Treatment of Neuropathic Pain and Functional Limitations Associated With Multiple Sclerosis Using an MRI-Compatible Spinal Cord Stimulator: A Case Report With Two Year Follow-Up and Literature Review

Epidural Spinal Cord Stimulation for Spasticity: a Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

Spasticity is a form of muscle hypertonia secondary to various diseases, including traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, and multiple sclerosis. Medical treatments are available; however, these often result in insufficient clinical response. This review evaluates the role of epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the treatment of spasticity and associated functional outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Embase, CENTRAL, and MEDLINE databases. We included studies that used epidural SCS to treat spasticity. Studies investigating functional electric stimulation, transcutaneous SCS, and animal models of spasticity were excluded. We also excluded studies that used SCS to treat other symptoms such as pain.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled rate of subjective improvement in spasticity was 78% (95% confidence interval, 64%-91%; I2 = 77%), 40% (95% confidence interval, 7%-73%; I2 = 88%) for increased H-reflex threshold or decreased Hoffman reflex/muscle response wave ratio, and 73% (65%-80%; I2 = 50%) for improved ambulation. Patients with spinal causes had better outcomes compared with patients with cerebral causes. Up to 10% of patients experienced complications including infections and hardware malfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review of the literature suggests that SCS may be a safe and useful tool for the management of spasticity; however, there is significant heterogeneity among studies. The quality of studies is also low. Further studies are needed to fully evaluate the usefulness of this technology, including various stimulation paradigms across different causes of spasticity.

Pharmacological and Non-pharmacological Approaches for the Management of Neuropathic Pain in Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis is a chronic inflammatory disease that affects the central nervous system and can cause various types of pain including ongoing extremity pain, Lhermitte's phenomenon, trigeminal neuralgia, and mixed pain. Neuropathic pain is a major concern for individuals with multiple sclerosis as it is directly linked to myelin damage in the central nervous system and the management of neuropathic pain in multiple sclerosis is challenging as the options available have limited efficacy and can cause unpleasant side effects. The literature search was conducted across two databases, PubMed, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies included clinical trials, observational studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and narrative reviews. The objective of this article is to provide an overview of literature on pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies employed in the management of neuropathic pain in multiple sclerosis. Pharmacological options include cannabinoids, muscle relaxants (tizanidine, baclofen, dantrolene), anticonvulsants (benzodiazepines, gabapentin, phenytoin, carbamazepine, lamotrigine), antidepressants (duloxetine, venlafaxine, tricyclic antidepressants), opioids (naltrexone), and botulinum toxin variants, which have evidence from various clinical trials. Non-pharmacological approaches for trigeminal neuralgia may include neurosurgical methods. Non-invasive methods, physical therapy, and psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy and mindfulness-based stress reduction) may be recommended for patients with neuropathic pain in multiple sclerosis. The choice of treatment depends on the severity and type of pain as well as other factors, such as patient preferences and comorbidities. There is a pressing need for healthcare professionals and researchers to prioritize the development of better strategies for managing multiple sclerosis-induced neuropathic pain.

The Efficacy of Spinal Cord Stimulators in the Reduction of Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity: A Narrative Systematic Review

A systematic review was employed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, to analyze all primary clinical data on the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) induced spasticity. Databases include: Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Web of Science. The review included case series, case studies, and clinical trials. Outcomes of interest were spasticity reduction. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria was utilized to grade the certainty of evidence. Five hundred thirty-two articles were retrieved following database systematic review. One hundred eighty-eight articles were removed as duplicates utilizing the "Detect Duplicates" function on Rayyan.ai. A further 344 articles were excluded following abstract and title appraisal. As a result, 16 articles were subjected to full text appraisal. The dates of publication ranged from 1973 to 2019. Although a unique modality, there is not enough evidence to support the employment of SCS over current medical standard of care. Further high-quality randomized control trials are required to elucidate SCS's role in MS induced spasticity algorithm.

