Current challenges in spinal cord stimulation

Electrical neuromodulation for the treatment of chronic pain: derivation of the intrinsic barriers, outcomes and considerations of the sustainability of implantable spinal cord stimulation therapies

INTRODUCTION

For over 60 years, spinal cord stimulation has endured as a therapy through innovation and novel developments. Current practice of neuromodulation requires proper patient selection, risk mitigation and use of innovation. However, there are tangible and intangible challenges in physiology, clinical science and within society.

AREAS COVERED

We provide a narrative discussion regarding novel topics in the field especially over the last decade. We highlight the challenges in the patient care setting including selection, as well as economic and socioeconomic challenges. Physician training challenges in neuromodulation is explored as well as other factors related to the use of neuromodulation such as novel indications and economics. We also discuss the concepts of technology and healthcare data.

EXPERT OPINION

Patient safety and durable outcomes are the mainstay goal for neuromodulation. Substantial work is needed to assimilate data for larger and more relevant studies reflecting a population. Big data and global interconnectivity efforts provide substantial opportunity to reinvent our scientific approach, data analysis and its management to maximize outcomes and minimize risk. As improvements in data analysis become the standard of innovation and physician training meets demand, we expect to see an expansion of novel indications and its use in broader cohorts.

Computational modeling of dorsal root ganglion stimulation using an Injectrode

Objective.Minimally invasive neuromodulation therapies like the Injectrode, which is composed of a tightly wound polymer-coated Platinum/Iridium microcoil, offer a low-risk approach for administering electrical stimulation to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG). This flexible electrode is aimed to conform to the DRG. The stimulation occurs through a transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) patch, which subsequently transmits the stimulation to the Injectrode via a subcutaneous metal collector. However, it is important to note that the effectiveness of stimulation through TES relies on the specific geometrical configurations of the Injectrode-collector-patch system. Hence, there is a need to investigate which design parameters influence the activation of targeted neural structures.Approach.We employed a hybrid computational modeling approach to analyze the impact of Injectrode system design parameters on charge delivery and neural response to stimulation. We constructed multiple finite element method models of DRG stimulation, followed by the implementation of multi-compartment models of DRG neurons. By calculating potential distribution during monopolar stimulation, we simulated neural responses using various parameters based on prior acute experiments. Additionally, we developed a canonical monopolar stimulation and full-scale model of bipolar bilateral L5 DRG stimulation, allowing us to investigate how design parameters like Injectrode size and orientation influenced neural activation thresholds.Main results.Our findings were in accordance with acute experimental measurements and indicate that the minimally invasive Injectrode system predominantly engages large-diameter afferents (Aβ-fibers). These activation thresholds were contingent upon the surface area of the Injectrode. As the charge density decreased due to increasing surface area, there was a corresponding expansion in the stimulation amplitude range before triggering any pain-related mechanoreceptor (Aδ-fibers) activity.Significance.The Injectrode demonstrates potential as a viable technology for minimally invasive stimulation of the DRG. Our findings indicate that utilizing a larger surface area Injectrode enhances the therapeutic margin, effectively distinguishing the desired Aβactivation from the undesired Aδ-fiber activation.

Exploratory evaluation of spinal cord stimulation with dynamic pulse patterns: a promising approach to improve stimulation sensation, coverage of pain areas, and expected pain relief

Background

The societal burden of chronic pain and the contribution-in-part to the opioid crisis, is a strong motivation to improve and expand non-addictive treatments, including spinal cord stimulation (SCS). For several decades standard SCS has consisted in delivery of tonic pulses with static parameter settings in frequency, pulse width, and amplitude. These static parameters have limited ability to personalize the quality of paresthesia, the dermatomal coverage, and thus may affect SCS efficacy. Further, static settings may contribute to the build-up of tolerance or loss of efficacy of the therapy over time in some patients.

Methods

We conducted an acute exploratory study to evaluate the effects of SCS using time-dynamic pulses as compared to time-static (conventional tonic) stimulation pulses, with the hypotheses that dynamic pulse SCS may enable beneficial tailoring of the sensation and the patient's expectation for better pain relief with SCS. During a single clinic visit, consented subjects undergoing a standard SCS trial had their implanted leads temporarily connected to an investigational external stimulator capable of delivering time-static and six categories of time-dynamic pulse sequences, each characterized by continuously varying a stimulation parameter. Study subjects provided several assessments while blinded to the stimulation pattern, including: drawing of paresthesia maps, descriptions of sensation, and ratings for comfort and helpfulness to pain relief.

Results

Even without optimization of the field location, a majority of subjects rated sensations from dynamic stimulation as better or equal to that of static stimulation for comfortableness and for helpfulness to pain relief. The initial data showed a gender and/or pain dermatomal location related preference to a stimulation pattern. In particular, female subjects and subjects with pain at higher dermatomes tended to rank the sensation from dynamic stimulation better. Dynamic stimulation produced greater pain coverage without optimization; in 70% (9/13) of subjects, maximal pain coverage was achieved with a dynamic stimulation pattern. There was also greater variety in the words used by patients to describe stimulation sensation in the free text and free form verbal descriptions associated with dynamic stimulation.

Conclusions

With the same electrode configuration and comparable parameter settings, acute SCS using dynamic pulses produced more positive ratings, expanded paresthesia coverage, and greater variation in sensation as compared to SCS using static pulses, suggesting that dynamic stimulation has the potential to improve capabilities of SCS for the treatment of chronic pain. Further study is warranted.

Trial Registration

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under ID NCT02988713, November 2016 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02988713).

