A Review of Clinical Data on Salvage Therapy in Spinal Cord Stimulation

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)®: Recommendations for Spinal Cord Stimulation Long-Term Outcome Optimization and Salvage Therapy

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has recognized a need to establish best practices for optimizing implantable devices and salvage when ideal outcomes are not realized. This group has established the Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)® to offer guidance on matters needed for both our members and the broader community of those affected by neuromodulation devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The executive committee of the INS nominated faculty for this NACC® publication on the basis of expertise, publications, and career work on the issue. In addition, the faculty was chosen in consideration of diversity and inclusion of different career paths and demographic categories. Once chosen, the faculty was asked to grade current evidence and along with expert opinion create consensus recommendations to address the lapses in information on this topic.

RESULTS

The NACC® group established informative and authoritative recommendations on the salvage and optimization of care for those with indwelling devices. The recommendations are based on evidence and expert opinion and will be expected to evolve as new data are generated for each topic.

CONCLUSIONS

NACC® guidance should be considered for any patient with less-than-optimal outcomes with a stimulation device implanted for treating chronic pain. Consideration should be given to these consensus points to salvage a potentially failed device before explant.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)®: Recommendations for the Mitigation of Complications of Neurostimulation

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise and international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the mitigation of neuromodulation complications. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)® project intends to update evidence-based guidance and offer expert opinion that will improve efficacy and safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Authors were chosen on the basis of their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when NACC last published guidelines) to October 2023. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence was scant.

RESULTS

The NACC examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process.

CONCLUSIONS

The NACC recommends best practices regarding the mitigation of complications associated with neurostimulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be used as a guide to assist decision-making when clinically appropriate.

10 kHz stimulation as rescue therapy for spinal cord stimulation trial failure or loss of efficacy: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is currently used for the management of pain of different origin, and since its inception, many waveforms have been developed. Some patients experience no pain relief already during SCS trial, while other patients go through a loss of efficacy due to habituation after a variable period of satisfying pain control. Our retrospective study represents the first report exploring the potential role of 10 kHz stimulation as rescue therapy for patients who did not benefit not only from conventional stimulation but even from other waveforms during SCS trial or follow-up.

METHODS

This study was conducted in Germany; we retrospectively enrolled patients with no pain relief during SCS trial or with loss of efficacy of other waveforms over time; and we recorded visual analogic scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and daily opioid consumption expressed as morphine milligram equivalents (MME), right before and 12 months after the switching to 10 kHz simulation.

RESULTS

The rate of successful switching to 10 kHz stimulation was comparable in patients enrolled during the SCS trial and during the follow-up (43% vs. 40%, respectively); notably, the highest rate of failed rescue was recorded in case of persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) II. Patients who responded to the switching showed a significant improvement in VAS and ODI after 12 months of treatment compared to baseline (3.6 ± 1.0 vs. 8.2 ± 0.9, p < 0.00001 and 34.0 ± 7.8 vs. 64.3 ± 8.7, p < 0.0001, respectively), whereas there was no reduction in the consumption of opioids in terms of MME (3 (0-16) vs. 5 (0-8.75), p = 0.1003).

CONCLUSIONS

Rescue therapy with 10 kHz stimulation could be an important strategy to avoid SCS explant in both patients non-responsive during trial or experiencing a loss of efficacy during the years with other waveforms.

Narrative reviews in anesthesia and pain medicine: guidelines for producers, reviewers and consumers

Well-established guidelines and checklists for authors, reviewers, and readers of systematic reviews and scoping reviews are readily available. However, the availability of such for narrative reviews is lacking, including, but not limited to, field-specific guidelines in the field of anesthesia and pain medicine. In this brief article, we review the differences between the major types of reviews, followed by a more detailed description of narrative reviews that clearly differentiates them from other types of reviews. We include a recommended checklist that will aid producers, editors, reviewers, and consumers of narrative reviews as well as examples specific to the field of anesthesia and pain medicine. It is the hope that the guidelines recommended here will aid producers, editors, reviewers, and consumers of narrative reviews in anesthesia and pain medicine, including Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine Adherence to such should help differentiate between narrative reviews and other types of reviews as well as provide consistency in what elements are necessary to include in a narrative review in the field of anesthesia and pain medicine.

