Continuous Versus Intermittent Spinal Cord Stimulation: An Analysis of Factors Influencing Clinical Efficacy

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.

Effects of forest walking on physical and mental health in elderly populations: a systematic review

There is a growing awareness that spending time in nature is associated with improvement of well-being; nevertheless, the prescription of forest bathing is still limited. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the physiological and psychological benefits of different forest therapies on healthy and pathological elderly populations (>60 years) to identify the most-effective type, duration, and frequency of these interventions. A search for literature was carried out in December 2021 using PubMed, EMBASE, ResearchGate, Google Scholar and Web of Science. Grey literature was searched as well. After removal of the duplicates, within the 214 articles identified, ten met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the selected studies was rated. Forest walking, alone and in combination with other activities is the most effective intervention. The selected studies reported a positive impact on physical components, including reduction in blood pressure and heart rate and improvements in cardiopulmonary and neurochemical parameters. Favorable modifications have also been noted in the psychological field, with improvements in depression, stress levels and in quality of life perception. In conclusion, forest walking may play an important role in promoting physical and mental health in healthy and pathological elderly populations. However, the lack of high-quality studies limits the strength of the results, calling for more trials.

Best Practices for Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Chronic Pain: Guidelines from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience

With continued innovations in neuromodulation comes the need for evolving reviews of best practices. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) has significantly improved the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and it has broad applicability across a wide range of other conditions. Through funding and organizational leadership by the American Society for Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN), this best practices consensus document has been developed for the selection, implantation, and use of DRG stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes. This document is composed of a comprehensive narrative literature review that has been performed regarding the role of the DRG in chronic pain and the clinical evidence for DRG-S as a treatment for multiple pain etiologies. Best practice recommendations encompass safety management, implantation techniques, and mitigation of the potential complications reported in the literature. Looking to the future of neuromodulation, DRG-S holds promise as a robust intervention for otherwise intractable pain.

Pulse Dosing of 10 kHz Paresthesia-Independent Spinal Cord Stimulation Provides Same Efficacy with Substantial Reduction of Device Recharge Time

Objective

This study was designed to assess whether using pulse dosing (PD) (regularly cycled intermittent stimulation) of high-frequency 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation (10-kHz SCS) can reduce device recharge time while maintaining efficacy in patients with chronic intractable back pain with or without leg pain.

Design

Prospective, multicenter, observational study.

Methods

Patients successfully using 10-kHz SCS at 100%ON (i.e., continuously with no PD) for >3 months were consecutively enrolled. After a 1-week baseline period of documenting their pain twice daily on a 0–10 numerical rating scale (NRS) using 100%ON of their “favorite” program, all subjects were reprogrammed to 14%PD for 10–14 days. If subjects preferred 14%PD to 100%ON, they were programmed to 3%PD; otherwise, they were programmed to 50%PD. Subjects used this next program for another 10–14 days. Subjects then entered a 3-month observational period during which they were requested to use but not limited to their most preferred %PD program. Toward the end of 3 months, subjects completed a 7-day NRS diary and indicated a final %PD program preference. Study endpoints included %PD preference, mean diary NRS by %PD, and daily minutes and patterns of charging.

Results

Of 31 subjects completing the study, 81% preferred less than 100%ON. Among the subjects, 39% preferred 3%PD, 32% preferred 14%PD, 10% preferred 50%PD, and 19% preferred 100%ON. Average daily charge durations were 8.3 ± 3.1 minutes for 3%PD, 13.9 ± 4.9 minutes for 14%PD, 26.2 ± 7.4 minutes for 50%PD, and 43.8 ± 10.9 minutes for 100%ON. Regression modeling suggested that pain relief was weighted as more than twice as influential as charging in preference for reduced %PD.

Conclusions

This prospective study suggests that 10-kHz SCS therapy with PD may be successfully used in a large majority of 10-kHz SCS responders, maintaining efficacy while reducing device charging time by nearly two thirds.