Neurostimulation for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review of High-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials With Long-Term Follow-Up

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to review the best evidence on the long-term efficacy of neurostimulation for chronic pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed PubMed, CENTRAL, and WikiStim for studies published between the inception of the data bases and July 21, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimum of one-year follow-up that were of high methodologic quality as ascertained using the Delphi list criteria were included in the evidence synthesis. The primary outcome was long-term reduction in pain intensity, and the secondary outcomes were all other reported outcomes. Level of recommendation was graded from I to III, with level I being the highest level of recommendation.

RESULTS

Of the 7119 records screened, 24 RCTs were included in the evidence synthesis. Therapies with recommendations for their usage include pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) for postherpetic neuralgia, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for trigeminal neuralgia, motor cortex stimulation for neuropathic pain and poststroke pain, deep brain stimulation for cluster headache, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation for cluster headache, occipital nerve stimulation for migraine, peripheral nerve field stimulation for back pain, and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for back and leg pain, nonsurgical back pain, persistent spinal pain syndrome, and painful diabetic neuropathy. Closed-loop SCS is recommended over open-loop SCS for back and leg pain. SCS is recommended over PRF for postherpetic neuralgia. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation is recommended over SCS for complex regional pain syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurostimulation is generally effective in the long term as an adjunctive treatment for chronic pain. Future studies should evaluate whether the multidisciplinary management of the physical perception of pain, affect, and social stressors is superior to their management alone.

An optimization framework for targeted spinal cord stimulation

Objective. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a common neurostimulation therapy to manage chronic pain. Technological advances have produced new neurostimulation systems with expanded capabilities in an attempt to improve the clinical outcomes associated with SCS. However, these expanded capabilities have dramatically increased the number of possible stimulation parameters and made it intractable to efficiently explore this large parameter space within the context of standard clinical programming procedures. Therefore, in this study, we developed an optimization approach to define the optimal current amplitudes or fractions across individual contacts in an SCS electrode array(s).Approach. We developed an analytic method using the Lagrange multiplier method along with smoothing approximations. To test our optimization framework, we used a hybrid computational modeling approach that consisted of a finite element method model and multi-compartment models of axons and cells within the spinal cord. Moreover, we extended our approach to multi-objective optimization to explore the trade-off between activating regions of interest (ROIs) and regions of avoidance (ROAs).Main results. For simple ROIs, our framework suggested optimized configurations that resembled simple bipolar configurations. However, when we considered multi-objective optimization, our framework suggested nontrivial stimulation configurations that could be selected from Pareto fronts to target multiple ROIs or avoid ROAs.Significance. We developed an optimization framework for targeted SCS. Our method is analytic, which allows for the fast calculation of optimal solutions. For the first time, we provided a multi-objective approach for selective SCS. Through this approach, we were able to show that novel configurations can provide neural recruitment profiles that are not possible with conventional stimulation configurations (e.g. bipolar stimulation). Most importantly, once integrated with computational models that account for sources of interpatient variability (e.g. anatomy, electrode placement), our optimization framework can be utilized to provide stimulation settings tailored to the needs of individual patients.

Computational modeling of dorsal root ganglion stimulation using an Injectrode

Objective

Minimally invasive neuromodulation therapies like the Injectrode, which is composed of a tightly wound polymer-coated platinum/iridium microcoil, offer a low-risk approach for administering electrical stimulation to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG). This flexible electrode is aimed to conform to the DRG. The stimulation occurs through a transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TES) patch, which subsequently transmits the stimulation to the Injectrode via a subcutaneous metal collector. However, effectiveness of stimulation relies on the specific geometrical configurations of the Injectrode-collector-patch system. Hence, there is a need to investigate which design parameters influence the activation of targeted neural structures.

Approach

We employed a hybrid computational modeling approach to analyze the impact of the Injectrode system design parameters on charge delivery and the neural response to stimulation. We constructed multiple finite element method models of DRG stimulation and multi-compartment models of DRG neurons. We simulated the neural responses using parameters based on prior acute preclinical experiments. Additionally, we developed multiple human-scale computational models of DRG stimulation to investigate how design parameters like Injectrode size and orientation influenced neural activation thresholds.

Main results

Our findings were in accordance with acute experimental measurements and indicated that the Injectrode system predominantly engages large-diameter afferents (Aβ-fibers). These activation thresholds were contingent upon the surface area of the Injectrode. As the charge density decreased due to increasing surface area, there was a corresponding expansion in the stimulation amplitude range before triggering any pain-related mechanoreceptor (Aδ-fibers) activity.

Significance

The Injectrode demonstrates potential as a viable technology for minimally invasive stimulation of the DRG. Our findings indicate that utilizing a larger surface area Injectrode enhances the therapeutic margin, effectively distinguishing the desired Aβ activation from the undesired Aδ-fiber activation.

Generation of direct current electrical fields as regenerative therapy for spinal cord injury: A review

Electrical stimulation (ES) shows promise as a therapy to promote recovery and regeneration after spinal cord injury. ES therapy establishes beneficial electric fields (EFs) and has been investigated in numerous studies, which date back nearly a century. In this review, we discuss the various engineering approaches available to generate regenerative EFs through direct current electrical stimulation and very low frequency electrical stimulation. We highlight the electrode-tissue interface, which is important for the appropriate choice of electrode material and stimulator circuitry. We discuss how to best estimate and control the generated field, which is an important measure for comparability of studies. Finally, we assess the methods used in these studies to measure functional recovery after the injury and treatment. This work reviews studies in the field of ES therapy with the goal of supporting decisions regarding best stimulation strategy and recovery assessment for future work.

