Durability of the Therapeutic Effect of Restorative Neurostimulation for Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain

Five-Year Longitudinal Follow-Up of Restorative Neurostimulation Shows Durability of Effectiveness in Patients With Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain Associated With Multifidus Muscle Dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Adults with refractory, mechanical chronic low back pain associated with impaired neuromuscular control of the lumbar multifidus muscle have few treatment options that provide long-term clinical benefit. This study hypothesized that restorative neurostimulation, a rehabilitative treatment that activates the lumbar multifidus muscles to overcome underlying dysfunction, is safe and provides relevant and durable clinical benefit to patients with this specific etiology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective five-year longitudinal follow-up of the ReActiv8-B pivotal trial, participants (N = 204) had activity-limiting, moderate-to-severe, refractory, mechanical chronic low back pain, a positive prone instability test result indicating impaired multifidus muscle control, and no indications for spine surgery. Low back pain intensity (10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and quality of life (EuroQol's "EQ-5D-5L" index) were compared with baseline and following the intent-to-treat principle, with a supporting mixed-effects model for repeated measures that accounted for missing data.

RESULTS

At five years (n = 126), low back pain VAS had improved from 7.3 to 2.4 cm (-4.9; 95% CI, -5.3 to -4.5 cm; p < 0.0001), and 71.8% of participants had a reduction of ≥50%. The Oswestry Disability Index improved from 39.1 to 16.5 (-22.7; 95% CI, -25.4 to -20.8; p < 0.0001), and 61.1% of participants had reduction of ≥20 points. The EQ-5D-5L index improved from 0.585 to 0.807 (0.231; 95% CI, 0.195-0.267; p < 0.0001). Although the mixed-effects model attenuated completed-case results, conclusions and statistical significance were maintained. Of 52 subjects who were on opioids at baseline and had a five-year visit, 46% discontinued, and 23% decreased intake. The safety profile compared favorably with neurostimulator treatments for other types of back pain. No lead migrations were observed.

CONCLUSION

Over a five-year period, restorative neurostimulation provided clinically substantial and durable benefits with a favorable safety profile in patients with refractory chronic low back pain associated with multifidus muscle dysfunction.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02577354; registration date: October 15, 2016; principal investigator: Christopher Gilligan, MD, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. The study was conducted in Australia (Broadmeadow, New South Wales; Noosa Heads, Queensland; Welland, South Australia; Clayton, Victoria), Belgium (Sint-Niklaas; Wilrijk), The Netherlands (Rotterdam), UK (Leeds, London, Middlesbrough), and USA (La Jolla, CA; Santa Monica, CA; Aurora, CO; Carmel, IN; Indianapolis, IN; Kansas City, KS; Boston, MA; Royal Oak, MI; Durham, NC; Winston-Salem, NC; Cleveland, OH; Providence, RI; Spartanburg, SC; Spokane, WA; Charleston, WV).

Application of restorative neurostimulation for chronic mechanical low back pain in an older population with 2-year follow up

INTRODUCTION

Data on the Medicare-aged population show that older patients are major consumers of low back pain (LBP) interventions. An effective approach for patients with mechanical LBP that has been refractory to conservative management is restorative neurostimulation. The efficacy of restorative neurostimulation has been demonstrated in multiple prospective studies, with published follow-up over 4 years, showing a consistent durable effect.