Modulation of the Somatosensory Evoked Potential by Attention and Spinal Cord Stimulation

Introduction: Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a last-resort treatment for patients with intractable chronic pain in whom pharmacological and other treatments have failed. Conventional tonic SCS is accompanied by tingling sensations. More recent stimulation protocols like burst SCS are not sensed by the patient while providing similar levels of pain relief. It has been previously reported that conventional tonic SCS can attenuate sensory-discriminative processing in several brain areas, but that burst SCS might have additional effects on the medial, motivational-affective pain system. In this explorative study we assessed the influence of attention on the somatosensory evoked brain responses under conventional tonic SCS as well as burst SCS regime.

Methods: Twelve chronic pain patients with an implanted SCS device had 2-weeks evaluation periods with three different SCS settings (conventional tonic SCS, burst SCS, and sham SCS). At the end of each period, an electro-encephalography (EEG) measurement was done, at which patients received transcutaneous electrical pulses at the tibial nerve to induce somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP). SEP data was acquired while patients were attending the applied pulses and while they were mind wandering. The effects of attention as well as SCS regimes on the SEP were analyzed by comparing amplitudes of early and late latencies at the vertex as well as brain activity at full cortical maps.

Results: Pain relief obtained by the various SCS settings varied largely among patients. Early SEP responses were not significantly affected by attention nor SCS settings (i.e., burst, tonic, and sham). However, late SEP responses (P300) were reduced with tonic and burst SCS: conventional tonic SCS reduced P300 brain activity in the unattended condition, while burst SCS reduced P300 brain activity in both attended and unattended conditions.

Conclusion: Burst spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain seems to reduce cortical attention that is or can be directed to somatosensory stimuli to a larger extent than conventional spinal cord stimulation treatment. This is a first step in understanding why in selected chronic pain patients burst SCS is more effective than tonic SCS and how neuroimaging could assist in personalizing SCS treatment.

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.

Clinical Trial Designs for Neuromodulation in Chronic Spinal Cord Injury Using Epidural Stimulation

STUDY DESIGN

This is a narrative review focused on specific challenges related to adequate controls that arise in neuromodulation clinical trials involving perceptible stimulation and physiological effects of stimulation activation.

OBJECTIVES

1) To present the strengths and limitations of available clinical trial research designs for the testing of epidural stimulation to improve recovery after spinal cord injury. 2) To describe how studies can control for the placebo effects that arise due to surgical implantation, the physical presence of the battery, generator, control interfaces, and rehabilitative activity aimed to promote use-dependent plasticity. 3) To mitigate Hawthorne effects that may occur in clinical trials with intensive supervised participation, including rehabilitation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Focused literature review of neuromodulation clinical trials with integration to the specific context of epidural stimulation for persons with chronic spinal cord injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard of care control groups fail to control for the multiple effects of knowledge of having undergone surgical procedures, having implanted stimulation systems, and being observed in a clinical trial. The irreducible effects that have been identified as "placebo" require sham controls or comparison groups in which both are implanted with potentially active devices and undergo similar rehabilitative training.

Peripherally Induced Reconditioning of the Central Nervous System: A Proposed Mechanistic Theory for Sustained Relief of Chronic Pain with Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an effective tool for the treatment of chronic pain, although its efficacy and utilization have previously been significantly limited by technology. In recent years, purpose-built percutaneous PNS devices have been developed to overcome the limitations of conventional permanently implanted neurostimulation devices. Recent clinical evidence suggests clinically significant and sustained reductions in pain can persist well beyond the PNS treatment period, outcomes that have not previously been observed with conventional permanently implanted neurostimulation devices. This narrative review summarizes mechanistic processes that contribute to chronic pain, and the potential mechanisms by which selective large diameter afferent fiber activation may reverse these changes to induce a prolonged reduction in pain. The interplay of these mechanisms, supported by data in chronic pain states that have been effectively treated with percutaneous PNS, will also be discussed in support of a new theory of pain management in neuromodulation: Peripherally Induced Reconditioning of the Central Nervous System (CNS).

Spinal cord stimulation for chronic intractable trunk or limb pain: study protocol for a Chinese multicenter randomized withdrawal trial (CITRIP study)

Background

Although effective results of many studies support the use of spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain patients, no randomized controlled trial has been undertaken in China to date. CITRIP is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, withdrawal study designed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of spinal cord stimulation plus remote programming management in patients with intractable trunk or limb pain.