Neurotechnology for Pain

Neurotechnologies for treating pain rely on electrical stimulation of the central or peripheral nervous system to disrupt or block pain signaling and have been commercialized to treat a variety of pain conditions. While their adoption is accelerating, neurotechnologies are still frequently viewed as a last resort, after many other treatment options have been explored. We review the pain conditions commonly treated with electrical stimulation, as well as the specific neurotechnologies used for treating those conditions. We identify barriers to adoption, including a limited understanding of mechanisms of action, inconsistent efficacy across patients, and challenges related to selectivity of stimulation and off-target side effects. We describe design improvements that have recently been implemented, as well as some cutting-edge technologies that may address the limitations of existing neurotechnologies. Addressing these challenges will accelerate adoption and change neurotechnologies from last-line to first-line treatments for people living with chronic pain.

Combination therapy with simultaneous delivery of spinal cord stimulation modalities: COMBO randomized controlled trial

Aim: The Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of various spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities for chronic pain. Specifically, combination therapy (simultaneous use of customized sub-perception field and paresthesia-based SCS) versus monotherapy (paresthesia-based SCS) was evaluated. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled (key inclusion criterion: chronic pain for ≥6 months). Primary end point was the proportion with ≥50% pain reduction without increased opioids at the 3-month follow-up. Patients were followed for 2 years. Results: The primary end point was met (n = 89; p < 0.0001) in 88% of patients in the combination-therapy arm (n = 36/41) and 71% in the monotherapy arm (n = 34/48). Responder rates at 1 and 2 years (with available SCS modalities) were 84% and 85%, respectively. Sustained functional outcomes improvement was observed out to 2 years. Conclusion: SCS-based combination therapy can improve outcomes in patients with chronic pain. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03689920 (ClinicalTrials.gov), Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes (COMBO).

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation for the treatment of joint pain with predominantly nociceptive characteristics: A case series

INTRODUCTION

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) has recently emerged as a novel therapy in neuromodulation that demonstrated a higher rate of success than spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in a prospective, head-to-head randomized comparative trial to treat complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and causalgia. In contrast to SCS, DRG-S also shows promise in treating conditions that are not purely neuropathic such as axial low back pain, which has a prominent nociplastic pain component. It is not known to what extent the effectiveness of DRG-S for such indications is due to effective treatment of the neuropathic pain component versus the effects of DRG-S on mechanical pain. Although rarely studied, reporting outcomes of DRG-S to treat predominantly mechanical/nociceptive pain may help point toward expanding the utility of this therapy. Here, we present five cases of refractory mechanical pain treated with DRG-S.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent a successful DRG-S trial and implant between September 2017 and September 2021 at our institute was performed. Patients who had intractable joint pain without strong evidence of neuropathic pain were included in this case series. The Budapest criteria for CRPS, the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) survey, or a definable nerve injury were used to determine the presence of neuropathic pain. Baseline assessments for pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]), function (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimension [EQ-5D]), and other applicable joint surveys were extracted from pre-trial baseline and follow-up appointments.

RESULTS

Five patients were identified and included. Patient diagnoses consisted of refractory joint pain of the hip, knee, or ankle. Mean NRS pain scores improved by 74% from 9.2 at baseline to 2.4 at the last follow-up (mean = 28 months post-implant). From baseline to the last follow-up, mean ODI scores improved by 65% from 66 to 23 and EQ-5D scores more than doubled from an average of 0.371 to 0.797.

CONCLUSION

This clinical report illustrates the potential utility DRG-S has in treating pain that clinically presents as predominantly refractory mechanical joint pain without a significant neuropathic component. The physiological reasons for our observations may be that DRG-S is able to directly influence the conduction of nociceptive signaling at the DRG and within the spinal cord. Further investigations are warranted to determine if DRG-S is a potential treatment option for chronic mechanical pain.

Early Experience With a Novel Miniaturized Spinal Cord Stimulation System for the Management of Chronic Intractable Pain of the Back and Legs

INTRODUCTION

A novel, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system with a battery-free miniaturized implantable pulse generator (IPG) was used in this feasibility study. The system uses an external power source that communicates bidirectionally with the IPG (< 1.5 cm³). Human factors, subject comfort, and effects on low back and leg pain were evaluated in this first-in-human study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, open-label clinical trial was initiated to evaluate the safety and performance of a novel miniaturized stimulator in the treatment of chronic, intractable leg and low-back pain. Eligible subjects were recruited for the study and gave consent. Subjects who passed the screening/trial phase (defined as ≥ 50% decrease in pain) continued to the long-term implant phase and were followed up at predefined time points after device activation. Interim clinical and usability outcomes were captured and reported at 90 days.

RESULTS

Results of 22 subjects who chose a novel pulsed stimulation pattern therapy using the battery-free IPG (< 1.5 cm³) are described here. At 90-days follow-up, the average pain reduction was 79% in the leg (n = 22; p < 0.0001) and 76% in the low back (n = 21; p < 0.0001) compared with baseline. Responder rates (≥ 50% pain relief) at 90 days were 86% in leg pain (19/22) and 81% in low-back pain (17/21). Subjects rated the level of comfort of the external wearable power source to be 0.41 ± 0.73 at 90 days on an 11-point rating scale (0 = very comfortable, 10 = very uncomfortable).