METHODS

To further examine the effect of restorative neurostimulation in an older demographic, data from three clinical studies were aggregated: ReActiv8-B prospectively followed 204 patients, ReActiv8-C study prospectively followed 87 patients and ReActiv8-PMCF prospectively followed 42 patients.Two hundred and sixty-one patients were identified with complete 2-year follow-up and divided into cohorts of equal size based of age quartiles.At 2 years from device activation, patients in either cohort were classified by change in disability (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)) or change in pain score(NRS/VAS) and assessed as proportion of patients per group at each time point. Additionally, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EQ5D-5L) was longitudinally compared with baseline. Differences in proportions were assessed using χ2 and continuous variables by repeated measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The oldest quartile (n=65) had a median age of 60 (56-82) years compared with the entire population (n=261) who had a median age of 49 (22-82) years. The completer analysis on patients with 2 years of continuous data showed improvement of a 50% in pain was achieved by 62% and 65% and a 15-point ODI improvement in 48% and 60% in the oldest quartile and entire population, respectively. HRQoL (EuroQol 5-Dimension) improved from baselines of 0.568 and 0.544 to 0.763 and 0.769 in the oldest quartile and entire population respectively. All age quartiles improved statistically and clinically over baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

This aggregate analysis of three independent studies provides insight into the performance of restorative neurostimulation in an older population. Patients derived significant and clinically meaningful benefit in disability, pain and HRQoL. When compared with a similarly indicated cohort of younger patients, there were no statistically or clinically significant differences.

Is it possible to generate an additional pleasant and pain-relieving muscle stimulation when using a low-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of lower back pain? Pilot study: A new technique: "MuscleSCS"

OBJECTIVE

The combined use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and muscle stimulation, in the treatment of chronic pain, using the same probe, could improve the clinical results. However, this technique has not been established as yet. It was our hypothesis that it is possible to generate muscle stimulation by using low frequencies with SCS electrodes and use it to additionally treat chronic back pain.

METHODS

We generated muscle stimulation in patients with previously implanted SCS electrodes, for the treatment of lower back pain, by using low frequencies (2, 4, 6, and 8 Hz) and different contact combinations of the electrodes. The results were evaluated by using visual inspection (videos), haptic control, surface electromyography (EMG), and sonographic recordings.

RESULTS

This pilot study (17 patients, seven females, age 36-87 years, 11 percutaneous paddle leads, and 6 octrodes) was performed at the Neurosurgical Department of the University of Tuebingen. The most preferred frequencies were 6 Hz (45.5% of percutaneous paddle leads) and 8 Hz (50% of octrodes) at contacts 3&4 or 5&6. The preference of frequencies differed significantly among genders (p = 0.023). Simultaneous EMG and ultrasonic recordings demonstrated the generation of muscle potentials and the stimulation of deeper muscle groups.

CONCLUSION

In this study, it has been shown that with low-frequency SCS stimulation, pleasant and pain-relieving muscle contractions of the lower and upper back can also be generated. This combined method has been coined by us as "MuscleSCS" technique. Clinical trials are necessary to establish the value of this combined technique and its subtypes.

Multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is multifactorial in nature, with recent research highlighting the role of multifidus dysfunction in a subset of nonspecific CLBP. This review aimed to provide a foundational reference that elucidates the pathophysiological cascade of multifidus dysfunction, how it contrasts with other CLBP etiologies and the role of restorative neurostimulation.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature.

RESULTS

In total, 194 articles were included, and findings were presented to highlight emerging principles related to multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation. Multifidus dysfunction is diagnosed by a history of mechanical, axial, nociceptive CLBP and exam demonstrating functional lumbar instability, which differs from other structural etiologies. Diagnostic images may be used to grade multifidus atrophy and assess other structural pathologies. While various treatments exist for CLBP, restorative neurostimulation distinguishes itself from traditional neurostimulation in a way that treats a different etiology, targets a different anatomical site, and has a distinctive mechanism of action.

CONCLUSIONS

Multifidus dysfunction has been proposed to result from loss of neuromuscular control, which may manifest clinically as muscle inhibition resulting in altered movement patterns. Over time, this cycle may result in potential atrophy, degeneration and CLBP. Restorative neurostimulation, a novel implantable neurostimulator system, stimulates the efferent lumbar medial branch nerve to elicit repetitive multifidus contractions. This intervention aims to interrupt the cycle of dysfunction and normalize multifidus activity incrementally, potentially restoring neuromuscular control. Restorative neurostimulation has been shown to reduce pain and disability in CLBP, improve quality of life and reduce health care expenditures.