Method

Participants will be recruited in approximately 10 centers across China. Eligible participants with intractable trunk or limb and an average visual analog scale (VAS) score ≥ 5 will undergo a spinal cord stimulation test. Participants with VAS score reduction ≥ 50% could move forward to receive implantation of an implanted pulse generator. In the withdrawal period at 3-month follow-up visit, participants randomized to the experimental group (EG) will undergo continuous stimulation while ceasing the stimulation in the control group (CG). The outcome assessment will occur at baseline and at 1, 3 (pre- and post-randomization), and 6 months. The primary outcome is the difference of maximal VAS score between EG and CG in the withdrawal period compared with baseline before the withdrawal period. Additional outcomes include VAS score change at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups; responder rate (VAS score improving by 50%); achievement rate of a desirable pain state (VAS score ≤ 4); awake times during sleep; Beck Depression Inventory for depression evaluation; short-form 36 for quality of life evaluation; drug usage; and satisfaction rating of the device. Adverse events will be collected. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle.

Discussion

The CITRIP study seeks to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a randomized withdrawal trial of spinal cord stimulation for patients with intractable trunk or limb pain.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03858790. Registered on March 1, 2019, retrospectively registered

Using Lower Amplitudes to Maintain Effective High Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy (SCS Dosing Pilot Study)

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation is an effective therapy for chronic back and/or leg pain. Amplitude dose-response studies are lacking; therefore, little guidance exists regarding the minimum amplitude requirements with specific high dose parameters. This study characterized the minimum amplitude level that maintained SCS therapy satisfaction and pain relief when stimulating at 1000 Hz and 90 μsec.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualified patients had back and leg pain, an implanted neurostimulator programmed to 1000 Hz and 90 μsec, and were very or somewhat satisfied with the therapy, and an average overall VAS pain score ≤ 4 from a daily diary. Patients received four blinded amplitudes (titrated from 80%, 60%, 40%, and 20% of baseline perception threshold), approximately two weeks each, with 1000 Hz and 90 μsec and position-adaptive stimulation enabled. Patients' satisfaction and overall VAS pain scores were collected for each period. All patients continued through the study, even after reporting lack of therapy satisfaction or pain relief.

RESULTS

The minimum amplitude, which maintained therapy satisfaction, was 80% of perception threshold for two patients, 60% for one patient, and 20% for 21 patients. Additionally, six patients lost satisfaction changing from their baseline amplitude to 80% perception threshold. The minimum amplitude level, which maintained overall pain relief, was 80% perception threshold for three patients, 60% perception threshold for one patient, 40% perception threshold for two patients, and 20% perception threshold for 19 patients. Five patients required the setting they were programmed to during the baseline period.

CONCLUSION

The qualified study patients defined an implanted population reporting good pain relief and satisfaction using HD SCS therapy at baseline. The majority of these patients were able to maintain therapy satisfaction and pain relief (70% and 63.3%, respectively) with 20% perception threshold amplitude. Amplitudes below perception threshold could potentially maintain effective SCS therapy with HD stimulation in a subset of patients.

A Novel Approach in Spinal Cord Stimulation for Enhancing Gastric Motility: A Preliminary Study on Canines

Background/Aims

Gastroparesis is commonly seen in patients with diabetes and functional dyspepsia with no satisfactory therapies. Dysautonomia is one of the main reasons for the imbalanced motility. We hypothesized that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a viable therapy for gastroparesis via the autonomic modulation to improve gastric motility. The aim is to find an optimal method of SCS for treating gastroparesis.

Methods

Eight healthy-female dogs were implanted with a gastric cannula, a duodenal cannula, 2 multi-electrode spinal leads, and an implantable pulse generator. Gastric motility index (MI) was used to determine the best stimulation location/parameters of SCS. Optimized SCS was used to improve glucagon-induced gastroparesis.