DISCUSSION

These interim results from the ongoing study indicate the favorable efficacy and usability of a novel, externally powered, battery-free SCS IPG (< 1.5 cm³) for leg and low-back pain. Study subjects wore the external power source continuously and found it comfortable, and the system provided significant pain relief. These preliminary findings warrant further investigation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is ACTRN12618001862235.

Spinal cord stimulation: Beyond pain management

INTRODUCTION

The gate control theory of pain was the starting point of the development of spinal cord stimulation (SCS). We describe the indications for the treatment in pain management and other uses not related to pain.

DEVELOPMENT

There are currently several paradigms for SCS: tonic, burst, and high frequency. The main difference lies in the presence of paraesthesias. SCS is most beneficial for treating neuropathic pain. Patients with failed back surgery syndrome show the best response rates, although a considerable reduction in pain is also observed in patients with complex regional pain syndrome, diabetic neuropathy, radiculopathy, and low back pain without previous surgery. Phantom pain or pain related to cardiovascular or peripheral vascular disease may improve, although there is a lack of robust evidence supporting generalisation of its use. SCS also improves cancer-related pain, although research on this issue is scarce. Non-pain-related indications for SCS are movement disorders, spasticity, and sequelae of spinal cord injury. The main limiting factors for the use of SCS are mechanical complications and the cost of the treatment.

CONCLUSION

In its 50-year history, SCS has progressed enormously. The perfection of hardware and software may improve its effectiveness and reduce the rate of complications. Indications for SCS could include other diseases, and its use could be expanded, if the costs of the technology are reduced.

Efficacy of Repetitive Trans-spinal Magnetic Stimulation for Patients with Parkinson's Disease: a Randomised Controlled Trial

We evaluated the effect of repetitive trans-spinal magnetic stimulation (rTSMS) in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) in a randomised, single-blind study. Participants were hospitalised and administered a single trial of rTSMS or sham treatment 2 days a week for 4 weeks. In addition, all participants underwent rehabilitation 5 days a week for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was the difference between the two groups in the mean change from baseline to post-training in the total score on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS). Secondary endpoints included the differences between the two groups in the mean change on the UPDRS part III (motor) score and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) score. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to either the rTSMS group (n = 50) or sham group (n = 50). The between-group difference in mean change in the total UPDRS score was 10.28 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.42 to 16.13; P = 0.014) immediately after intervention from baseline, 5.04 (95% CI, - 5.41 to 15.50; P = 0.024) 3 months after intervention from baseline and 2.38 (95% CI, 7.18 to 11.85; P = 0.045) 6 months after intervention from baseline. Significant differences between groups in UPDRS part III and TUG scores were maintained more strictly than those in the UPDRS total score. These results strongly indicate that rTSMS promotes the effect of rehabilitation on motor function in patients with PD.

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Chronic Pain: Hypothesized Mechanisms of Action

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) is a neuromodulation therapy for chronic pain that is refractory to conventional medical management. Currently, the mechanisms of action of DRGS-induced pain relief are unknown, precluding both our understanding of why DRGS fails to provide pain relief to some patients and the design of neurostimulation technologies that directly target these mechanisms to maximize pain relief in all patients. Due to the heterogeneity of sensory neurons in the dorsal root ganglion (DRG), the analgesic mechanisms could be attributed to the modulation of one or many cell types within the DRG and the numerous brain regions that process sensory information. Here, we summarize the leading hypotheses of the mechanisms of DRGS-induced analgesia, and propose areas of future study that will be vital to improving the clinical implementation of DRGS. PERSPECTIVE: This article synthesizes the evidence supporting the current hypotheses of the mechanisms of action of DRGS for chronic pain and suggests avenues for future interdisciplinary research which will be critical to fully elucidate the analgesic mechanisms of the therapy.

Gaps and roadmap of novel neuromodulation targets for treatment of gait in Parkinson's disease

Gait issues in Parkinson's disease (PD) are common and can be highly disabling. Although levodopa and deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus and the globus pallidus internus have been established therapies for addressing the motor symptoms of PD, their effects on gait are less predictable and not well sustained with disease progression. Given the high prevalence of gait impairment in PD and the limitations in currently approved therapies, there has been considerable interest in alternative neuromodulation targets and techniques. These have included DBS of pedunculopontine nucleus and substantia nigra pars reticulata, spinal cord stimulation, non-invasive modulation of cortical regions and, more recently, vagus nerve stimulation. However, successes and failures have also emerged with these approaches. Current gaps and controversies are related to patient selection, optimal electrode placement within the target, placebo effects and the optimal programming parameters. Additionally, recent advances in pathophysiology of oscillation dynamics have driven new models of closed-loop DBS systems that may or may not be applicable to gait issues. Our aim is to describe approaches, especially neuromodulation procedures, and emerging challenges to address PD gait issues beyond subthalamic nucleus and the globus pallidus internus stimulation.

New developments for spinal cord stimulation

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Newer SCS waveforms have improved patient outcomes, leading to its increased utilization among many pain conditions. More recently, SCS has been used to treat some symptoms in several movement disorders because of its good profile tolerability and capacity to stimulate local and distant areas of the central nervous system. After the original experimental findings in animal models of Parkinson's disease (PD) in the late 2000s, several studies have reported the beneficial clinical effects of SCS stimulation on gait in PD patients. Additionally, the spinal cord has emerged as a potential therapeutic target to treat essential and orthostatic tremor, some forms of ataxia, and atypical parkinsonisms. In this chapter, we describe the most recent advances in SCS for pain and the rationale and potential mechanism of action of stimulating the spinal cord for treating movement disorders, focusing on its network modulation. We also summarize the main clinical studies performed to date as well as their limitations and future perspectives.