Magnetic resonance imaging scans in patients with dorsal root ganglion stimulation

OBJECTIVE

Patients fitted with a neurostimulator face a greater need to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. Given the lack of literature in this regard, this study aims to review our experience with MRI examinations on patients implanted with a dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) system and their potential adverse events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the prospective treatment documentation gathered from November 2011 to October 2020. We identified 259 MRI registrations for patients with an implanted neurostimulation system; the MRI examinations were performed using a 1.5 Tesla MRI system in accordance with a structured scheme.

RESULTS

Among the 259 MRI registrations identified in this study, 28 corresponded to patients with an implanted DRG-S system. In 2 cases, no MRI scan was performed, and thus, only 26 MRI examinations were evaluated in detail. The DRG-S device was approved for the requested MRI scans in only 2 of these 26 cases (7.7%). In addition, 2 minor adverse events (syncopal episode and connection problem) were identified, and only the second problem (3.8%) was related to neurostimulator operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Necessary MRI examinations in patients with DRG-S systems are rarely covered by the European CE/US Food and Drug Administration (CE/FDA) approval. Although the manufacturer recommendations are against the use of MRI in patients with implanted DRG-S in certain conditions, we performed these scans without causing injury to the patient or damaging the device. Given that data on safety are limited, MRIs should be conducted study related. We provide recommendations for the procedure that should be followed when an MRI is needed urgently.

Is There a Place for Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Management of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis? A Systematic Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a minimally invasive technique mainly used to treat neuropathic pain associated with failed back surgery syndrome. However, this therapy has been utilized to treat other chronic painful conditions, such as pain associated with multiple sclerosis (MS). Nonetheless, the efficacy of SCS in MS patients has not been fully established. In fact, in most of SCS series, MS patients represent only a subset of a bigger cohort which comprises different causes of pain, motor disorder, and other functional limitations. The aim of our study was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the effectiveness of SCS in MS patients.

METHODS

A literature search was performed through different databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Embase) using the following terms: "multiple sclerosis," "spinal cord stimulation," and "dorsal column stimulation," according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 452 articles were reviewed, and 7 studies were included in the present analysis. 373 MS patients were submitted to a stimulation trial, and 82 MS patients underwent a de novo implantation. 285/373 (76.4%) of cases submitted to the SCS trial were enrolled for permanent stimulation. We found a long-lasting improvement in 193/346 (55.8%) MS patients with motor disorders, in 90/134 (67.13%) MS patients with urinary dysfunction, and in 28/34 (82.35%) MS patients with neuropathic pain. The efficacy of SCS was higher for urinary dysfunction (p = 0.0144) and neuropathic pain (p = 0.0030) compared with motor disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review evidences that SCS is effective in MS patients. Urinary dysfunction and pain symptoms seem to be most responsive to SCS. Further studies are needed to improve the patient selection and clarify the best timing to perform SCS in these patients.

Treatment of a Large Cohort of Veterans Experiencing Musculoskeletal Disorders with Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Veterans Health Administration: Veteran Characteristics and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implantation is used to treat chronic pain, including painful musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). This study examined the characteristics and outcomes of veterans receiving SCSs in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities.

METHODS

The sample was drawn from the MSD Cohort and limited to three MSDs with the highest number of implants (N=815,475). There were 1490 veterans with these conditions who received SCS implants from 2000 to 2012, of which 95% (n=1414) had pain intensity numeric rating scale (NRS) data both pre- and post-implant.

RESULTS

Veterans who were 35-44 years old, White, and married reported higher pain NRS ratings, had comorbid inclusion diagnoses, had no medical comorbidities, had a BMI 25-29.9, or had a depressive disorder diagnosis were more likely to receive an SCS. Veterans 55+ years old or with an alcohol or substance use disorder were less likely to receive an SCS. Over 90% of those receiving an SCS were prescribed opioids in the year prior to implant. Veterans who had a presurgical pain score ≥4 had a clinically meaningful decrease in their pain score in the year following their 90-day recovery period (Day 91-456) greater than expected by chance alone. Similarly, there was a significant decrease in the percent of veterans receiving opioid therapy (92.4% vs 86.6%, p<0.0001) and a significant overall decrease in opioid dose [morphine equivalent dose per day (MEDD) =26.48 vs MEDD=22.59, p<0.0003].