Results

With fixed parameters, SCS at Thoracic 10 (T10) was found most effective for increasing gastric MI (37.8%, P = 0.013). SCS was optimized with different parameters (pulse width: 0.05–0.6 msec, frequency: 5–500 Hz, motor threshold: 30–90%) on T10. Our findings revealed that 0.5 msec, 20 Hz with 90% motor threshold at T10 were the best parameters in increasing MI. Glucagon significantly delayed gastric emptying, and this inhibitory effect was partially blocked by SCS. Gastric emptying at 120 minutes was 25.6% in the control session and 15.7% in glucagon session (P = 0.007 vs control), while it was 22.9% with SCS session (P = 0.041 vs glucagon). SCS with the optimal parameters was found to maximally enhance vagal activity and inhibit sympathetic activity assessed by the spectral analysis of heart rate variability.

Conclusions

SCS with optimized stimulation location and parameters improves gastric motility in healthy-dogs and accelerates gastric emptying impaired by glucagon via enhancing vagal activity.

Percutaneous 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation implant provides sustained relief of chronic pain following amputation: 12-month follow-up of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has historically been used to treat chronic pain, but generally requires implantation of a permanent system for sustained relief. A recent study found that a 60-day PNS treatment decreases post-amputation pain, and the current work investigates longer-term outcomes out to 12 months in the same cohort.

METHODS

As previously reported, 28 traumatic lower extremity amputees with residual and/or phantom limb pain were randomized to receive 8 weeks of PNS (group 1) or 4 weeks of placebo followed by a crossover 4 weeks of PNS (group 2). Percutaneous leads were implanted under ultrasound guidance targeting the femoral and sciatic nerves. During follow-up, changes in average pain and pain interference were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form and comparing with baseline.

RESULTS

Significantly more participants in group 1 reported ≥50% reductions in average weekly pain at 12 months (67%, 6/9) compared with group 2 at the end of the placebo period (0%, 0/14, p=0.001). Similarly, 56% (5/9) of participants in group 1 reported ≥50% reductions in pain interference at 12 months, compared with 2/13 (15%, p=0.074) in group 2 at crossover. Reductions in depression were also statistically significantly greater at 12 months in group 1 compared with group 2 at crossover.

CONCLUSIONS

This work suggests that percutaneous PNS delivered over a 60-day period may provide significant carry-over effects including pain relief, potentially avoiding the need for a permanently implanted system while enabling improved function in patients with chronic pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01996254.

Effects of Tonic Spinal Cord Stimulation on Sensory Perception in Chronic Pain Patients: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Even if spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is widely used and effective in treating intractable chronic neuropathic pain conditions, little is known about its possible impacts on sensory perception. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a useful tool to assess this issue. The aim of this study was to review the impact of tonic SCS on somatosensory perception quantified by QST in chronic pain patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant articles and abstracts were searched in all languages from CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Knowledge data bases. Data were extracted and included studies were assessed for risk of bias.

RESULTS

Out of 5610 records, 15 peer-reviewed articles were eligible and included. The results are heterogeneous due to inadequate comparability among studies for populations (a total of 224 patients diagnosed with more than 13 chronic pain conditions), QST parameters (22 measured with 25 different devices) and experimental procedures (study design, comparator, evaluation time, and area tested). The wide variety of studies, designs, populations, and measures included in this review did not lead to strong evidence on how conventional ("tonic") SCS affects sensory processing in patients with chronic pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The data available tend to suggest that conventional SCS does not interfere with perception of external stimuli. New studies that follow a standardized procedure and consider the possible influence of sensory profile, after-effect bias, and confounding factors are required to confirm this observation. Moreover, the impact on sensory perception of other SCS modalities and alternative electrical neuromodulation therapies could also be explored.

