were of very low quality. A majority of the reported patients were male, underwent tonic stimulation, and reportedly experienced improvement in pain and spasticity, with decreased use of pain medication.

CONCLUSIONS

The synthesized findings from primarily case studies support the safety of SCS in SCI with the suggestion of potential pain relief benefit; however, data from low-quality studies are insufficient for informing clinical practice. A well-designed, prospective clinical trial is proposed to further investigate this indication.

[Spinal cord stimulation and failed back surgery syndrome. Clinical results with laminectomy electrodes]

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation is a widely-accepted technique in the treatment of back pain resulting from failed back surgery. Classically, stimulation has been carried out with percutaneous electrodes implanted under local anaesthesia and sedation. However, the ease of migration and the difficulty of reproducing electrical paresthesias in large areas with such electrodes has led to increasing use of surgical plate leads, which have the disadvantage of the need for general anaesthesia and a laminectomy for implantation.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to report the clinical results, technical details, advantages and benefits of laminectomy lead placement under epidural anaesthesia in failed back surgery syndrome cases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Spinal cord stimulation was performed in a total of 119 patients (52 men and 67 women), aged between 31 and 73 years (average, 47.3). Epidural anaesthesia was induced with ropivacaine. In all cases we inserted the octapolar or 16-polar lead in the epidural space through a small laminectomy. The final position of the leads was the vertebral level that provided coverage of the patient's pain. The electrodes were connected at dual-channel or rechargeable pulse generators.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 4.7 years, the results in terms of improvement of the previous painful situation was satisfactory, with an analgesia level of 58% of axial pain and 60% of radicular pain in more than 70% of cases. None of the patients said that the surgery stage was painful or unpleasant. No serious complications were included in the group, but in 6 cases the system had to be explanted because of ineffectiveness or intolerance of long-term neurostimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study, with a significant number of patients, used epidural anaesthesia for spinal cord stimulation of lead implants by laminectomy in failed back surgery syndromes. The technique seems to be safe and effective.

Neuropathic limb pain and spinal cord stimulation: results of the dutch prospective study

Baseline and 12-month follow-up data from a prospective controlled study on patients treated with SCS for neuropathic limb pain (NLP) are analyzed critically. The outcome on pain, use of medication, and quality of life are reported and compared with the literature. Patients enrolled from April 1999 to December 2001 were part of a quality system study by the Dutch Working Group on Neuromodulation. In two years, more than 400 patients were admitted for several indications of chronic neuropathic pain. Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) were the largest cohorts. FBSS was defined as persistent limb pain with/or without concomitant minor back pain after prior surgery for a slipped lumbar disc or spinal instability. SCS was a last resort therapy. Two criteria were used for eligibility: a SCL-90 score below 225 and a mean visual analog score (VAS) of four days according to Jensen of ≥ 5. One hundred sixty nine patients were registered for FBSS. Thirty four did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, and 135 received several questionnaires for baseline evaluation. Thirty patients did not have successful trial stimulation (< 50% pain relief), leaving 105 patients for implantation. The mean scores of the baseline evaluation were: SCL 137 (SD 28.3) and VAS 7.3 (SD 1.2), McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ) total PRI: 22.4 (9.4), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) total score: 19.4 (SD10.1), ROLAND disability (RD) 16.9 (SD 3.5) and EUROQOL (EQ-5D) 55.2 (SD 14.5) (simple linear index). Medication quantification scale at intake was 11.5 (SD 7.9). 56.2% of the patients used one or more narcotic drugs at intake. 82% of the patients did not have a paid job at the time of inclusion. 61% of the patients lost their job due to their medical problems. Scores at 12-m follow-up were VAS 3.0 (SD 2.4), MPQ 10.8 (SD 8), SIP 11.7 (SD 9.4), EQ-5D 38.2 (SD 19.2) and RD 12.4 (SD 4.8). The difference between baseline and 12-m follow-up is statistically significant for all measures. We conclude that the outcome measures indicate that SCS significantly reduces pain and enhances quality of life in patients having NLP not responding to other adjuvant therapy. Recommendations are proposed to make studies more comparable.

Technological innovation in spinal cord stimulation: use of a newly developed delivery device for introduction of spinal cord stimulation leads

OBJECTIVE

The use of multiple cylindrical leads and multicolumn and single column paddle leads in spinal cord stimulation offers many advantages over the use of a single cylindrical lead. Despite these advantages, placement of multiple cylindrical leads or a paddle lead requires a more invasive surgical procedure. Thus, the ideal situation for lead delivery would be percutaneous insertion of a paddle lead or multiple cylindrical leads. This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of percutaneous delivery of S-Series paddle leads using a new delivery device called the Epiducer lead delivery system (all St. Jude Medical Neuromodulation Division, Plano, TX, USA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This uncontrolled, open-label, prospective, two-center study approved by the AZ St. Lucas (Ghent) Ethics Committee evaluated procedural aspects of implantation of an S-Series paddle lead using the Epiducer lead delivery system and any adverse events relating to the device. Efficacy data during the patent's 30-day trial also were collected.