The Use of Remote Programming for Spinal Cord Stimulation for Patients With Chronic Pain During the COVID-19 Outbreak in China

ObjectiveS

Due to the impact of COVID-19 epidemic, face-to-face follow-up treatments for patients with chronic pain and implanted spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices are forced to be delayed or stopped. This has led to more follow ups being done remotely. Meanwhile, with the development of 4G/5G networks, smartphones, and novel devices, remote programming has become possible. Here, we investigated the demand and utility of remote follow-ups including remote programming for SCS for patients with chronic pain.

Materials and Methods

A questionnaire including questions on demographic characteristics, pain history, postimplantation life quality, standard follow-up experience, remote follow-up, and remote programming experience was sent to patients diagnosed as chronic intractable pain and treated with SCS during January 2019 to January 2020.

Results

A total of 64 participants completed the questionnaire. About 70% of participants expressed demands for remote follow-ups due to the inconvenience, high costs, and time consumption of traditional follow-up visits. Nearly 97% of participants have attempted remote follow-ups, and about 81% of participants have further tried remote programming. Approximately, 96% of them recognized the benefits.

Conclusions

The remote programming was in high demand among participants. Most of the participants have tried remote follow-ups or even remote programming. The remote programming appeared to be more efficient, economic and were widely recognized among participants.

Current Perspectives on Neurostimulation for the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review

Neurostimulation techniques for the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP) have been rapidly evolving; however, questions remain as to which modalities provide the most efficacious and durable treatment for intractable axial symptoms. Modalities of spinal cord stimulation, such as traditional low-frequency paresthesia based, high-density or high dose (HD), burst, 10-kHz high-frequency therapy, closed-loop, and differential target multiplexed, have been limitedly studied to determine their efficacy for the treatment of axial LBP. In addition, stimulation methods that target regions other than the spinal cord, such as medial branch nerve stimulation of the multifidus muscles and the dorsal root ganglion may also be viable treatment options. Here, current scientific evidence behind neurostimulation techniques have been reviewed with a focus on the management of chronic axial LBP.

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation as Treatment for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome of the Foot Refractory to Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Case Report

The ACCURATE study demonstrated non-inferiority and superiority of dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) over traditional spinal cord stimulation (t-SCS) in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Yet, its efficacy in patients who had previously failed SCS therapy is unknown. A mid-60-year-old-male patient with right foot CRPS previously implanted with SCS system experienced relapse in pain. The patient was offered DRGS at right L5/S1 with 90% pain reduction. The patient subsequently proceeded to implant with continued pain relief. This case report demonstrates the effectiveness of DRGS in a patient who previously failed SCS. DRGS can be a viable salvage treatment option in the face of tolerance or loss of efficacy with SCS.

Time-dynamic pulse modulation of spinal cord stimulation reduces mechanical hypersensitivity and spontaneous pain in rats

Enhancing the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is needed to alleviate the burden of chronic pain and dependence on opioids. Present SCS therapies are characterized by the delivery of constant stimulation in the form of trains of tonic pulses (TPs). We tested the hypothesis that modulated SCS using novel time-dynamic pulses (TDPs) leads to improved analgesia and compared the effects of SCS using conventional TPs and a collection of TDPs in a rat model of neuropathic pain according to a longitudinal, double-blind, and crossover design. We tested the effects of the following SCS patterns on paw withdrawal threshold and resting state EEG theta power as a biomarker of spontaneous pain: Tonic (conventional), amplitude modulation, pulse width modulation, sinusoidal rate modulation, and stochastic rate modulation. Results demonstrated that under the parameter settings tested in this study, all tested patterns except pulse width modulation, significantly reversed mechanical hypersensitivity, with stochastic rate modulation achieving the highest efficacy, followed by the sinusoidal rate modulation. The anti-nociceptive effects of sinusoidal rate modulation on EEG outlasted SCS duration on the behavioral and EEG levels. These results suggest that TDP modulation may improve clinical outcomes by reducing pain intensity and possibly improving the sensory experience.

Neuromodulation of the Dorsal Root Ganglion for Chronic Postsurgical Pain

Objective

The objective of this study is to review the available evidence for dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome type II (CRPS II; peripheral causalgia) associated with chronic neuropathic postsurgical pain (NPP).

Design

Available literature was identified through a search of the US National Library of Medicine’s Medline database, PubMed.gov. References from published articles also were reviewed for relevant citations.

Results

The data published to date support the use of DRG stimulation to treat chronic NPP of the groin, knee, and foot. NPP following procedures such as thoracotomy, hernia surgery, and knee replacement surgery were identified as some of the conditions for which DRG stimulation is likely to be effective.

Conclusion

DRG stimulation is known to be an effective treatment for focal neuropathic pain. Currently, NPP of the foot, groin, and knee all appear to be the conditions with the most clinical experience, backed by a limited but growing body of evidence. However, prospective studies lag behind real-world clinical experience and are needed to confirm these findings.

The Evolution of Neuromodulation in the Treatment of Chronic Pain: Forward-Looking Perspectives

Background

The field of neuromodulation is continually evolving, with the past decade showing significant advancement in the therapeutic efficacy of neuromodulation procedures. The continued evolution of neuromodulation technology brings with it the promise of addressing the needs of both patients and physicians, as current technology improves and clinical applications expand.

