Real‐World Analysis: Long‐Term Effect of Spinal Cord Stimulation With Different Waveforms for Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

Long-term explantation risk in patients with chronic pain treated with spinal cord or dorsal root ganglion stimulation

OBJECTIVE

To investigate long-term explantation risks and causes for the explantation of neuromodulation devices for the treatment of chronic pain from different manufacturers.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included patients implanted with a system for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) or dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation at Sahlgrenska University Hospital between January 2012 and December 2022. Patient characteristics, explantation rates and causes for explantation were obtained by reviewing medical records.

RESULTS

In total, 400 patients were included in the study. Including all manufacturers, the cumulative explantation risk for any reason was 17%, 23% and 38% at 3, 5 and 10 years, respectively. Explantation risk due to diminished pain relief at the same intervals was 10%, 14% and 23%. A subgroup comparison of 5-year explantation risk using Kaplan-Meier analysis did not show a statistically significant difference between the manufacturers. In multivariable Cox regression analyses, there was no difference in explantation risk for any reason, but for explantation due to diminished pain relief, a higher risk was noted for Medtronic (preferably older types of SCS devices) and DRG stimulation. No other predictive factor for explantation was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Although SCS and DRG stimulation are well-established and safe treatments for chronic pain, the long-term explantation risk remains high. The difference between manufacturers highlights the importance of technological evolution for improving therapy outcomes. Increased stringency in patient selection and follow-up strategies, as well as further development of device hardware and software technology for increased longevity, could possibly reduce long-term explantation risks.

Defining Short- and Long-Term Programming Requirements in Patients Treated With 10-kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

High-frequency spinal cord stimulation (10-kHz SCS) has been shown to be an effective treatment for refractory low back pain and neck pain with and without limb pain in clinical trial and real-world studies. However, limited information is available in the literature on the type and frequency of programming parameters required to optimize pain relief.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective trial and postimplant clinical and system device data were analyzed from consecutive patients with neck pain and low back pain, with and without limb pain, from a single clinical site, including both thoracic and cervical lead placement. Best bipole, stimulation parameters, and outcomes, including pain relief, change in opioid medication use, sleep, and daily function, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 92 patients in the trial, 70 received a permanent implant. Of these, the mean duration of follow-up was 1.8 ± 1.3 years. Pain relief of ≥50% at the last follow-up was achieved by 64% of patients implanted; in addition, 65% reduced their opioid medication use; 65% reported improved sleep, and 71% reported improved function. There was some consistency between the "best" bipole at trial and permanent implant, with 82% of patients within one bipole location, including 54% of permanent implants who were using the same best bipole as at trial. After permanent implant, device reprogramming was minimal, with ≤one reprogramming change per patient per quarter required to maintain pain outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In the study, 10-kHz SCS was an effective therapy for treating chronic pain, whereby a high responder rate (≥50% pain relief) was achieved with short time to pain relief in trial and maintained with limited device programming after permanent implant. The data presented here provide insight into the programming required during the trial and implant stages to obtain and maintain therapeutic efficacy.

Quantitative Sensory Testing in Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVES

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) has been used for decades to study sensory abnormalities in multiple conditions in which the somatosensory system is compromised, including pain. It is commonly used in pharmacologic studies on chronic pain but less so in conjunction with neuromodulation. This review aims to assess the utility of QST in spinal cord stimulation (SCS) protocols.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For this narrative review, we searched PubMed for records of studies in which sensory testing has been performed as part of a clinical study on SCS from 1975 onward until October 2023. We focused on studies in which QST has been used to explore the effect of SCS on neuropathic, neuropathic-like, or mixed pain.

RESULTS

Our search identified 22 useful studies, all small and exploratory, using heterogeneous methods. Four studies used the full battery of validated German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain QST. There is emerging evidence that assessment dynamic mechanical allodynia (eight studies), and mechanical/thermal temporal summation of pain (eight studies) may have a role in quantifying the response to various SCS waveforms. There also were sporadic reports of improvement of sensory deficits in a proportion of patients with neuropathic pain that warrant further study.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend the adoption of QST into future clinical research protocols, using either the full QST protocol or a less time-demanding short-form QST.