Neuromodulation and Habituation: A Literature Review and Conceptional Analysis of Sustaining Therapeutic Efficacy and Mitigating Habituation

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a therapeutic modality for the treatment of various chronic pain conditions that has rapidly evolved over the past 50 years. Unfortunately, over time, patients implanted with SCS undergo a habituation phenomenon leading to decreased pain relief. Consequently, the discovery of new stimulation waveforms and SCS applications has been shown to prolong efficacy and reduce explantation rates. This article explores various SCS waveforms, their applications, and proposes a graded approach to habituation mitigation. We suspect the neural habituation phenomenon parallels that seen in pharmacology. Consequently, we urge further exploration of the early introduction of these stimulation strategies to abate spinal cord stimulation habituation.

Post-mastectomy Pain Syndrome: A Review Article and Emerging Treatment Modalities

Post-mastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is a syndrome broadly applied to the development of chronic pain after surgical breast intervention (i.e., lumpectomy and mastectomy). The incidence of PMPS is likely underreported, and this has contributed to a paucity of high-level evidence related to the treatment of the aforementioned condition. A drive to reduce the burden of opioid use has led to pain management physicians trialing a variety of strategies to help patients manage PMPS. This review discusses the latest evidence behind treatment options for PMPS, exploring medications as well as interventional techniques (e.g., nerve blocks, radiofrequency ablation, neuromodulation, and intrathecal drug delivery systems). Recent advances in neuromodulation technology are of particular interest here due to the well-localized nature of PMPS-related pain and the specificity with which modern neuromodulation techniques can generate an effect. Finally, the review proposes a framework with which to approach the care of patients with PMPS, with a specific emphasis on the early consideration of neuromodulation techniques along with functional and physical therapy to reduce patient medication burden and improve overall quality of life.

Treating Chronic, Intractable Pain with a Miniaturized Spinal Cord Stimulation System: 1-Year Outcomes from the AUS-nPower Study During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Purpose

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a highly effective treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. Despite recent advances in technology, treatment gaps remain. A small SCS system with a miniaturized implantable pulse generator (micro-IPG; <1.5 cm3 in volume) and an externally worn power source may be preferred by patients who do not want a large, implanted battery. We report here the long-term outcomes from the first-in-human study evaluating the safety and performance of a new neurostimulation system.

Patients and Methods

This was a prospective, multi-center, open-label, single-arm study to evaluate this SCS system, in the treatment of chronic, intractable leg and low-back pain. Consented subjects who passed screening continued on to the long-term phase of the study. One-year, patient-reported outcomes (PRO's) such as pain (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), functional disability, quality of life, and mood were captured.

Results

Twenty-six (26) evaluable subjects with permanent implants were included in this analysis. The average leg pain NRS score decreased from 6.8 ± 1.2 at baseline to 1.1 ± 1.2 at the end of the study (p < 0.001), while the average low-back pain NRS score decreased from 6.8 ± 1.2 to 1.5 ± 1.2 (p < 0.001). The responder rate (proportion with ≥50% pain relief) was 91% in the leg(s) and 82% in the low back. There were significant improvements in functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and in mood (Beck Depression Inventory), demonstrating a 46% and 62% improvement, respectively (p < 0.001). Eleven-point Likert scales demonstrated the wearable to be very comfortable and very easy to use.

Conclusion

There were considerable challenges conducting a clinical study during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as missed study programming visits. Nevertheless, subjects had significant PRO improvements through 1-year. The small size of the implanted device, along with a proprietary waveform, may allow for improved SCS outcomes and a drop in incidence of IPG-pocket pain.

