Comparison of tonic spinal cord stimulation, high-frequency and burst stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: a double-blind, randomised placebo controlled trial

Spinal Cord Stimulation Improves Quality of Life for Patients With Chronic Pain-Data From the UK and Ireland National Neuromodulation Registry

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment for chronic pain and is supported by numerous studies. However, some recent articles have questioned its efficacy. This article examines a cohort of >1800 patients with SCS from the UK and Ireland National Neuromodulation Registry. It is intended to provide a "real-world" assessment of efficacy and compare its effects with other procedures performed for painful indications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quality of life (QoL) data (EuroQoL five-level [EQ5D]) and demographic data were extracted from the National Neuromodulation Registry for all patients (N = 1811) who underwent SCS for chronic pain in 27 centers in the UK between February 2018 and July 2022. These were compared with data from the published literature for other commonly performed elective surgical procedures.

RESULTS

The EQ5D utility index increased by a mean of 0.202 in the 1236 patients with paired pre- and postoperative utility scores. The median utility was 0.263 (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.384; n = 1811) preoperatively, whereas at six months after the operation, it was 0.550 (IQR = 0.396; n = 1025), p < 0.0001, Wilcoxon rank sum test. The median utility score at 12 months postoperation was 0.548 (IQR = 0.417; n = 970). There was no difference in utility scores at six months and 12 months after implantation (p = 0.15, Wilcoxon rank sum test). There was a significant improvement in QoL in all five domains of the five-level EQ5D tool at six months after baseline (p < 0.01, for all subcategories), and this was sustained at one year after implantation. The baseline utility was lower than in patients who underwent elective surgery for other painful conditions, and the absolute (and proportionate) increase in utility produced by SCS was greater than that achieved with most other interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

SCS increases the QoL in patients requiring surgery for pain. Similar results were seen regardless of SCS indication. When comparing analogous data bases, SCS produces a greater percentage improvement in EQ5D utility than do many other elective surgical procedures for painful conditions, including spinal surgery and some joint replacements.

Allodynia, Hyperalgesia, (Quantitative) Sensory Testing and Conditioned Pain Modulation in Patients With Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Before and After Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy

OBJECTIVES

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic debilitating disease characterized by sensory abnormalities. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for CRPS, but few studies have investigated the effects of SCS therapy on sensory characteristics. Therefore, this study investigated the effect of SCS on allodynia, hyperalgesia, electrical quantitative sensory testing (QST) parameters, and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) effect.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study is part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 36655259). Patients with CRPS in one extremity and eligible for SCS were included. The outcome parameters allodynia (symptom and sign), hyperalgesia (symptom), sensory thresholds with QST, CPM effect, and pain scores were tested before and after three months of SCS (40-Hz tonic SCS). Both the CRPS-affected extremity and the contralateral, clinically unaffected extremity were used to test three sensory thresholds with electrical QST: current perception threshold (CPT), pain perception threshold (PPT), and pain tolerance threshold (PTT). The PTT also was used as a test stimulus for the CPM paradigm both before and after the conditioning ice-water test. Nonparametric testing was used for all statistical analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 31 patients were included for analysis. Pain, allodynia (sign and symptom), and hyperalgesia (symptom) were all significantly reduced after SCS therapy. On the unaffected side, none of the QST thresholds (CPT, PPT, and PTT) was significantly altered after SCS therapy. However, the CPT on the CRPS-affected side was significantly increased after SCS therapy. A CPM effect was present both before and after SCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard 40-Hz tonic SCS significantly reduces pain, hyperalgesia, and allodynia in patients with CRPS. These findings suggest that SCS therapy should not be withheld from patients who suffer from allodynia and hyperalgesia, which contradicts previous findings derived from retrospective analysis and animal research. ISRCTN Registry: The ISRCTN registration number for the study is ISRCTN 36655259.

Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Management of Chronic Pain: Current Perspectives

Over the last several decades, opioid diversion, misuse, and over-prescription have run rampant in the United States. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been FDA approved for treatment for a primary indication of neuropathic limb pain that is resistant to more conservative medical therapy. The disorders qualified for treatment include neuropathic, post-surgical, post-amputation, osteodegenerative, and pain related to vascular disease. Some of the most frequently cited conditions for treatment of SCS include failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) Type I and Type II, and post-herpetic neuralgias. Developments in SCS systems have led to the differentiation between the delivered electromechanical waveform patterns, including tonic, burst, and high-frequency. Burst SCS mitigates traditional paresthesia due to expedited action potential and offers improved pain relief. Burst SCS has been shown in available studies to be non-inferior to the traditional SCS, which can cause pain paresthesia in patients who already have chronic pain. Burst SCS does not seem to cause or need the paresthesia seen in traditional SCS, making SCS not tolerable to patients.

Moreover, some studies suggest that burst SCS may decrease opioid consumption in patients with chronic pain. This can make burst SCS an extremely useful tool in the battle against chronic pain and the raging opioid epidemic. As of now, more research needs to be performed to further delineate the effectiveness and long-term safety of this device.

Successful management of segmental zoster paresis on the upper arm with temporally burst spinal cord stimulation

Segmental zoster paresis (SZP) of the limbs is characterized by a focal, asymmetric neurogenic weakness that may occur in an extremity affected by herpes zoster (HZ). In this case report, we describe the case of a patient with SZP who presented with these problems and responded well to temporary spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and systematic rehabilitation. A 62-year-old female patient was referred for right upper limb pain, weakness, and insomnia due to pain. After completing the 14-day trial stimulation, the pain numerical rating scale of the patient in the right upper extremity decreased from 8/10 to 2/10. The Athens insomnia scale score decreased from 15/24 to 10/24. Furthermore, the grip strength of the right hands increased from 6.7 to 16.8 kg at discharge. We induced temporal SCS and rehabilitation of the right upper limb SZP and successfully reduced the pain. An in-depth understanding of the neurological complications secondary to HZ should be emphasized, with temporal SCS and rehabilitation expected to play a crucial role in the motor recovery of patients with SZP.

Implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Implanted spinal neuromodulation (SNMD) techniques are used in the treatment of refractory chronic pain. They involve the implantation of electrodes around the spinal cord (spinal cord stimulation (SCS)) or dorsal root ganglion (dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS)), and a pulse generator unit under the skin. Electrical stimulation is then used with the aim of reducing pain intensity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness of implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for people with chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Web of Science (ISI), Health Technology Assessments, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to September 2021 without language restrictions, searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNMD interventions with placebo (sham) stimulation, no treatment or usual care; or comparing SNMD interventions + another treatment versus that treatment alone. We included participants ≥ 18 years old with non-cancer and non-ischaemic pain of longer than three months duration. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were disability, analgesic medication use, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health economic outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened database searches to determine inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for prespecified results using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Outcomes were evaluated at short- (≤ one month), medium- four to eight months) and long-term (≥12 months). Where possible we conducted meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 unique published studies that randomised 908 participants, and 20 unique ongoing studies. All studies evaluated SCS. We found no eligible published studies of DRGS and no studies comparing SCS with no treatment or usual care. We rated all results evaluated as being at high risk of bias overall. For all comparisons and outcomes where we found evidence, we graded the certainty of the evidence as low or very low, downgraded due to limitations of studies, imprecision and in some cases, inconsistency. Active stimulation versus placebo SCS versus placebo (sham) Results were only available at short-term follow-up for this comparison. Pain intensity Six studies (N = 164) demonstrated a small effect in favour of SCS at short-term follow-up (0 to 100 scale, higher scores = worse pain, mean difference (MD) -8.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.67 to -1.78, very low certainty). The point estimate falls below our predetermined threshold for a clinically important effect (≥10 points). No studies reported the proportion of participants experiencing 30% or 50% pain relief for this comparison. Adverse events (AEs) The quality and inconsistency of adverse event reporting in these studies precluded formal analysis. Active stimulation + other intervention versus other intervention alone SCS + other intervention versus other intervention alone (open-label studies) Pain intensity Mean difference Three studies (N = 303) demonstrated a potentially clinically important mean difference in favour of SCS of -37.41 at short term (95% CI -46.39 to -28.42, very low certainty), and medium-term follow-up (5 studies, 635 participants, MD -31.22 95% CI -47.34 to -15.10 low-certainty), and no clear evidence for an effect of SCS at long-term follow-up (1 study, 44 participants, MD -7 (95% CI -24.76 to 10.76, very low-certainty). Proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain relief We found an effect in favour of SCS at short-term (2 studies, N = 249, RR 15.90, 95% CI 6.70 to 37.74, I2 0% ; risk difference (RD) 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.74, very low certainty), medium term (5 studies, N = 597, RR 7.08, 95 %CI 3.40 to 14.71, I2 = 43%; RD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, low-certainty evidence), and long term (1 study, N = 87, RR 15.15, 95% CI 2.11 to 108.91 ; RD 0.35, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.49, very low certainty) follow-up. Adverse events (AEs) Device related No studies specifically reported  device-related adverse events at short-term follow-up. At medium-term follow-up, the incidence of lead failure/displacement (3 studies N = 330) ranged from 0.9 to 14% (RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.11, I2 64%, very low certainty). The incidence of infection (4 studies, N = 548) ranged from 3 to 7% (RD 0.04, 95%CI 0.01, 0.07, I2 0%, very low certainty). The incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (4 studies, N =5 48) ranged from 2% to 31% (RD 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, I2 86%, very low certainty). One study (N = 44) reported a 55% incidence of lead failure/displacement (RD 0.55, 95% CI 0.35, 0 to 75, very low certainty), and a 94% incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (RD 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, very low certainty) at five-year follow-up. No studies provided data on infection rates at long-term follow-up. We found reports of some serious adverse events as a result of the intervention. These included autonomic neuropathy, prolonged hospitalisation, prolonged monoparesis, pulmonary oedema, wound infection, device extrusion and one death resulting from subdural haematoma. Other No studies reported the incidence of other adverse events at short-term follow-up. We found no clear evidence of a difference in otherAEs at medium-term (2 studies, N = 278, RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06, I2 0%) or long term (1 study, N = 100, RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.02) follow-up. Very limited evidence suggested that SCS increases healthcare costs. It was not clear whether SCS was cost-effective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low-certainty evidence that SCS may not provide clinically important benefits on pain intensity compared to placebo stimulation. We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that SNMD interventions may provide clinically important benefits for pain intensity when added to conventional medical management or physical therapy. SCS is associated with complications including infection, electrode lead failure/migration and a need for reoperation/re-implantation. The level of certainty regarding the size of those risks is very low. SNMD may lead to serious adverse events, including death. We found no evidence to support or refute the use of DRGS for chronic pain.

Successful application of burst spinal cord stimulation for refractory upper limb pain: a case series

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used to treat sustained pain that is intractable despite various types of treatment. However, conventional tonic waveform SCS has not shown promising outcomes for spinal cord injury (SCI) or postamputation pain. The pain signal mechanisms of burst waveforms are different to those of conventional tonic waveforms, but few reports have presented the therapeutic potential of burst waveforms for the abovementioned indications. This current case report describes two patients with refractory upper limb pain after SCI and upper limb amputation that were treated with burst waveform SCS. While the patients could not obtain sufficient therapeutic effect with conventional tonic waveforms, the burst waveforms provided better pain reduction with less discomfort. However, further studies are necessary to better clarify the mechanisms and efficacy of burst waveform SCS in patients with intractable pain.

Efficacy of different spinal cord stimulation paradigms for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain (PARS-trial): study protocol for a double-blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled crossover trial

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective method to treat neuropathic pain; however, it is challenging to compare different stimulation modalities in an individual patient, and thus, it is largely unknown which of the many available SCS modalities is most effective. Specifically, electrodes leading out through the skin would have to be consecutively connected to different, incompatible SCS devices and be tested over a time period of several weeks or even months. The risk of wound infections for such a study would be unacceptably high and blinding of the trial difficult. The PARS-trial seizes the capacity of a new type of wireless SCS device, which enables a blinded and systematic intra-patient comparison of different SCS modalities over extended time periods and without increasing wound infection rates.