Rate of perioperative neurological complications after surgery for cervical spinal cord stimulation

OBJECTIVE Cervical spinal cord stimulation (cSCS) is used to treat pain of the cervical region and upper extremities. Case reports and small series have shown a relatively low risk of complication after cSCS, with only a single reported case of perioperative spinal cord injury in the literature. Catastrophic cSCS-associated spinal cord injury remains a concern as a result of underreporting. To aid in preoperative counseling, it is necessary to establish a minimum rate of spinal cord injury and surgical complication following cSCS. METHODS The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) is a stratified sample of 20% of all patient discharges from nonfederal hospitals in the United States. The authors identified discharges with a primary procedure code for spinal cord stimulation (ICD-9 03.93) associated with a primary diagnosis of cervical pathology from 2002 to 2011. They then analyzed short-term safety outcomes including the presence of spinal cord injury and neurological, medical, and general perioperative complications and compared outcomes using univariate analysis. RESULTS Between 2002 and 2011, there were 2053 discharges for cSCS. The spinal cord injury rate was 0.5%. The rates of any neurological, medical, and general perioperative complications were 1.1%, 1.4%, and 11.7%, respectively. There were no deaths. CONCLUSIONS In the largest series of cSCS, the risk of spinal cord injury was higher than previously reported (0.5%). Nonetheless, this procedure remains relatively safe, and physicians may use these data to corroborate the safety of cSCS in an appropriately selected patient population. This may become a key treatment option in an increasingly opioid-dependent, aging population.

The Proper Use of Neurostimulation for Hand Pain

Upper extremity neuropathic pain states greatly impact patient functionality and quality of life, despite appropriate surgical intervention. This article focuses on the advanced therapies that may improve pain care, including advanced treatment strategies that are available. The article also surveys therapies on the immediate horizon, such as spinal cord stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and dorsal root ganglion spinal cord stimulation. As these therapies evolve, so too will their placement within the pain care algorithm grounded by a foundation of evidence to improve patient safety and management of patients with difficult neuropathic pain.

Intermittent sacral neuromodulation for idiopathic urgency urinary incontinence in women

AIMS

SNM has been proven to be effective in the treatment of refractory UUI. Total costs and patient burden due to regular battery changes may prevent broad implementation of this treatment. The aim was to achieve a minimal improvement of 50% in incontinence episodes compared to pre-SNM by using iSNM.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was performed in women with UUI receiving treatment with SNM for a minimum of 6 months. The neurostimulator was programmed to 8 hr "on" and 16 hr "off" per day for 12 weeks. Prior to iSNM, data were collected during no SNM and cSNM. Bladder diaries and various patient reported outcome measures were collected at predetermined time points: 1-5 weeks, and 8, 12, and 16 weeks. Nonparametric tests were used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 19 patients 63% showed an improvement of >50% of incontinence episodes during iSNM compared to pre-SNM. Bladder diary parameters showed a difference between pre-SNM and iSNM median (P-value); incontinence episodes/24 hr, 4.1-1.0 (P = 0.04), incontinence severity, 2.0-1.0 (P = 0.001), voiding episodes/24 hr, 13.0-8.0 (P = 0.001), and voided volume, 149-219 ml (P = 0.04). The UDI-6, 50.0-27.8 (P = 0.03), and the IIQ-7 scores, 50.0-9.5 (P = 0.04) also showed a significant improvement. No difference was demonstrated between iSNM and cSNM.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to pre-SNM parameters, iSNM shows an improvement in both objective and subjective outcomes. Specifically no difference was found between iSNM and cSNM, indicating that iSNM could be a feasible and cost-effective alternative. Neurourol. Urodynam. 36:385-389, 2017. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A Survey of Spinal Cord Stimulator Use by Chronic Pain Patients While Driving

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to assess utilization of spinal cord stimulator (SCS) devices while driving a vehicle and potential association with motor vehicle accidents (MVAs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A telephone survey study was conducted in two phases, from 2001 to 2008 and from 2009 to 2011. Patients selected for the survey were age 18 or older and at least one year post-SCS implantation, demonstrating stable analgesic use for at least six months, and reporting a minimum of 50% pain relief and enhancement of activities of daily living. Both phases of the study evaluated for degree of utilization of SCS while driving a motor vehicle as well as associated accidents. Additionally, patients with active SCS use while driving were further asked in the second phase of the study about mileage per week and first activation of the device postimplant.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven percent of the 78 patients contacted were active drivers and of these, 80% reported chronic and consistent use of SCS for the analgesic benefit while operating a motor vehicle. Eleven percent reported MVAs, which were not related to SCS. In the second phase of the study, participants reported a median of 100 miles driven per week with the SCS device on and began use of the device at a median of 21 days postimplant for up to 49 months.