Should we Oppose or Combine Waveforms for Spinal Cord Stimulation in PSPS-T2 Patients? A Prospective Randomized Crossover Trial (MULTIWAVE Study)

Refractory persistent spinal pain syndrome after surgery (PSPS-T2) can be successfully addressed by spinal cord stimulation (SCS). While conventional stimulation generates paresthesia, recent systems enable the delivery of paresthesia-free stimulation. Studies have claimed non-inferiority/superiority of selected paresthesia-free stimulation compared with paresthesia-based stimulation, but the comparative efficacy between different waveforms still needs to be determined in a given patient. We designed a randomized controlled 3-month crossover trial to compare pain relief of paresthesia-based stimulation versus high frequency versus burst in 28 PSPS-T2 patients implanted with multiwave SCS systems. Our secondary objectives were to determine the efficacy of these 3 waveforms on pain surface, quality of life, functional capacity, psychological distress, and validated composite multidimensional clinical response index to provide holistic comparisons at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 15-month post-randomization. The preferred stimulation modality was documented during the follow-up periods. No difference between the waveforms was observed in this study (P = .08). SCS led to significant pain relief, quality of life improvement, improvement of multidimensional clinical response index, and of all other clinical outcomes at all follow-up visits. Forty-four percent of the patients chose to keep the paresthesia-based stimulation modality after the 15-month follow-up period. By giving the possibility to switch and/or to combine several waveforms, the overall rate of SCS responders further increased with 25%. In this study, high frequency or burst do not appear superior to paresthesia-based stimulation, wherefore paresthesia-based stimulation should still be considered as a valid option. However, combining paresthesia-based stimulation with paresthesia-free stimulation, through personalized multiwave therapy, might significantly improve SCS responses. PERSPECTIVE: This article assesses clinical SCS efficacy on pain relief, by comparing paresthesia-based stimulation and paresthesia-free stimulation (including high frequency and burst) modalities in patient presenting with PSPS-T2. Switching and/or combining waveforms contribute to increasing the global SCS responders rate.

Real-world outcomes in spinal cord stimulation: predictors of reported effect and explantation using a comprehensive registry-based approach

Introduction

Despite advancements in implanted hardware and development of novel stimulation paradigms in Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS), real world evidence suggests a large variation in patient reported outcomes and a proportion of patients are later explanted due to loss of analgesia. Possible predictors for outcome have been explored in smaller short-term evaluations, but few clinically applicable robust measures for long term outcome have emerged.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive retrospective study based on an assembled patient-level aggregated database from multiple local and national registries in Sweden. Variables associated with risk of explantation (due to insufficient analgesia) and analgesic effect was analyzed using a Cox regression analysis and an ordered logit regression model, respectively.

Results

We found the accumulated risk of explantation due to loss of analgesia to be 10% and 21% at two and ten years follow up, respectively. The use of 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (compared with Tonic waveform; p = 0.003), and being 60 years or older (reference 18-40 years; p = 0.003) were associated with an increased risk of explantation.At a mean follow up at 1 year, 48% of patients reported a pain intensity reduction from baseline of at least 30%. Secondary (p = 0.030) and post-secondary (p = 0.001) education (compared with primary education) was associated with an increased probability of successful patient reported outcomes.

Conclusion

This study suggests that a higher educational level and being employed are associated with successful treatment outcome in patients with chronic pain treated with SCS in Sweden.

Clinical Effect Analysis of Spinal Cord Electrical Stimulator Implantation for Diabetic Foot

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effect of spinal cord electrical stimulator implantation in the treatment of a diabetic foot (DF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We recruited 19 patients with DF who were admitted to Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University between January 2018 and May 2020. All the patients were treated with spinal cord electrical stimulator implantation. Skin temperature, degree of pain, quality of life (QOL) score, limb (toe) preservation, and nerve conduction velocity of the patients were compared pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

The diameter and peak velocity of multisegment arteries in the lower limbs had significantly increased post surgery. Foot skin temperature significantly increased in patients with good effect. The postoperative visual analog scale score of the patients was significantly lower than that noted preoperatively (p < 0.05). The conduction velocities of the lower limb sensory nerves (eg, superficial peroneal nerve and sural nerve) and motor nerves (eg, common peroneal nerve and tibial nerve) had improved post surgery. Moreover, patients' QOL score had significantly improved postoperatively (p < 0.05). The limb (toe) salvage rate was 94.74%.