RESULTS

  Data from 34 patients were collected from two investigational sites. There were no adverse events related to the Epiducer lead delivery system. The device was inserted at an angle of either 20°-30° or 30°-40° and was entered into the epidural space at T12/L1 in most patients. The S-Series paddle lead was advanced four vertebral segments in more than 50% of patients. The average (±standard deviation [SD]) time it took to place the Epiducer lead delivery system was 8.7 (±5.0) min. The average (+SD) patient-reported pain relief was 78.8% (+24.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests the safe use of the Epiducer lead delivery system for percutaneous implantation and advancement of the S-Series paddle lead in 34 patients.

Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome: A systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature and assessment of prognostic factors

OBJECTIVE

To review the clinical and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the management of patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and identify the potential predictors of SCS outcome.

DESIGN

Systematic review of the literature and meta-regression.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for controlled and uncontrolled studies and economic evaluations relating to the use of SCS in patients with either CRPS type I or II.

RESULTS

One randomised controlled trial, 25 case series and one cost-effectiveness study were included. In the randomised controlled trial in type I CRPS patients, SCS therapy lead to a reduction in pain intensity at 24 months of follow-up (mean change in VAS score -2.0), whereas pain was unchanged in the control group (mean change in VAS score 0.0) (p<0.001). In the case series studies, 67% (95% CI 51%, 84%) of type I and type II CRPS patients implanted with SCS reported pain relief of at least 50% over a median follow-up period of 33 months. No statistically significant predictors of pain relief with SCS were observed in multivariate meta-regression analysis across studies. An economic analysis based on the randomised controlled trial showed a lifetime cost saving of approximately 58,470 (60,800 US dollars) with SCS plus physical therapy compared with physical therapy alone. The mean cost per quality-adjusted life-year at 12-month follow-up was 22,580 (23,480 US dollars).

CONCLUSIONS

SCS appears to be an effective therapy in the management of patients with CRPS type I (Level A evidence) and type II (Level D evidence). Moreover, there is evidence to demonstrate that SCS is a cost-effective treatment for CRPS type I.

Median Nerve Stimulation in a Patient with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type II

A 54-year-old man experienced injury to the second finger of his left hand due to damage from a paintball gun shot 8 years prior, and the metacarpo-phalangeal joint was amputated. He gradually developed mechanical allodynia and burning pain, and there were trophic changes of the thenar muscle and he reported coldness on his left hand and forearm. A neuroma was found on the left second common digital nerve and was removed, but his symptoms continued despite various conservative treatments including a morphine infusion pump on his left arm. We therefore attempted median nerve stimulation to treat the chronic pain. The procedure was performed in two stages. The first procedure involved exposure of the median nerve on the mid-humerus level and placing of the electrode. The trial stimulation lasted for 7 days and the patient's symptoms improved. The second procedure involved implantation of a pulse generator on the left subclavian area. The mechanical allodynia and pain relief score, based on the visual analogue scale, decreased from 9 before surgery to 4 after surgery. The patient's activity improved markedly, but trophic changes and vasomotor symptom recovered only moderately. In conclusion, median nerve stimulation can improve chronic pain from complex regional pain syndrome type II.

Analysis of failed spinal cord stimulation trials in the treatment of intractable chronic pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to identify the factors affecting the failure of trials (<50% pain reduction in pain for trial period) to improve success rate of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trial.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the failed trials (44 patients, 36.1%) among the patients (n=122) who underwent SCS trial between January 1990 and December 1998 was conducted. We reviewed the causes of failed trial stimulation, age, sex, etiology of pain, type of electrode, and third party support.

RESULTS

Of the 44 patients, 65.9% showed unacceptable pain relief in spite of sufficient paresthesia on the pain area with trial stimulation. Four of six patients felt insufficient paresthesia with stimulation had the lesions of the spinal cord. Seventy five percent of the patients experienced unpleasant or painful sensation during stimulation had allodynia dominant pain. Third-party involvement, sex, age and electrode type had no influence on the outcome.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that SCS trial is less effective for patients with neuropathic pain of cord lesions, postherpetic neuropathy or post-amputation state. Further, patients with allodynia dominant pain can feel unpleasant or painful during trial stimulation.

Spinal cord stimulation: a seven-year audit

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcome and complications of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic neuropathic pain in an Australian population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An independent researcher retrospectively examined the records of 138 patients trialing SCS between 1995 and 2002 at our institution. Information collected included pain relief, ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), return to work and reduction in opiate analgesia. Clinical, psychological, demographic and financial data were also collected.