Design

This review highlights the current state of the art of neuromodulation for treating chronic pain, describes key areas of development including stimulation patterns and neural targets, expanding indications and applications, feedback-controlled systems, noninvasive approaches, and biomarkers for neuromodulation and technology miniaturization.

Results and Conclusions

The field of neuromodulation is undergoing a renaissance of technology development with potential for profoundly improving the care of chronic pain patients. New and emerging targets like the dorsal root ganglion, as well as high-frequency and patterned stimulation methodologies such as burst stimulation, are paving the way for better clinical outcomes. As we look forward to the future, neural sensing, novel target-specific stimulation patterns, and approaches combining neuromodulation therapies are likely to significantly impact how neuromodulation is used. Moreover, select biomarkers may influence and guide the use of neuromodulation and help objectively demonstrate efficacy and outcomes.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Freezing of Gait: From Bench to Bedside

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used for the treatment of chronic pain for nearly five decades. With a high degree of efficacy and a low incidence of adverse events, it is now considered to be a suitable therapeutic alternative in most guidelines. Experimental studies suggest that SCS may also be used as a therapy for motor and gait dysfunction in parkinsonian states. The most common and disabling gait dysfunction in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) is freezing of gait (FoG). We review the evolution of SCS for gait disorders from bench to bedside and discuss potential mechanisms of action, neural substrates, and clinical outcomes.

Implantable Pulse Generator Site May Be Associated With Spinal Cord Stimulation Revision Surgeries

BACKGROUND

The use of implantable pulse generators (IPG) for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with chronic pain has been well established. Although IPG-related complications have been reported on, the association between IPG site and SCS complications has not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether IPG placement site in buttock or flank is associated with SCS complications and, hence, revision surgeries.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study was performed that included 330 patients (52% female) treated at a single institution who underwent permanent implantation of an SCS system between 2014 and 2018. Patients ranged between 20 and 94 years of age (mean: 57.54 ± 13.25). Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics. Tests included independent samples t test, chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U test, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, and logistic regression.

RESULTS

There was a total of 93 revision surgeries (rate of 28%), where 71 out of 330 patients (rate of 21.5%) had had at least one revision surgery. Univariate tests demonstrated a significant association between IPG site and revision surgeries (p = 0.028 [chi-square test] and p = 0.031 [Mann-Whitney U test]); however, multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that neither IPG site was more likely than the other to require revision surgeries (p = 0.286).

CONCLUSION

Although this study found a significant association between IPG site and revision surgeries, the effect of IPG site was not found to be predictive. The IPG site likely influences whether a patient will require revision surgery, but further investigation is required to establish this association.

The effect of spinal cord stimulation on pain medication reduction in intractable spine and limb pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis

Objective: To synthesize the evidence regarding the effect of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) on opioid and pain medication reduction in patients with intractable spine or limb pain.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify RCTs of patients with chronic back and/or limb pain of greater than one year duration. Only comparative studies were included (ie, conventional SCS vs medical therapy, conventional SCS vs high-frequency SCS) and were required to have a minimum follow-up period of 3 months. Random effect meta-an alysis was used to compare the three interventions. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: We identified five trials enrolling 489 patients. Three of the trials reported the results as a number of patients who were able to reduce or eliminate opioid consumption in the SCS vs medical therapy group. The odds of reducing opioid consumption were significantly increased in the SCS group compared to medical therapy (OR 8.60, CI {1.93–38.30}). Two of the trials reported the results as mean medication dose reduction as measured by the Medication Quantification Scale (MQS) in the SCS group vs medical therapy group. MQS score significantly decreased in the SCS group and not in the medical group (WMD –1.97, 95% CI {–3.67, –0.27}). One trial reported a number of patients in high-frequency SCS who were able to reduce opioids vs number of patients in conventional SCS group who were able to reduce opioids. Thirty-four percent of the patients in the high-frequency group and 26% of the patients in the conventional SCS group were able to reduce opioid consumption; however, there was not a significant difference between groups (OR 1.43, 95% CI {0.74, 2.78}). This trial also quantified the opioid reduction in morphine equivalent dosage (MED). In the high-frequency SCS group, average MED decreased by 24.8 mg vs average MED decrease of 7.3 mg in the conventional SCS group. Again, the difference between groups did not reach statistical significance (–17.50, CI {–66.27, 31.27}).

Conclusions: In patients with intractable spine/limb pain, SCS was associated with increased odds of reducing pain medication consumption. However, results should be treated with caution as available data were limited, and clinical significance of these findings requires further study.

Innovations in spinal cord stimulation for pain

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a neuromodulation therapy used to treat medically refractory chronic pain. In SCS, an implanted pulse generator produces electrical signals that are conveyed through electrode arrays located in the region of the spinal cord. The goal of SCS is to modulate neural signaling through spinal and supraspinal mechanisms to reduce pain. Although available for decades, SCS still enjoys only limited clinical success, limited quality-of-life improvement, and limited long-term efficacy. To improve SCS outcomes, advances in lead design, stimulator features, and waveform paradigms have been recently introduced. While it is an exciting time for the neuromodulation field, empirical SCS advances have surpassed scientific understanding of SCS mechanisms of action. We still do not know why SCS works in some patients but not in others. We also lack information-rich biomarkers of pain and pain relief through which to optimize SCS programming. To optimize both system designs and clinical implementations of SCS, it is critical that we address these scientific and mechanistic knowledge gaps.

Safety of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients Who Routinely Use Anticoagulants

Objective

We assess the safety of performing the epidural placement or revision of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients whose anticoagulation has been held (termed "anticoagulant-suspended" patients) in accordance with the 2017 Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) guidelines.