CONCLUSION

The implantation of a spinal cord electrical stimulator for treating DF can effectively relieve pain and other associated symptoms. Additionally, this device can promote nerve function recovery and lower limb blood supply and reduce the risk of toe amputation; therefore, it is clinically effective and should be considered in the treatment of DF.

Spinal Cord Stimulation-Naïve Patients vs Patients With Failed Previous Experiences With Standard Spinal Cord Stimulation: Two Distinct Entities or One Population?

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, the success of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is evaluated separately in patients who have previous experiences with standard SCS and in SCS-naïve patients. Nevertheless, it is yet to be evaluated whether both patient groups are effectively distinct patient groups. Therefore, the aims of this study are twofold: 1) Are there clusters in the data to distinguish between both patient groups? 2) Can we discriminate both patient groups based on routinely collected clinical parameters?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Baseline data from the Discover study were used, in which 263 patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 were included (185 neurostimulation-naïve patients and 78 patients with previous SCS experience). Pain intensity scores for low back and leg pain, functional disability, medication use, and health-related quality of life utility scores were used in the analysis. Model-based clustering was performed on standardized data. Discriminant analysis was performed with linear and quadratic discriminant analysis, with leave-one-out cross-validation to evaluate model performance.

RESULTS

Model-based clustering revealed two different clusters in the data. None of the clusters clearly separated SCS-naïve patients from patients with previous SCS experience. Linear discriminant analysis resulted in a leave-one-out cross-validation error rate of 30.0% to discriminate between both patient groups, based on routinely collected clinical parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Clustering analysis did not result in clusters that separate SCS-naïve patients from patients with previous SCS experience. This may suggest that both patient groups should not be considered as two different patient groups when comparing them on routine clinical parameters, with potentially profound implications for research and clinical settings.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the Discover study is NCT02787265.

A case series of new radicular pain following the insertion of spinal cord stimulator

Purpose

Although spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a safe procedure, equipment-related, biological and neurological complications have been observed in previous research, particularly case reports. No reports of new neuropathic pain in the absence of neurological deficit or positive MRI findings have been described. We detail three cases of new-onset radicular pain in the L5/S1 dermatome following insertion of SCS.

Methods

This was a retrospective case series of three patients. Details of clinical background, indications for SCS and events occurring during insertion and further management were recorded.

Results

All three cases were technically difficult and required multiple epidural entry levels, with repeated passage of the electrode into and within the epidural space. All cases involved accessing epidural space T12/L1 and L1/L2. A possible explanation for the new-onset radicular pain could concern oedema to the conus medullaris, resulting from repeated passage of the electrode at the T12/L1 level. Alternative explanations could be direct trauma to transiting nerve roots, neuroplastic changes resulting in peripheral and central sensitisation and immune-mediated nerve injury.

Conclusion

MRI imaging should be analysed prior to the SCS procedure to identify the level of the conus medullaris, with the aim of avoiding repeated passage of electrodes at that level. Unintended neurological adverse events should be discussed with patients during the consent process. Careful patient selection and psychological screening may also help identify patients who may be unlikely to respond to SCS therapy. Further reporting of new radiculopathic pain following SCS insertion is required to strengthen understanding of its potential causes.

