Experiences From the Patient Perspective on Spinal Cord Stimulation for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Qualitatively Driven Mixed Method Analysis

Discrepancy Between Reported and Calculated Pain Reduction in Patients With Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy and Lack of Agreement Between Patient Satisfaction and Degree of Pain Relief

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine agreement between reported percentage pain reduction (RPPR) and calculated percentage pain reduction (CPPR) in patients with percutaneous spinal cord stimulation (SCS) implants, and to correlate RPPR and CPPR with patient satisfaction. We also sought to determine which patient-reported outcome measures are most improved in patients with SCS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients with percutaneous spinal cord stimulator implants with a mean follow-up of 51.1 months were interviewed and surveyed to assess their pain level, impression of degree of pain relief, satisfaction with the therapy, and desire to have the device again. Baseline pain level was obtained from their preimplant records.

RESULTS

Overall, RPPR was found to be 53.3%, whereas CPPR was 44.4%. Of all patients, 21 reported <50% pain reduction; however, most of these (12/21, 57%) were satisfied with the outcome of therapy. In terms of individual improvement in outcomes, activities of daily life was the most improved measure at 82%, followed by mood, sleep, medication use, and health care utilization at 74%, 62%, 50%, and 48%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

RPPR appears to be a complex outcome measure that may not agree with CPPR. Overall RPPR is greater than the CPPR. On the basis of our data, these independently valid measures should not be used interchangeably. A 50% pain reduction threshold is not a requisite for patient satisfaction and desire to have the device again. Activities of daily living was the most improved measure in this cohort, followed by mood, sleep, medication usage, and decrease in health care utilization.

Clinical Patient-Relevant Outcome Domains for Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome-A Scoping Review and Expert Panels

Large variation exists in the monitoring of clinical outcome domains in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS). Furthermore, it is unclear which outcome domains are important from the PSPS patient's perspective. The study objectives were to identify patient-relevant outcome domains for PSPS and to establish a PSPS outcomes framework. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched to identify studies reporting views or preferences of PSPS patients on outcome domains. The Arksey and O'Malley framework was followed to identify outcome domains. An expert panel rated the domains based on the importance for PSPS patients they have treated. A framework of relevant outcome domains was established using the selected outcome domains by the expert panel. No studies were found for PSPS type 1. Five studies with 77 PSPS type 2 patients were included for further analysis. Fourteen outcome domains were identified. An expert panel, including 27 clinical experts, reached consensus on the domains pain, daily activities, perspective of life, social participation, mobility, mood, self-reliance, and sleep. Eleven domains were included in the PSPS type 2 outcomes framework. This framework is illustrative of a more holistic perspective and should be used to improve the evaluation of care for PSPS type 2 patients. Further research is needed on the prioritization of relevant outcome domains.

Evidence-based consensus guidelines on patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.

Spinal Cord Stimulation Meets Them All: An Effective Treatment for Different Pain Conditions. Our Experience and Literature Review

IntroductionSpinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is an emerging minimally invasive technique which uses neuromodulation to manage different forms of intractable pain. SCS is a well-established option for the treatment of various pain conditions, and nowadays, indications are ever increasing.Materials and MethodsIn this study, we present our case series of 49 patients who underwent SCS at our Institution for the treatment of pain from different etiologies, and discuss our 10-year experience in SCS. For the purpose of this study, we also performed a systematic review of current indications and new perspectives in SCS.ResultsAmong our case series, patients were differentiated into two groups upon prior spinal surgery: patients who had undergone prior spinal surgery for back pain were defined as the "FBSS (failed back surgery syndrome) group," instead patient suffering from different types of pain but who had never undergone surgery were defined as the "naive group." As regards clinical response to SCS, 20 patients out of 36 (55.56%) were classified as responders in the FBSS group; in the "naïve" group, 10 patients out of 13 (76.92%) were classified as responders. Among the "not responders" group, several patients suffered from infections.Of the recent literature about SCS, 2124 records were screened and 37 studies were finally included in the qualitative synthesis for our systematic review.DiscussionIn case of FBSS, surgical revision is often associated with a high morbidity and corresponding low rates of success. Unfortunately, patients affected by chronic pain often become refractory to conservative treatments. Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is nowadays considered as an effective therapy for several chronic and neuropathic pain conditions, such as failed back surgery syndrome. As regards the economic impact of SCS, implantation of an SCS system results in short-term costs increase, but the annual cumulative costs decrease during the following years after implantation, when compared to the costs of conventional management. Beyond the application for the treatment of FBSS, SCS has also been used for the treatment of other types of chronic non-oncological pain such as neuropathic pain and chronic back pain ineligible for surgical intervention. This evidence paved the way to establishing the potential role of SCS also for the treatment of oncological pain. However, the effectiveness and relative safety of SCS for cancer-related pain has not yet been adequately established.ConclusionsSpinal Cord Stimulation is a well-established treatment option in for FBSS. Beyond that, SCS has also been used for the treatment of "naive" patients, suffering from other types of chronic, both oncological and non-oncological, medical-refractory pain such as neuropathic pain and chronic back pain ineligible for surgical intervention.