Subjects

Patients undergoing SCS were included in this institutional review board-approved study.

Design

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database was performed. Any adverse event occurring within 90 days after SCS lead placement/revision was included.

Results

A total of 225 patients who had a total of 239 surgeries including lead placement or lead revision were included; 182 patients were not on anticoagulants, 37 patients used one anticoagulant, and six patients used two or more anticoagulants. There were 13 adverse events. Anticoagulant use as a whole had no significant relationship to operative or postoperative adverse effects (χ2(1) = 1.613, P > 0.05). No anticoagulant on its own contributed significantly to adverse events; however, a small set of surgical cases showed a significantly greater incidence of adverse events for patients on enoxaparin used in combination with other anticoagulants (P < 0.05, N = 4).

Conclusions

This study is the first to demonstrate that anticoagulant-suspended patients have no increased risk of perioperative hemorrhagic or thromboembolic adverse effects following SCS surgery compared with nonanticoagulated patients. The findings of this study validate the safety of neuromodulation in anticoagulation-suspended patients, concurring with the findings of previously described case studies, which anecdotally described neuromodulation outcomes in patients whose anticoagulation regimen had been temporarily held.

Evaluating Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in a Prospective Dutch Cohort

OBJECTIVES

Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation is a recent neuromodulation option that has delivered safe, effective pain relief for a number of etiologies. This prospective observational study was intended to establish the effectiveness of this treatment in a typical real-world clinical context.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants with chronic, intractable pain of the trunk or lower limbs were recruited from multiple pain clinics in the Netherlands. Subjects were trialed and implanted with DRG stimulation systems. Pain, function, mood, and quality of life, ratings were collected through 12 months postimplant.

RESULTS

Of the 66 subjects enrolled, failed back surgery syndrome, peripheral nerve injury, and complex regional pain syndrome formed the largest etiologies. Permanent implants were placed in 86.2% subjects (56/65). After 12 months of treatment, average pain ratings in subjects' primary area of pain decreased from 8.0 cm at baseline to 4.1 cm, and 49% of subjects had ≥50% reduction in pain (visual analog scale). In addition, functional capacity was increased, and mood and quality of life improved. No confirmed lead migrations were observed, and there was a low rate of infection.

CONCLUSIONS

DRG stimulation significantly reduced the severity of subjects' pain and enabled participatory changes that improved quality of life through 12-months postimplant.

New advancements in spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To update the recent development of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) technology in the management of chronic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Efficacy of SCS therapy has been significantly improved by the recent development of high frequency (HF-10 kHz) stimulation, burst stimulation, and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. A few latest SCS modalities are in clinical trial. New approaches to guide lead placement and advances in surgical lead are introduced.

SUMMARY

HF-10 SCS is free of paresthesia and associated with significantly better coverage of axial lower back pain. Burst stimulation invokes minimal paresthesia and provides better coverage of low back pain. DRG stimulation results in better outcomes in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. It requires less energy and delivers consistent stimulation regardless of postural variations. Clinical trials with new SCS modalities, such as Stimwaves, are under way to make SCS wireless. Intraoperative neuromonitoring and paresthesia atlas may be used to guide lead placement. Multicolumn surgical paddle leads enable a combination of independent current control with up to 32 contacts for better programming and better coverage.

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation yielded higher treatment success rate for complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia at 3 and 12 months: a randomized comparative trial

A comparative effectiveness trial indicates that dorsal root ganglion stimulation provided a higher rate of treatment success with less postural variation in paresthesia intensity compared to spinal cord stimulation.

Animal and human studies indicate that electrical stimulation of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons may modulate neuropathic pain signals. ACCURATE, a pivotal, prospective, multicenter, randomized comparative effectiveness trial, was conducted in 152 subjects diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome or causalgia in the lower extremities. Subjects received neurostimulation of the DRG or dorsal column (spinal cord stimulation, SCS). The primary end point was a composite of safety and efficacy at 3 months, and subjects were assessed through 12 months for long-term outcomes and adverse events. The predefined primary composite end point of treatment success was met for subjects with a permanent implant who reported 50% or greater decrease in visual analog scale score from preimplant baseline and who did not report any stimulation-related neurological deficits. No subjects reported stimulation-related neurological deficits. The percentage of subjects receiving ≥50% pain relief and treatment success was greater in the DRG arm (81.2%) than in the SCS arm (55.7%, P < 0.001) at 3 months. Device-related and serious adverse events were not different between the 2 groups. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation also demonstrated greater improvements in quality of life and psychological disposition. Finally, subjects using DRG stimulation reported less postural variation in paresthesia (P < 0.001) and reduced extraneous stimulation in nonpainful areas (P = 0.014), indicating DRG stimulation provided more targeted therapy to painful parts of the lower extremities. As the largest prospective, randomized comparative effectiveness trial to date, the results show that DRG stimulation provided a higher rate of treatment success with less postural variation in paresthesia intensity compared to SCS.

Evidence Gaps in the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Treating Chronic Spine Conditions

STUDY DESIGN

A review of literature.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to define and explore the current evidence gaps in the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treating chronic spine conditions.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although over the last 40 years SCS therapy has undergone significant technological advancements, evidence gaps still exist.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to define current evidence gaps for the use of SCS. Areas of focus included 1) treatment of cervical spine conditions, 2) treatment of lumbar spine conditions, 3) technological advancement and device selection, 4) appropriate patient selection, 5) the ability to curb pharmacological treatment, and 6) methods to prolong efficacy over time. New SCS strategies using advanced waveforms are explored.