Patient Selection for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Treatment of Pain: Sequential Decision-Making Model - A Narrative Review

Despite the well-known efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in chronic pain management, patient selection in clinical practice remains challenging. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the factors that can influence the process of patient selection for SCS treatment. A sequential decision-making model is presented within a tier system that operates in clinical practice. The first level incorporates the underlying disease as a primary indication for SCS, country-related reimbursement rules, and SCS screening-trial criteria in combination with underlying psychological factors as initial selection criteria in evaluating patient eligibility for SCS. The second tier is aligned with the individualized approach within precision pain medicine, whereby individual goals and expectations and the potential need for preoperative optimizations are emphasized. Additionally, this tier relies on results from prediction models to provide an estimate of the efficacy of SCS in the long term. In the third tier, selection bias, MRI compatibility, and ethical beliefs are included, together with recent technological innovations, superiority of specific stimulation paradigms, and new feedback systems that could indirectly influence the decision-making of the physician. Both patients and physicians should be aware of the different aspects that influence patient selection in relation to SCS for pain management to make an independent decision on whether or not to initiate a treatment trajectory with SCS.

60-Day PNS Treatment May Improve Identification of Delayed Responders and Delayed Non-Responders to Neurostimulation for Pain Relief

Objective

Conventional neurostimulation typically involves a brief (eg, ≤10-day) trial to assess presumed effectiveness prior to permanent implantation. Low trial conversion rates and high explant rates due to inadequate pain relief highlight the need for improved patient identification strategies. The development of a 60-day percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) system enables evaluation of outcomes following an extended temporary treatment period of up to 60 days, that may obviate or validate the need for permanent implant. The present study provides the first real-world evidence regarding patient response throughout a 60-day PNS treatment period.

Methods

Anonymized data listings were compiled from patients who underwent implantation of temporary percutaneous leads and opted-in to provide real-world data to the device manufacturer during routine interactions with device representatives throughout the 60-day treatment.

Results

Overall, 30% (222/747) of patients were early responders (≥50% pain relief throughout treatment). Another 31% (231/747) of patients initially presented as non-responders but surpassed 50% pain relief by the end of treatment. Conversely, 32% (239/747) of patients were non-responders throughout treatment. An additional 7% (55/747) of patients initially presented as responders but fell below 50% relief by the end of the treatment period.

Conclusion

An extended, 60-day PNS treatment may help identify delayed responders, providing the opportunity for sustained relief and improving access to effective PNS treatment. Compared to a conventionally short trial of ≤10 days, a longer 60-day PNS treatment may also help reduce explant rates by identifying delayed non-responders unlikely to benefit long-term. These scenarios support the importance of an extended 60-day temporary PNS stimulation period to help inform stepwise treatment strategies that may optimize outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

The Challenge of Converting "Failed Spinal Cord Stimulation Syndrome" Back to Clinical Success, Using SCS Reprogramming as Salvage Therapy, through Neurostimulation Adapters Combined with 3D-Computerized Pain Mapping Assessment: A Real Life Retrospective Study

While paresthesia-based Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) has been proven effective as treatment for chronic neuropathic pain, its initial benefits may lead to the development of "Failed SCS Syndrome' (FSCSS) defined as decrease over time related to Loss of Efficacy (LoE) with or without Loss of Coverage (LoC). Development of technologies associating new paresthesia-free stimulation waveforms and implanted pulse generator adapters provide opportunities to manage patients with LoE. The main goal of our study was to investigate salvage procedures, through neurostimulation adapters, in patients already implanted with SCS and experiencing LoE. We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of patients who were offered new SCS programs/waveforms through an implanted adapter between 2018 and 2021. Patients were evaluated before and at 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Outcomes included pain intensity rating with a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), pain/coverage mappings and stimulation preferences. Last follow-up evaluations (N = 27) showed significant improvement in VAS (p = 0.0001), ODI (p = 0.021) and quality of life (p = 0.023). In the 11/27 patients with LoC, SCS efficacy on pain intensity (36.89%) was accompanied via paresthesia coverage recovery (55.57%) and pain surface decrease (47.01%). At 12-month follow-up, 81.3% preferred to keep tonic stimulation in their waveform portfolio. SCS conversion using adapters appears promising as a salvage solution, with an emphasis on paresthesia recapturing enabled via spatial retargeting. In light of these results, adapters could be integrated in SCS rescue algorithms or should be considered in SCS rescue.