Changes in quantitative sensory testing and patient perspectives following spinal cord stimulation for persistent spinal pain syndrome: an observational study with long-term follow-up

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can impact sensory, pain and tolerance thresholds in various ways, which can be accessed via quantitative sensory testing (QST). The objectives of this study were to (1) assess the subjective sensory responses using QST in patients following SCS therapy for PSPS and (2) to get a clinical impression of the results of SCS during an interview of these patients with PSPS and SCS during long term follow‐up.

Methods

Forty patients with PSPS who received SCS treatment underwent QST via electrical and mechanical pressure stimuli. QST was performed at four different moments (1) pre‐implantation SCS, (2) two weeks postoperatively, (3) three months after permanent SCS implantation and (4) six months after permanent SCS implantation. Patients’ perspectives on pain, use of drugs and quality of life were assessed via semi‐structured interviews during a follow‐up between 5 and 11 years.

Results

We found statistical significant differences in the changes of sensory, pain and tolerance thresholds. A decrease in pain complaints and analgesics use were reported by the patients during follow‐up. The quality of life in patients increased from three to eight (NRS 0 [worst QoL imaginable] ‐10 [best QoL imaginable]) after receiving SCS.

Conclusions

The increased thresholds on areas without pain or being covered by the SCS induced paresthesias may indicate that there are central changes contributing to these deviations in thresholds. The overall QoL in patients improved greatly after receiving SCS.

Significance

This study provides an overview of the effect of SCS on sensory, pain and tolerance thresholds in patients with PSPS throughout the SCS treatment process. In addition, this study presents data from 40 patients with PSPS treated with SCS, analysing several long‐term patient‐reported outcome measures. The results serve to give more insight into the mechanism of SCS and document SCS as a possible treatment for PSPS.

Spinal cord stimulation in severe cases of complex regional pain syndrome: A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a debilitating pain condition often resistant to standard treatment modalities. In these cases, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can be an option, but the effect on CRPS remains disputed. We aimed to assess the long-term effect of SCS on CRPS.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed 51 CRPS patients implanted with an SCS system at the University Hospitals in Aarhus or Odense, Denmark, with a median follow-up time of 4.4 years. Primary outcomes were pain intensity on a numeric rating scale (NRS) and the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, work status, consumption of pain medication, the Major Depression Inventory (MDI), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and quality of life (QoL) measured using the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). For each outcome measure, baseline data were compared to the latest collected data point.

RESULTS

A significant pain relief was found with a mean reduction in NRS score of 2.4 (95% CI: 1.7-3.0, p < 0.0001). 68.8% reported 'much improved' or 'very much improved' on the PGIC scale. 87.5% would choose SCS again for the same outcome. A significant beneficial impact was found on MDI score, PCS, SF-36 summary scores and consumption of tricyclic antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs and opioids. No statistical effect was found on work status.

CONCLUSION

Pain intensity, depression, pain catastrophizing, pain medication use and QoL were significantly improved after SCS implantation, with high patient satisfaction rates in CRPS patients. This study supports the continued use of SCS in the treatment of severe CRPS.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study presents detailed data from a large, well-characterized cohort of Danish CRPS patients treated with SCS, analyzing several outcome measures. The results serve to document SCS as an effective treatment for severe CRPS and expands the cumulative level of evidence in favor of its use. Additionally, analysis of preoperative patient characteristics suggests that SCS treatment should not be withheld in patients with a high degree of psychological distress or high consumption of analgesics.