RESULTS

The efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of traditional SCS for chronic pain conditions are well-established. Evidence gaps do exist. Recently, advancement in waveforms and programming parameters have allowed for paresthesia-reduced/free stimulation that in specific clinical areas may improve clinical outcomes. New waveforms such as 10-kHz high-frequency have resulted in an improvement in back coverage. To date, clinical efficacy data are more prevalent for the treatment of painful conditions originating from the lumbar spine in comparison to the cervical spine.

CONCLUSION

Evidence gaps still exist that require appropriate study designs with long-term follow-up to better define and improve the use of this therapy for the treatment of chronic spine pain in both the cervical and lumbar regions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Chiropractic management of post spinal cord stimulator spine pain: a case report

Background

A brief overview of failed back surgery syndrome, with emphasis on low back pain status post spinal cord stimulation, and post-surgical spinal manipulation is presented.

Case Presentation

Four cases of patients within the VA Connecticut Health Care System presenting between July 2014 and July 2015 reporting low back pain after surgical insertion of spinal cord stimulators are discussed. This study describes the outcomes experienced by four patients with low back pain status post implanted spinal cord stimulators receiving manual therapy in the form of lumbar spine manipulation or mobilization.

Conclusion

All four patients denied adverse effects to spinal manipulation/mobilization and onset of new symptoms after treatment; two patients reported durable reduction in low back pain with increased tolerance to walking, standing, or lying down, one reported temporary relief of low back pain, and one reported no change in symptoms. Further investigation is needed to determine the benefit of spinal manipulation in patients with implanted spinal cord stimulators, but this study has shown the absence of adverse effects from manipulation or mobilization treatment, in regards to SCS.

Are there a guidelines for implantable spinal cord stimulator therapy in patients using chronic anticoagulation therapy? - A review of decision-making in the high-risk patient

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) are gaining increasing indications and utility in an expanding variety of clinical conditions. Complications and initial expenses have historically prevented the early use of SCS therapy despite ongoing efforts to educate and promote its utilization. At present, there exists no literature evidence of SCS implantation in a chronically anticoagulated patient, and neuromodulation manufacturers are conspicuously silent in providing warnings or recommendations in the face of anticoagulant use chronically. It would appear as through these issues demand scrutiny and industry as well as neuromodulation society advocacy and support in terms of the provision of coherent guidelines on how to proceed.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 79-year-old male returned to the neurosurgical clinic with persistent low back pain and leg heaviness due to adjacent level degenerative spondylosis and severe thoracic spinal stenosis. The patient had a notable history of multiple comorbidities along with atrial fibrillation requiring chronic anticoagulation. On initial presentation, he was educated with three choice of conservative medical therapy, intrathecal drug delivery system implantation, or additional lumbar decompression laminectomy with instrumented fusion of T10-L3 and a palliative surgical lead SCS implantation.

DESCRIPTION

A 79-year-old male returned to the neurosurgical clinic with persistent low back pain and leg heaviness due to adjacent level degenerative spondylosis and severe thoracic spinal stenosis. The patient had a notable history of multiple comorbidities along with atrial fibrillation requiring chronic anticoagulation. On initial presentation, he was educated with three choice of conservative medical therapy, intrathecal drug delivery system implantation, or additional lumbar decompression laminectomy with instrumented fusion of T10-L3 and a palliative surgical lead SCS implantation.

CONCLUSION

Our literature search did not reveal any evidence of SCS therapy among patients with chronic anticoagulation. This case illustrated a complicated clinical case scenario wherein a percutaneous SCS implantation would normally be contraindicated due to severe thoracic spinal stenosis and chronic anticoagulation which could lead to possible paralysis or even a lethal consequences associated with the possible formation of a thoracic epidural hematoma.

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.

Spinal cord stimulation: a review of the safety literature and proposal for perioperative evaluation and management

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

There is currently no consensus on appropriate perioperative management of patients with spinal cord stimulator implants. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered safe under strict labeling conditions. Electrocautery is generally not recommended in these patients but sometimes used despite known risks.

PURPOSE

The aim was to discuss the perioperative evaluation and management of patients with spinal cord stimulator implants.

STUDY DESIGN

A literature review, summary of device labeling, and editorial were performed, regarding the safety of spinal cord stimulator devices in the perioperative setting.

METHODS

A literature review was performed, and the labeling of each Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved spinal cord stimulation system was reviewed. The literature review was performed using PubMed and the FDA website (www.fda.gov).

RESULTS

Magnetic resonance imaging safety recommendations vary between the models. Certain systems allow for MRI of the brain to be performed, and only one system allows for MRI of the body to be performed, both under strict labeling conditions. Before an MRI is performed, it is imperative to ascertain that the system is intact, without any lead breaks or low impedances, as these can result in heating of the spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and injury to the patient. Monopolar electrocautery is generally not recommended for patients with SCS; however, in some circumstances, it is used when deemed required by the surgeon. When cautery is necessary, bipolar electrocautery is recommended. Modern electrocautery units are to be used with caution as there remains a risk of thermal injury to the tissue in contact with the SCS. As with MRI, electrocautery usage in patients with SCS systems with suspected breaks or abnormal impedances is unsafe and may cause injury to the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal cord stimulation is increasingly used in patients with pain of spinal origin, particularly to manage postlaminectomy syndrome. Knowledge of the safety concerns of SCS and appropriate perioperative evaluation and management of the SCS system can reduce risks and improve surgical planning.