The Added Value of Subcutaneous Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation Combined with SCS, as Salvage Therapy, for Refractory Low Back Pain Component in Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Implanted Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study (CUMPNS Study) Based on 3D-Mapping Composite Pain Assessment

While Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) provides satisfaction to almost 2/3 of Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome-Type 2 (PSPS-T2) patients implanted for refractory chronic back and/or leg pain, when not adequately addressed the back pain component, leaves patients in a therapeutic cul-de-sac. Peripheral Nerve field Stimulation (PNfS) has shown interesting results addressing back pain in the same population. Far from placing these two techniques in opposition, we suggest that these approaches could be combined to better treat PSPS-T2 patients. We designed a RCT (CUMPNS), with a 12-month follow-up, to assess the potential added value of PNfS, as a salvage therapy, in PSPS-T2 patients experiencing a "Failed SCS Syndrome" in the back pain component. Fourteen patients were included in this study and randomized into 2 groups ("SCS + PNfS" group/n = 6 vs. "SCS only" group/n = 8). The primary objective of the study was to compare the percentage of back pain surface decrease after 3 months, using a computerized interface to obtain quantitative pain mappings, combined with multi-dimensional SCS outcomes. Back pain surface decreased significantly greater for the "SCS + PNfS" group (80.2% ± 21.3%) compared to the "SCS only" group (13.2% ± 94.8%) (p = 0.012), highlighting the clinical interest of SCS + PNfS, in cases where SCS fails to address back pain.

The Influence of Missing Data on Disabilities in Patients Treated with High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Tipping Point Sensitivity Analysis

New waveforms have changed the field of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) to optimize therapy outcomes, among which is High-Dose SCS (HD-SCS). Missing observations are often encountered when conducting clinical trials in this field. In this study, different approaches with varying assumptions were constructed to evaluate how conclusions may be influenced by these assumptions. The aim is to perform a tipping point sensitivity analysis to evaluate the influence of missing data on the overall conclusion regarding the effectiveness of HD-SCS on disability. Data from the Discover study were used, in which 185 patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome were included. Disability was evaluated before SCS and after 1, 3 and 12 months of HD-SCS. During the second, third and fourth visit, data from 130, 114 and 90 patients were available, respectively. HD-SCS resulted in a significant decrease in disability scores based on the analysis of observed data and with multiple imputations. The tipping point sensitivity analysis revealed that the shift parameter was 17. Thus, the conclusion concerning the time effect under a "missing at random" mechanism is robust when the shift parameter for the disability score is 17. From a clinical point of view, a shift of 17 points on disability is not very plausible. Therefore we tend to consider the conclusions drawn under "missing at random" as being robust.

Long-term quality of life and work status after high-dose spinal cord stimulation in patients with failed back surgery syndrome: a secondary analysis of real-world data

OBJECTIVE

In recent years, the use of high-dose spinal cord stimulation (HD-SCS) as a treatment option for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) has drastically increased. However, to the authors' knowledge a thorough evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and work status in these patients has not yet been performed. Moreover, it is unclear whether patients who are treated with HD-SCS can regain the same levels of HRQOL as the general population. Therefore, the aims of this study were to compare the HRQOL of patients who receive HD-SCS to HRQOL values in an age- and sex-adjusted population without FBSS and to evaluate work status in patients who are receiving HD-SCS.

METHODS

HRQOL, measured with the 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L), and work status were evaluated in 185 FBSS patients at baseline (i.e., before SCS) and at 1, 3, and 12 months of treatment with HD-SCS. Difference scores in utility values between patients and an age- and sex-adjusted normal population were calculated. One-sample Wilcoxon tests were used to assess the EQ-5D-3L difference scores. Mixed models were used to evaluate the evolution over time in EQ-5D-3L utility scores and EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS) scores in patients and matched controls. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using the area under the curve method.

