A model of evoked potentials in spinal cord stimulation

A Call to Action Toward Optimizing the Electrical Dose Received by Neural Targets in Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy for Neuropathic Pain

Spinal cord stimulation has seen unprecedented growth in new technology in the 50 years since the first subdural implant. As we continue to grow our understanding of spinal cord stimulation and relevant mechanisms of action, novel questions arise as to electrical dosing optimization. Programming adjustment — dose titration — is often a process of trial and error that can be time-consuming and frustrating for both patient and clinician. In this report, we review the current preclinical and clinical knowledge base in order to provide insights that may be helpful in developing more rational approaches to spinal cord stimulation dosing. We also provide key conclusions that may help in directing future research into electrical dosing, given the advent of newer waveforms outside traditional programming parameters.

Anatomical and technical factors affecting the neural response to epidural spinal cord stimulation

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a common neurostimulation therapy to treat chronic pain. Computational models represent a valuable tool to study the potential mechanisms of action of SCS and to optimize the design and implementation of SCS technologies. However, it is imperative that these computational models include the appropriate level of detail to accurately predict the neural response to SCS and to correlate model predictions with clinical outcomes. Therefore, the goal of this study was to investigate several anatomic and technical factors that may affect model-based predictions of neural activation during thoracic SCS.

APPROACH

We developed computational models that consisted of detailed finite element models of the lower thoracic spinal cord, surrounding tissues, and implanted SCS electrode arrays. We positioned multicompartment models of sensory axons within the spinal cord to calculate the activation threshold for each sensory axon. We then investigated how activation thresholds changed as a function of several anatomical variables (e.g. spine geometry, dorsal rootlet anatomy), stimulation type (i.e. voltage-controlled vs. current-controlled), electrode impedance, lead position, lead type, and electrical properties of surrounding tissues (e.g. dura conductivity, frequency-dependent conductivity).

MAIN RESULTS

Several anatomic and modeling factors produced significant percent differences or errors in activation thresholds. Rostrocaudal positioning of the cathode with respect to the vertebrae had a large effect (up to 32%) on activation thresholds. Variability in electrode impedance produced significant changes in activation thresholds for voltage-controlled stimulation (38% to 51%), but had little effect on activation thresholds for current-controlled stimulation (less than 13%). Changing the dura conductivity also produced significant differences in activation thresholds.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study demonstrates several anatomic and technical factors that can affect the neural response to SCS. These factors should be considered in clinical implementation and in future computational modeling studies of thoracic SCS.

Spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain: evidence and theory for mechanisms of action

Well-established in the field of bioelectronic medicine, Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) offers an implantable, non-pharmacologic treatment for patients with intractable chronic pain conditions. Chronic pain is a widely heterogenous syndrome with regard to both pathophysiology and the resultant phenotype. Despite advances in our understanding of SCS-mediated antinociception, there still exists limited evidence clarifying the pathways recruited when patterned electric pulses are applied to the epidural space. The rapid clinical implementation of novel SCS methods including burst, high frequency and dorsal root ganglion SCS has provided the clinician with multiple options to treat refractory chronic pain. While compelling evidence for safety and efficacy exists in support of these novel paradigms, our understanding of their mechanisms of action (MOA) dramatically lags behind clinical data. In this review, we reconstruct the available basic science and clinical literature that offers support for mechanisms of both paresthesia spinal cord stimulation (P-SCS) and paresthesia-free spinal cord stimulation (PF-SCS). While P-SCS has been heavily examined since its inception, PF-SCS paradigms have recently been clinically approved with the support of limited preclinical research. Thus, wide knowledge gaps exist between their clinical efficacy and MOA. To close this gap, many rich investigative avenues for both P-SCS and PF-SCS are underway, which will further open the door for paradigm optimization, adjunctive therapies and new indications for SCS. As our understanding of these mechanisms evolves, clinicians will be empowered with the possibility of improving patient care using SCS to selectively target specific pathophysiological processes in chronic pain.

Evoked Potentials Recorded From the Spinal Cord During Neurostimulation for Pain: A Computational Modeling Study

OBJECTIVES

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain is typically implemented in an open-loop manner using parameters that remain largely unchanged. To improve the overall efficacy and consistency of SCS, one closed-loop approach proposes to use evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) recorded from the SCS lead(s) as a feedback control signal to guide parameter selection. The goal of this study was to use a computational modeling approach to investigate the source of these ECAP recordings and technical and physiological factors that affect their composition.

METHODS

We developed a computational model that coupled a finite element model of lower thoracic SCS with multicompartment models of sensory axons within the spinal cord. We used a reciprocity-based approach to calculate SCS-induced ECAPs recorded from the SCS lead.

RESULTS

Our model ECAPs contained a triphasic, P1, N1, P2 morphology. The model P2-N1 amplitudes and conduction velocities agreed with previous experimental data from human subjects. Model results suggested that the ECAPs are dominated by the activation of axons with diameters 8.7-10.0 μm located in the dorsal aspect of the spinal cord. We also observed changes in the ECAP amplitude and shape due to the electrode location relative to the vertebrae and spinal cord.

CONCLUSION

Our modeling results suggest that clinically effective SCS relies on the activation of numerous axons within a narrow fiber diameter range and that several factors affect the composition of the ECAP recordings. These results can improve how we interpret and implement these recordings in a potential closed-loop approach to SCS.