RESULTS

Of 138 patients who trialed SCS, 103 (74.7%) achieved a greater than 50% reduction in their pain and proceeded to permanent implantation. At 1 year following permanent implantation, 84.4% of these still had a reduction in their pain by greater than 50%. The majority of patients, 59.1%, stated that their analgesia was good (50-74% pain reduction). All patients required opiate analgesics prior to SCS implantation, but this fell to 54.6% after SCS implantation. Additionally, 73.6% had a significant improvement in their ability to perform ADLs and 24% of patients were able to return to work.

CONCLUSION

SCS is an effective treatment in the control of chronic neuropathic pain, particularly in combination with comprehensive medical management within a multidisciplinary pain management centre.

Spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and leg pain and failed back surgery syndrome: a systematic review and analysis of prognostic factors

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and safety of spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic leg and back pain and failed back surgery syndrome and to examine prognostic factors that predict spinal cord stimulation outcome.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

A previous systematic review of spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic back and leg pain and failed back surgery syndrome by Turner et al in 1995 identified 39 case studies and no controlled studies.

METHODS

A number of electronic databases were searched through January 2002. Citation searching of included papers was undertaken, and gray literature was sought through contact with clinical experts. No language restrictions were applied. All controlled and noncontrolled study designs were included. Study selection was carried out independently by two reviewers. Prognostic factors (age, sex, duration of pain, time post surgery, follow-up duration, publication year, data collection year, indication, data collection country, study setting, and quality score) responsible for pain relief outcome across case series were examined using univariate and multivariate metaregression.

RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial, one cohort study, and 72 case studies were included. The randomized controlled trial reported a significant benefit (P = 0.047) in the proportion of patients with failed back surgery syndrome reporting 50% or more pain relief with spinal cord stimulation (37.5%) compared with patients undergoing back reoperation (11.5%). There was evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity (P < 0.0001) in the level of pain relief following spinal cord stimulation reported across case series studies. The four principal prognostic factors found to be predictive of increased level of pain relief with spinal cord stimulation were poor study quality score, short follow-up duration, multicenter (versus single center) studies, and the inclusion of patients with failed back surgery syndrome (versus chronic back and leg pain). Overall, 43% of patients with chronic back and leg pain/failed back surgery syndrome experienced one or more complications following a spinal cord stimulation implant, although no major adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an increase in the number of studies over the last 10 years, the level of evidence for the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in chronic back and leg pain/failed back surgery syndrome remains "moderate." Prognostic factors found to be predictive of the level of pain relief following spinal cord stimulation were study quality, follow-up duration, study setting, and patient indication.

Long-term deep brain stimulation in elderly patients with cardiac pacemakers

Object. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has become an accepted therapy for movement disorders such as Parkinson disease (PD) and essential tremor (ET), when these conditions are refractory to medical treatment. The presence of a cardiac pacemaker is still considered a contraindication for DBS in functional neurosurgery. The goal of this study was to evaluate the technical and clinical management of DBS for the treatment of movement disorders in elderly patients with cardiac pacemakers.

Methods. Six patients with cardiac pacemakers underwent clinical and cardiac examinations to analyze the safety of DBS in the treatment of movement disorders. Four patients suffered from advanced PD and two patients had ET. The mean age of these patients at surgery was 69.5 years (range 63–79 years). The settings of the pacemakers were programmed in a manner considered to minimize the chance of interference between the two systems.

There were no adverse events during surgery. Four patients underwent stimulation of the thalamic ventralis intermedius nucleus (VIM), and two patients stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus. In general, bipolar sensing was chosen for the cardiac pacemakers. In all but one patient the quadripolar DBS electrodes were programmed for bipolar stimulation. Several control electrocardiography studies, including 24-hour monitoring, did not show any interference between the two systems. At the time this paper was written the patients had been followed up for a mean of 25.3 months (range 4–48 months).

Conclusions. In certain conditions it is safe for patients with cardiac pacemakers to receive DBS for treatment of concomitant movement disorders. Cardiac pacemakers should not be viewed as a general contraindication for DBS in patients with movement disorders.

Minimally invasive implantation of epidural spinal cord neurostimulator electrodes by using a tubular retractor system

✓ The authors describe a novel technique for the implantation of multipolar epidural spinal cord neurostimulator electrodes with the aid of a tubular retractor system. Spinal cord neurostimulation is used as a neuroaugmentive tool for treating chronic intractable pain syndromes. Minimally invasive placement of the multipolar neurostimulator electrodes may allow for shorter hospital stays and less postoperative pain associated with the incision.