Chronic pain after spine surgery: Insights into pathogenesis, new treatment, and preventive therapy

Chronic pain after spine surgery (CPSS) is often characterized by intractable low back pain and/or radiating leg pain, and has been reported in 8-40% of patients that received lumbar spine surgery. We conducted a literature search of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID with a focus on studies about the etiology and treatments of CPSS and low back pain. Our aim was to provide a narrative review that would help us better understand the pathogenesis and current treatment options for CPSS. This knowledge will aid in the development of optimal strategies for managing postoperative pain symptoms and potentially curing the underlying etiologies. Firstly, we reviewed recent advances in the mechanistic study of CPSS, illustrated both structural (e.g., fibrosis and scaring) and non-structural factors (e.g., inflammation, neuronal sensitization, glial activation, psychological factor) causing CPSS, and highlighted those having not been given sufficient attention as the etiology of CPSS. Secondly, we summarized clinical evidence and therapeutic perspectives of CPSS. We also presented new insights about the treatments and etiology of CPSS, in order to raise awareness of medical staff in the identification and management of this complex painful disease. Finally, we discussed potential new targets for clinical interventions of CPSS and future perspectives of mechanistic and translational research. CPSS patients often have a mixed etiology. By reviewing recent findings, the authors advocate that clinicians shall comprehensively evaluate each case to formulate a patient-specific and multi-modal pain treatment, and importantly, consider an early intraoperative intervention that may decrease the risk or even prevent the onset of CPSS.

Translational potential statement

CPSS remains difficult to treat. This review broadens our understanding of clinical therapies and underlying mechanisms of CPSS, and provides new insights which will aid in the development of novel mechanism-based therapies for not only managing the established pain symptoms but also preventing the development of CPSS.

Physical functioning following spinal cord stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as an important treatment for chronic pain disorders. While there is evidence supporting improvement in pain intensity with SCS therapy, efforts to synthesize the evidence on physical functioning are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to assess long-term physical function following 12 months of SCS for chronic back pain.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched for original peer-reviewed publications investigating physical function following SCS. The primary outcome was physical function at 12 months following SCS therapy for chronic back pain compared with baseline. A random effects model with an inverse variable method was used. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to determine the certainty of evidence.

FINDINGS

A total of 518 studies were screened, of which 36 were included. Twenty-two studies were pooled in the meta-analysis. There was a significant reduction in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at all time frames up to 24 months following implantation. Pooled results revealed significant improvement in ODI scores at 12 months with a mean difference of -17.00% (95% CI -23.07 to -10.94, p<0.001). There was a very low certainty of evidence in this finding as per the GRADE framework. There was no significant difference in subgroup analyses based on study design (randomised controlled trials (RCTs) vs non-RCTs), study funding, or stimulation type.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis highlights significant improvements in physical function after SCS therapy. However, this finding was limited by a very low GRADE certainty of evidence and high heterogeneity.

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.

Progress in the efficacy and mechanism of spinal cord stimulation in neuropathological pain

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a long-term recurrent disease caused by somatosensory nervous system injury, with spontaneous pain, hyperalgesia, ectopic pain, and paresthesia as the main clinical manifestations. It adversely affects patients' quality of life. NP treatments often include medication, physical therapy, and invasive therapy; the first two therapies are generally ineffective for some NP patients. These patients sometimes rely on invasive therapy to alleviate pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a very effective therapeutic method. SCS is a neuroregulatory method that involves placing the electrodes on the corresponding painful spinal cords. Pain is greatly alleviated after SCS. SCS has been proven to be an effective therapeutic method for the treatment of neurological pain. Furthermore, SCS provides a feasible approach for patients with unsuccessful drug treatment. This paper reviews the relevant literature of spinal cord electrical stimulation, focusing on the mechanism of action, clinical application, clinical efficacy and technical progress of spinal cord electrical stimulation. SCS is widely used in the treatment of NP diseases such as postherpetic neuralgia, back surgery failure syndrome, and phantom limb pain. With advancements in science and technology, tremendous progress has also been made in the spinal cord electrical stimulation method and good momentum has been maintained.