International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery Statement: Restorative Neurostimulation for Chronic Mechanical Low Back Pain Resulting From Neuromuscular Instability

This International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery statement has been generated to respond to growing requests for background, supporting literature and evidence, and proper coding for restorative neurostimulation for chronic low back pain. Chronic low back pain describes the diverse experience of a significant proportion of the population. Conservative management of these patients remains the predominant care pathway, but for many patients, symptom relief is poor. The application of new techniques in patients who have exhausted traditional care paradigms should be undertaken with a detailed understanding of the pathology being treated, the mechanisms involved, and the data supporting efficacy. This statement on restorative neurostimulation places this technology in the context of the current understanding of the etiology of mechanical low back pain and the currently available evidence for this technique. In an appropriately selected cohort with a specific subset of chronic low back pain symptoms, this technique may provide benefit to payers and patients.

ReActiv8 Stimulation Therapy vs. Optimal Medical Management: A Randomized Controlled Trial for the Treatment of Intractable Mechanical Chronic Low Back Pain (RESTORE Trial Protocol)

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability globally. The role of restorative neurostimulation in the treatment of patients with refractory mechanical CLBP and multifidus muscle dysfunction has been established in one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and several clinical studies that demonstrated both safety and clinical benefit. This post-market trial provides a direct comparison to optimized medical management to test the hypothesis that the addition of restorative neurostimulation to current care paradigms results in significant improvements in back pain-related disability.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This trial will include people who have reported significant levels of back pain and back pain-related disability with symptoms that have persisted for longer than 6 months prior to enrollment and resulted in pain on most days in the 12 months prior to enrollment. Eligible patients will be randomized to either optimal medical management or optimal medical management plus ReActiv8® restorative neurostimulation therapy. Patient-reported outcomes will be collected at regular intervals out to the 1-year primary endpoint, at which time the patients in the control arm will be offered implantation with the ReActiv8 system. Assessment of each group will continue for an additional year.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The RESTORE trial follows the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The WCG IRB acts as the Central Institutional Review Board (IRB) for most sites and some sites will receive local IRB approval prior to enrollment of patients. Each IRB assessed the protocol and related documentation. The protocol complies with Good Clinical Practice (GCP). All patients provide written informed consent to participate in the trial.

PROTOCOL VERSION

Version C, 07 Sep 2022.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov registration number. NCT04803214 registered March 17, 2021.

Efficacy and Safety of Bushen Huoxue Formula in Patients with Discogenic Low-Back Pain: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of Bushen Huoxue Formula (BSHXF) for the treatment of discogenic low-back pain (DLBP).

METHODS

This was a parallel, double-blind, randomized, clinical trial performed between May 2019 and June 2020. Seventy patients were assigned by computerized random number table to the treatment group (lumbar traction and BSHXF, 35 cases) or the control group (lumbar traction and placebo, 35 cases). The patients received intervention for 3 weeks. Assessment was conducted before treatment and at week 1, 2, 3 during treatment. Primary outcome was the self-reported score of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included Visual Analog Scale (VAS), clinical efficacy rate by minimal clinically important difference (MCID) as well as lumbar tenderness, muscle tone and lumbar spine mobility. Adverse reactions were recorded. Follow-up was performed at 1 and 3 months after the end of treatment.