RESULTS

An overall significant increase in EQ-5D-3L utility scores and EQ-5D VAS scores was found over time in the patient group. Wilcoxon tests indicated that the difference scores in utility values between patients and the normal population were significantly different from zero at all time points. The median incremental QALY after 12 months of HD-SCS was 0.228 (Q1-Q3: 0.005-0.487) in comparison to continued conservative treatment. At 12 months, 13.75% of patients resumed work.

CONCLUSIONS

HD-SCS may lead to significantly increased HRQOL at 12 months in patients with FBSS. Despite the increase, reaching the HRQOL level of matched controls was not achieved. Only a limited number of patients were able to return to work. This finding indicates that specialized programs to enhance return to work may be beneficial for patients undergoing SCS.

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for the Treatment of Non-Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Related Chronic Pain Syndromes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

While the majority of indications and approvals for dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) are for the refractory management of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), emerging evidence has suggested that DRGS may be favorably used for a plethora of other chronic pain phenomena. Consequently, we aimed to characterize the use and efficacy of DRGS for these non-CRPS-related chronic pain syndromes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of clinical studies demonstrating the use of DRGS for non-CRPS-related chronic pain syndromes. The literature search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL plus across August and September 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 28 reports comprising 354 total patients were included in the analysis. Of the chronic pain syndromes presented, axial low back pain, chronic pelvic and groin pain, other peripheral neuropathies, and studies with multiple concomitant pain syndromes, a majority demonstrated >50% mean pain reduction at the time of last follow-up following DRGS. Physical function, quality of life (QOL), and lesser pain medication usage also were repeatedly reported to be significantly improved.

CONCLUSIONS

DRGS continues to lack supportive evidence from well designed, high level studies and recommendations from consensus committee experts. However, we present repeated and consistent evidence from lower level studies showing success with the use of DRGS for various non-CRPS chronic pain syndromes in reducing pain along with increasing function and QOL from one week to three years. Due to such low-level, high bias evidence, we strongly encourage the continuation of high-level studies in order to provide a stronger foundation for the use of DRGS in non-CRPS chronic pain patients. However, it may be reasonable and appropriate to evaluate patients for DRGS candidacy on a case-by-case basis particularly if they manifest focal pain syndromes refractory to noninterventional measures and may not be ideal candidates for other forms of neuromodulation.

Neuromodulation With Burst and Tonic Stimulation Decreases Opioid Consumption: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Success Using Neuromodulation With BURST (SUNBURST) Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The SUNBURST study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized crossover trial of a single device delivering burst and tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic trunk and/or limb pain. We performed a post hoc analysis of opioid consumption at baseline and after device implantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After implantation, 100 patients were randomized to one mode (tonic or burst) for 12 weeks, and the other mode for the subsequent 12 weeks. After the crossover period (24 weeks), patients chose their preferred mode and were assessed for one year. We analyzed 69 patients who took opioid medication at baseline. The primary endpoint was opioid consumption in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) at baseline and 12 months postimplantation. Subgroup analysis included opioid consumption based on Center for Disease Control markers (<50, 50-90, 90-120, >120 MME/day) and stimulation mode preference.

RESULTS

Opioid consumption at 12 months was lower compared to baseline (53.94 vs. 79.19 MME, MD -25.25, 95% CI -43.77 to 6.73, p = 0.008). By 12 months, 11 of 69 patients (15.9%) discontinued all opioid (p = 0.001). Based on CDC dose markers, the proportion of patients taking >120 MME/day decreased by 61.7% at 12 months postintervention compared to baseline (p = 0.043). Forty-five of 69 patients (65.2%) preferred burst SCS while 15 of 69 patients (21.7%) preferred tonic SCS (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A device delivering tonic and burst SCS was associated with decreased opioid consumption after 12 months in patients with chronic trunk and/or limb pain. The proportion of patients reporting the highest opioid intake (>120 MME/day) decreased to a lower CDC dose category by 61.7%, carrying important implications for those at highest risk for opioid-related substance use disorder, overdose, and death.