CONCLUSION

Because of the perceived benefits of pain reduction, there is high utilization of active SCS while driving a motor vehicle and that does not seem predispose toward MVAs.

Spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain: current perspectives

Neuropathic pain constitutes a significant portion of chronic pain. Patients with neuropathic pain are usually more heavily burdened than patients with nociceptive pain. They suffer more often from insomnia, anxiety, and depression. Moreover, analgesic medication often has an insufficient effect on neuropathic pain. Spinal cord stimulation constitutes a therapy alternative that, to date, remains underused. In the last 10 to 15 years, it has undergone constant technical advancement. This review gives an overview of the present practice of spinal cord stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain and current developments such as high-frequency stimulation and peripheral nerve field stimulation.

Analgesic efficacy of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation is a recognized treatment of chronic neuropathic and vascular pain. Recent data suggest that the use of very high-frequency (HF) stimulation modes does produce analgesia without paresthesia.

AIM OF THE STUDY

To compare the efficacy of HF stimulation (HF spinal cord stimulation [HFSCS]) and sham stimulation on the patient's global impression of change (PGIC), pain intensity, and quality of life.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty patients who have achieved stable pain relief with conventional SCS have been recruited. After randomization, HFSCS and sham are initiated in a double-blind randomized two-period-crossover design.

RESULTS

Complete data were available from 33 patients. The primary outcome was a minimal improvement in the PGIC. The proportion of patients responding under HFSCS was 42.4% (14/33 patients) vs. 30.3% (10/33 patients) in the sham condition. The mean benefit of HF vs. sham was not statistically significant with a proportion of 11.2% in favor of HFSCS (p = 0.30). There was a highly statistically significant "period effect," irrespective of treatment received, with 51.5% of patients (N = 17) improving at visit 3 vs. 21.2% (N = 7) at visit 5 (p = 0.006). The mean pain visual analog scale (VAS) on sham was 4.26 vs. 4.35 on HFSCS (p = 0.82) and the mean EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) index with HFSCS was 0.480 vs. 0.463 with sham (p = 0.78).

CONCLUSION

This is the first randomized double-blind study on SCS. HFSCS was equivalent to sham for the primary outcome (improvement of PGIC) as well as for both the secondary outcomes (VAS and EQ-5D index). There was a highly statistically significant "period effect" (p = 0.006) with improved PGIC scores in the first study period regardless of the treatment. The same trend was seen for VAS and EQ-5D. It appears that the effect of HFSCS and sham is equal and only the order in the sequence, not the nature of the treatment, seems to dictate the effect.

Dorsal column stimulator applications

Background:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used to treat neuropathic pain since 1967. Following that, technological progress, among other advances, helped SCS become an effective tool to reduce pain.

Methods:

This article is a non-systematic review of the mechanism of action, indications, results, programming parameters, complications, and cost-effectiveness of SCS.

Results:

In spite of the existence of several studies that try to prove the mechanism of action of SCS, it still remains unknown. The mechanism of action of SCS would be based on the antidromic activation of the dorsal column fibers, which activate the inhibitory interneurons within the dorsal horn. At present, the indications of SCS are being revised constantly, while new applications are being proposed and researched worldwide. Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is the most common indication for SCS, whereas, the complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is the second one. Also, this technique is useful in patients with refractory angina and critical limb ischemia, in whom surgical or endovascular treatment cannot be performed. Further indications may be phantom limb pain, chronic intractable pain located in the head, face, neck, or upper extremities, spinal lumbar stenosis in patients who are not surgical candidates, and others.

Conclusion:

Spinal cord stimulation is a useful tool for neuromodulation, if an accurate patient selection is carried out prior, which should include a trial period. Undoubtedly, this proper selection and a better knowledge of its underlying mechanisms of action, will allow this cutting edge technique to be more acceptable among pain physicians.