CONCLUSION

Results offer evidence of benefit for some veterans with the examined conditions. Given known risks of opioid therapy, the reduction is an important potential benefit of SCS implants.

Spinal cord stimulation in a patient with multiple sclerosis and failed back surgery syndrome

In the present article, we described a case of treating intractable pain from failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and multiple sclerosis (MS) after implantation of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in a patient. We are reporting a case where SCS has been used for treating a patient with both FBSS and MS.

Successful Treatment of Central Pain and Spasticity in Patient With Multiple Sclerosis With Dorsal Column, Paresthesia-Free Spinal Cord Stimulator: A Case Report

Non-paresthesia-free spinal cord stimulation (PF-SCS) has been successfully used in treating central pain syndromes in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. However, the efficacy of PF-SCS in MS is unknown. Here, we present the case of an MS patient (13-year history) with late-stage disease. Her concomitant central pain and spasticity failed multiple attempts of medical management despite escalating multimodal pharmacological regimens. A trial and subsequent permanent placement of dorsal column spinal cord stimulator with paresthesia-free programming was successful in managing her central pain, illustrating a potential role of PF-SCS in treating patients with MS.

Neuromodulation in multiple sclerosis

Neuromodulation, or the utilization of advanced technology for targeted electrical or chemical neuronal stimulation or inhibition, has been expanding in several neurological subspecialties. In the past decades, immune-modulating therapy has been the main focus of multiple sclerosis (MS) research with little attention to neuromodulation. However, with the recent advances in disease-modifying therapies, it is time to shift the focus of MS research to neuromodulation and restoration of function as with other neurological subspecialties. Preliminary research supports the value of intrathecal baclofen pump and functional electrical stimulation in improving spasticity and motor function in MS patients. Deep brain stimulation can improve MS-related tremor and trigeminal neuralgia. Spinal cord stimulation has been shown to be effective against MS-related pain and bladder dysfunction. Bladder overactivity also responds to sacral neuromodulation and posterior tibial nerve stimulation. Despite limited data in MS, transcranial magnetic stimulation and brain-computer interface are promising neuromodulatory techniques for symptom mitigation and neurorehabilitation of MS patients. In this review, we provide an overview of the available neuromodulatory techniques and the evidence for their use in MS.

Best Practices in Spinal Cord Stimulation

STUDY DESIGN

A review of clinical best practices for spinal cord stimulation (SCS).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to summarize published and evidence based guidelines with regards to utilizing SCS, including patient selection, disease indication, perioperative management, complication mitigation strategies, and device selection. Additional focus has been provided on quality care to individual patients by acknowledging the importance of durable outcomes and care delivery costs.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

For more than 30 years, SCS has successfully alleviated patient suffering and enhanced the lives of patients with refractory pain conditions. Prospective studies of SCS have consistently demonstrated benefits through reduction of pain, improvement in function, and reduced healthcare expenditures in select patient diagnosis groups. Although the benefits of SCS are well-supported, the clinical application of this therapy varies widely based on physician training and experience, regional clinical practice variations, and insurance coverage.

METHODS

This article provides a summary of published studies, case reports, evidence-based guidelines and expert consensus, with the intent of increasing physician competency and enhancing patient care through improved clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A guide to SCS implantation, appropriate patient selection, ranked recommendations for diseases that may most benefit for SCS treatment, complication mitigation strategies, and finally, indications for choosing the most efficacious modality of SCS therapy for specific patients and pain conditions.

CONCLUSION

Although SCS has been shown to be safe and effective for a number of pain conditions, emerging SCS modalities promise even greater efficacy over traditional SCS. To achieve this promise, physicians must carefully select and manage their patients and the SCS device.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N\A.