Ultra-Low Energy Cycled Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation Yields Robust Outcomes in Pain, Function, and Affective Domains: A Subanalysis From Two Prospective, Multicenter, International Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

DeRidder's burst stimulation design has become a key spinal cord stimulation (SCS) waveform because it reduces the intensity of pain as well as its associated emotional distress. The brain pathways underlying these outcomes may also allow for the effects of stimulation to carry over after stimulation is turned off, making it amenable to intermittent application. Here, the utility of intermittently cycled burst was evaluated using data from two large real-world prospective studies (TRIUMPH, REALITY).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects used intermittent dosing in a 1:3 ratio (30 sec on, 90 sec off; N = 100) in TRIUMPH and 1:12 ratio in REALITY (30-sec on, 360-sec off; N = 95) for six months. Pain intensity (0-10 numeric rating scale), pain-related emotions on the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS), and physical function on PROMIS questionnaires were compared with preimplant baseline ratings and by group.

RESULTS

In both groups, mean pain intensity decreased by nearly 50% relative to baseline, PCS scores significantly decreased, and physical function improved. Importantly, no differences between the 1:3 and 1:12 groups were identified. A high proportion, 80% and 77% of the 1:3 and 1:12 groups, respectively, were considered responders on a multiple measures. No adverse events were associated with intermittent stimulation.

DISCUSSION

Intermittent cycling of burst SCS lowers the overall electric charge delivered to the spinal cord and preserves battery consumption, without compromising pain relief and associated symptoms.

Paresthesia-Based Versus High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Retrospective, Real-World, Single-Center Comparison

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has become a common treatment modality for chronic pain of various etiologies. Over the past two decades, significant technological evolution has occurred in the SCS space, and this includes high-frequency (10 kHz) stimulation. Level I evidence exists reporting superiority of 10 kHz SCS over traditional SCS, however, conflicting reports have been published. The primary objective was to report site-collected real-world patient reported percentage improvement in pain scale (PR-PIPS) with traditional SCS and 10 kHz SCS from a single, academic medical center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a single-center retrospective review to determine PR-PIPS of traditional SCS and 10 kHz SCS in those patients implanted for at least 12 months. Data were collected by two independent physicians not involved with the implant surgery to minimize bias in the data collection process. PR-PIPS and other clinical variables were abstracted either via chart review or via phone call for patients who were at least 12 months post-implant at the last clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 163 implanted patients (traditional stimulation n = 85; high-frequency stimulation n = 78) were identified. Twenty-two explants (traditional stimulation n = 10; high-frequency stimulation n = 12) were performed (13.5%). Seventy-five total remaining SCS implants utilizing traditional stimulation and 66 total remaining SCS implants utilizing high-frequency stimulation were included. There was no difference in PR-PIPS between traditional stimulation (50.6% ± 30.1%) and high-frequency stimulation (47.6% ± 31.5%) in the adjusted linear regression model in a variety of implant indications (p = 0.399). There was no difference in frequency of patient categorization into various thresholds of percentage pain relief based on type of stimulation. The most common reasons for explant were loss of efficacy (50.0%) and infection (40.0%) in the traditional cohort, and loss of efficacy (58.3%) in the high-frequency cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

This study adds further evidence to the published literature that successful long-term results can be achieved with SCS. Our retrospective analysis did not find a statistically significant difference in PR-PIPS between traditional stimulation and high-frequency stimulation in a variety of indications over an average follow-up of nearly two years. Notably, there were statistically significant differences in treatment indications and primary sites of pain between the two patient cohorts, and this should be considered when interpreting the results.