Efficacy of Simultaneous Usage of Spinal Cord Stimulation and Intrathecal Therapy for Nonmalignant Chronic Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND

Some patients with chronic pain and implanted spinal cord stimulators or intrathecal (IT) pumps fail to obtain significant pain relief. The use of dual modality treatment with both therapies is understudied. This study evaluated comprehensive outcomes in this patient population and reported outcomes primarily using IT ziconotide.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 11 patients with chronic pain treated with both spinal cord stimulation and IT therapy. When a primary treatment failed to achieve significant pain relief, a secondary device was trialed and implanted. Pain severity (measured by a numeric rating scale) was assessed by the change from baseline to after the first and second intervention. In a subset of patients (n = 6), quality-of-life metrics were also assessed. Outcome measures were analyzed closest to the 1-year follow-up date after implantation of the first modality and then at the most recent follow-up after implantation of the second modality.

RESULTS

Spinal cord stimulation leads were percutaneous (n = 2) or paddles (n = 9) and commonly covered T8-10. IT medication included ziconotide (n = 8), baclofen (n = 1), hydromorphone (n = 1), and morphine/clonidine (n = 1). There was a mean of 19.64 ± 3.17 months between primary and secondary intervention. There was a significant improvement in pain severity from baseline to implantation of the second modality (P = 0.032) at a mean follow-up of 50.18 ± 11.83 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual modality therapy is a potential treatment option in patients who have lost efficacy with a single neuromodulation modality. Further study is required to identify potential responders and nonresponders.

The Evolving Role of High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation as Salvage Therapy in Neurostimulation

BACKGROUND

High-frequency 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation (10-kHz SCS) has shown promise in multicenter prospective trials for the management of chronic back and leg pain. Traditional spinal cord stimulation (t-SCS) has a long history of effectiveness in chronic neuropathic syndromes but not uncommonly can fail to provide long-term relief, leaving a significant group of patients with unsatisfactory outcomes. There is mounting evidence that 10-kHz SCS may offer relief in this subset of patients.

METHODS

The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to report a single-institution long-term experience of 10-kHz SCS in patients who did not get adequate pain relief with prior t-SCS devices. A temporary trial of 10-kHz SCS was carried out for 7 days, and those experiencing an average of 50% reduction in pain intensity underwent implantation. Patients were classified as moderate responders if relief was 31% to 50% and excellent responders if pain relief exceeded 50%.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients who had experienced failed t-SCS primarily from poor paresthesia coverage underwent a trial of 10-kHz SCS and 29 underwent implantation. Twenty-eight patients were available for analysis, with 57.1% experiencing 30% response and 46.4% experiencing excellent response at a median follow-up of 21.2 (±8.4) months.

CONCLUSIONS

This small single-institution study suggests that a significant proportion of patients with previously failed t-SCS may achieve clinically meaningful and durable pain relief with 10-kHz SCS.

Spinal cord stimulation programming: a crash course

The aim of this comprehensive review is to provide an instructional guide for providers regarding the parameters and programming of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices. Knowing these fundamentals will aid in providing superior pain relief to patients. SCS has four programmable parameters: contact (electrode) selection, amplitude, pulse width, and frequency. Each parameter needs to be accounted for when assessing which program works for which patient. Traditional open-loop systems allow for different "programs," or combinations of these four parameters, to be pre-set by the provider and medical device representative. These allow for flexibility in the type of stimulation delivered to the patient depending on activity. Patients are also given control over programs and changing the amplitudes of these programs. However, some open-loop systems place the burden of toggling between programs to manage pain control on patients, though this tends to be less in subparesthesia programs. Newer closed-loop systems make it possible for stimulation settings to automatically adjust in response to accelerometry and evoked compound action potential feedback, and therefore have the potential to streamline the patient experience. This article provides practitioners with the basic knowledge of SCS parameters and programming systems. Understanding their use is essential to providing optimal pain relief to patients.