RESULTS

In the treatment group, ODI score was significantly decreased compared with baseline (P<0.05) and the control group at 2- and 3- week treatment. Similarly, VAS score decreased compared with the baseline (P<0.05) and was lower than that in the control group at 2- and 3- week treatment (P<0.05). The clinical efficacy rate of the treatment group was higher than that of the control group after treatment [32.35% (11/34) vs. 3.13% (1/32), P<0.05). Moreover, the tenderness, and muscle tone, as well as the back extension and left flexion in lumbar spine mobility in the treatment group at 3-week treatment were significantly improved compared with the control group (P<0.05). Follow-up showed that at 1-month after treatment, the treatment group had better outcomes than the control group with regard to a total score of ODI and VAS scores, as well as clinical efficacy rate (all P<0.05). Moreover, VAS score was still significantly lower than the control group at 3-month follow-up (P<0.05). No adverse reactions were reported during the study.

CONCLUSION

BSXHF combined with lumbar traction can significantly improve the clinical symptoms including pain intensity, functionality, muscle tone, and lumbar spine mobility in DLBP patients. (Registration No. ChiCTR1900027777).

Restorative Neurostimulation: A Clinical Guide for Therapy Adoption

In this review, we present a comprehensive clinical approach to restorative neurostimulation, a novel form of stimulation for refractory chronic mechanical low back pain, targeting impaired neuromuscular control and degeneration of the multifidus muscle. We focus on patient identification, technique guidance, and review of the scientific background and clinical evidence. As our understanding of back pain grows, there is clear evidence that impaired neuromuscular control and consequent degeneration of the multifidus muscle contribute to mechanical low back pain development and maintenance. We provide clinical guidance regarding an implantable restorative neurostimulation system that targets impaired neuromuscular control. Supported by results from a randomized, active-sham-controlled clinical trial with long-term follow-up, we provide clinicians with a comprehensive overview and practical clinical guidance for the adoption of this therapy modality.

Clinical utility and reproducibility of surface electromyography in individuals with chronic low back pain: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common disorders presenting in primary healthcare. Kinematic studies of low lumbar pelvic mobility allied with surface electromyography (sEMG) may assist in the assessment and management of CLBP. However, the applicability in the use of sEMG in the clinical setting remains uncertain. In this protocol, we aim to review the clinical utility and reproducibility of the sEMG component of these kinematic studies in patients with CLBP.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol was informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and results will be reported in line with the PRISMA. Searches will be conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL and Google Scholar databases, along with a comprehensive review of grey literature. Two reviewers will conduct the searches and independently screen them, according to title and abstract. Two independent reviewers will then assess the full-text versions of those selected articles and assess the risk of bias using the defined protocol inclusion criteria. The risk of bias within the studies included will be assessed via the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, V.2 and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines will be used to assess certainty of evidence for recommendations based on the risk of bias findings. Meta-analysis will be conducted where appropriate on groups of studies with low heterogeneity. In instances of higher heterogeneity, meta-synthesis will instead be completed, comparing results in terms of increased or decreased clinical utility and/or reproducibility of sEMG.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was not required for this research. It is anticipated that the results will influence the use, interpretation and further development of sEMG in management and assessment of these patients.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021273936.

Non-Spinal Neuromodulation of the Lumbar Medial Branch Nerve for Chronic Axial Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review

Chronic low back pain remains highly prevalent, costly, and the leading cause of disability worldwide. Symptoms are complex and treatment involves an interdisciplinary approach. Due to diverse anatomical etiologies, treatment outcomes with interventional options are highly variable. A novel approach to treating chronic axial low back pain entails the use of peripheral nerve stimulation to the lumbar medial branch nerve, and this review examines the clinical data of the two different, commercially available, non-spinal neuromodulation systems. This review provides the clinician a succinct narrative that presents up-to-date data objectively. Our review found ten clinical studies, including one report of two cases, six prospective studies, and three randomized clinical trials published to date. Currently, there are different proposed mechanisms of action to address chronic axial low back pain with different implantation techniques. Evidence suggests that peripheral nerve stimulation of the lumbar medial branch nerve may be effective in improving pain and function in patients with chronic axial low back pain symptoms at short and long term follow up, with good safety profiles. Further long-term data is needed to consider this intervention earlier in the pain treatment algorithm, but initial data are promising.

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.