Methods

The PARS-trial is designed as a double-blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled multi-center crossover study. It will compare the clinical effectiveness of the three most relevant SCS paradigms in individual patients. The trial will recruit 60 patients suffering from intractable neuropathic pain of the lower extremities, who have been considered for SCS therapy and were already implanted with a wireless SCS device prior to study participation. Over a time period of 35 days, patients will be treated consecutively with three different SCS paradigms (“burst,” “1 kHz,” and “1.499 kHz”) and placebo stimulation. Each SCS paradigm will be applied for 5 days with a washout period of 70 h between stimulation cycles. The primary endpoint of the study is the level of pain self-assessment on the visual analogue scale after 5 days of SCS.

Secondary, exploratory endpoints include self-assessment of pain quality (as determined by painDETECT questionnaire), quality of life (as determined by Quality of Life EQ-5D-5L questionnaire), anxiety perception (as determined by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and physical restriction (as determined by the Oswestry Disability Index).

Discussion

Combining paresthesia-free SCS modalities with wireless SCS offers a unique opportunity for a blinded and systematic comparison of different SCS modalities in individual patients. This trial will advance our understanding of the clinical effectiveness of the most relevant SCS paradigms.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00018929. Registered on 14 January 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-020-05013-7.

A Review of Neuromodulation for Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in Pediatric Patients and Novel Use of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in an Adolescent Patient With 30-Month Follow-Up

OBJECTIVES

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a disorder in which pain and discomfort are out of proportion to the amount of tissue damage. While prevalence is 20.57 per 100,000 adults, it has not been studied in the U.S. pediatric population. Conservative treatment options include pharmacologic, behavioral, and psychological treatment. If these fail, invasive therapies such as sympathetic blocks and neuromodulation may be performed. The ACCURATE study demonstrated efficacy of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for the treatment of refractory CRPS, but did not include pediatric patients and there are no reported cases of its use in the pediatric population. We review the use of neuromodulation for CRPS in pediatric patients and present a novel case using DRG stimulation in an adolescent patient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was performed for any studies of neuromodulation as treatment of pediatric CRPS. The literature is reviewed and the case of a 17-year-old female with CRPS treated with DRG stimulation is presented.

RESULTS

A 15-year-old female developed CRPS type I of the left ankle after a sports injury. She was unable to wear a shoe or venture outside the home due to pain, swelling, and allodynia. Conservative therapies, including medications, physical therapy, and lumbosacral sympathetic plexus blocks, failed. At age 17, she underwent DRG stimulator lead placement targeting the left L4 and L5 nerve roots. Her therapy provided 100% relief of pain within four days of placement and was sustained at 30-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

DRG stimulation has been shown to significantly alter the symptomatology in patients with CRPS. This case suggests that DRG stimulation may be as effective for the treatment of refractory CRPS in pediatric patients as in adults.

All bursts are equal, but some are more equal (to burst firing): burstDR stimulation versus Boston burst stimulation

Introduction: Since the introduction of burst spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain, several companies have developed their own version of burst stimulation, which is confusing the marketplace and clinicians of what burst stimulation truly is, the value and utilization of the therapy.Areas covered: We review those two burst stimulation designs and notice important differences. The original burstDR^TM stimulation tries to mimic physiologic burst firing, which involves closely spaced high frequency sodium spikes nested on a calcium mediated plateau. This is realized by generating a train of 5 monophasic spikes of increasing amplitude with passive charge balance after the last spike, in contrast to the other burst designs which involve a version of cycling 4-5 spikes each being individually actively charge balanced spikes.Expert opinion: Based on the neurobiology of burst firing as well as abductive reasoning we like to clarify that burstDR^TM is a true physiologic burst stimulation, and that other versions being called burst stimulation are essentially clustered tonic stimulation. This differentiating terminology will prevent confusion for healthcare providers, regulators, and the marketplace of what burst stimulation is.

Perioperative Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulator Placement in Patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Compared with Patients without Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a multifaceted disorder resulting in an abnormal pain response to tissue injury. Among key CRPS features are neurogenic inflammation, maladaptive plasticity, and vasomotor dysfunction, which can result in severe pain and disability. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an efficacious treatment for several chronic pain conditions and may improve pain and life quality in CRPS patients with CRPS. However, little information exists regarding perioperative outcomes of patients with CRPS undergoing surgical implantation of an SCS device.

METHODS

Patients were included if they underwent an SCS procedure at our institution between 2008 and 2016 for chronic pain. Cases were excluded if the procedure involved stimulator removal or if it was an outpatient procedure. Multivariate regression assessed the effect of CRPS and other clinical variables on perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighty-one inpatient SCS implantation cases for chronic pain were included, with 9 patients (11.1%) having a CRPS diagnosis. The CRPS cohort received higher mean quantities of intraoperative opioids and had a lower proportion of patients reporting meaningful pain reduction (16.7%) in the 24-hour postoperative setting compared with patients without CRPS (35.9%), although this was not statistically significant. Multivariate regression modeling suggested that CRPS was a significant predictor of increased odds of extended time to the postanesthesia care unit discharge (P = 0.0406) and higher direct costs of hospitalization (P = 0.0326).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that CRPS may pose several unique risks in the perioperative period after inpatient SCS implantation. These findings support the need for future prospective investigations examining risks and outcomes for SCS procedures in this population.

Spinal Cord Stimulation

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been well established as a safe and effective treatment of pain derived from a wide variety of etiologies. Careful patient selection including a rigorous trial period and psychological evaluation are essential. When patients proceed to permanent implantation, various considerations should be made, such as the type of lead, type of anesthesia, and waveform patterns for SCS. This article discusses the common indications for SCS, patient selection criteria, and pertinent outcomes from randomized clinical trials related to common indications treated with SCS. Technical considerations, such as type of implant, anesthesia, and programming, are also discussed.

Spinal Cord Stimulation as Treatment for Truncal Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome After Cardiac Surgery: A Case Report

A 59-year-old man presented 7 months after coronary artery bypass with continued bilateral axillary pain. His symptoms progressed over a period of months to allodynia, edema, erythema, decreased range of motion, and skin changes consistent with complex regional pain syndrome type I. After failing multiple treatment options, the patient underwent a trial of spinal cord stimulation. Leads positioned in the posterior epidural space from the seventh cervical to the third thoracic vertebral levels resulted in complete paresthesia coverage of his truncal chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and the stimulation was associated with almost complete resolution of CRPS. This case report suggests that spinal cord stimulation may provide effective treatment for truncal CRPS after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Effects of Tonic Spinal Cord Stimulation on Sensory Perception in Chronic Pain Patients: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Even if spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is widely used and effective in treating intractable chronic neuropathic pain conditions, little is known about its possible impacts on sensory perception. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a useful tool to assess this issue. The aim of this study was to review the impact of tonic SCS on somatosensory perception quantified by QST in chronic pain patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant articles and abstracts were searched in all languages from CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Knowledge data bases. Data were extracted and included studies were assessed for risk of bias.

RESULTS

Out of 5610 records, 15 peer-reviewed articles were eligible and included. The results are heterogeneous due to inadequate comparability among studies for populations (a total of 224 patients diagnosed with more than 13 chronic pain conditions), QST parameters (22 measured with 25 different devices) and experimental procedures (study design, comparator, evaluation time, and area tested). The wide variety of studies, designs, populations, and measures included in this review did not lead to strong evidence on how conventional ("tonic") SCS affects sensory processing in patients with chronic pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The data available tend to suggest that conventional SCS does not interfere with perception of external stimuli. New studies that follow a standardized procedure and consider the possible influence of sensory profile, after-effect bias, and confounding factors are required to confirm this observation. Moreover, the impact on sensory perception of other SCS modalities and alternative electrical neuromodulation therapies could also be explored.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Acute Pain Following Surgery for Cervical Myelopathy: A Novel Treatment Strategy

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain syndromes caused by degenerative and postinfectious changes in the cervical spine continue to pose significant management challenges to neurosurgeons and pain practitioners. The identification of an individualized treatment plan, astute surgical technique, comprehensive and multimodal analgesia, and adequate rehabilitation processes do not necessarily result in diminished pain.

CASE SUMMARY

We present the case of a patient with chronic pain treated surgically for degenerative cervical myelopathy secondary to cervical spinal stenosis. Following this surgery, the patient experienced an intractable postoperative pain syndrome that had anatomical borders, and an intensity and character that were different from the background chronic pain from which he suffered. We successfully implanted a cervical spinal cord stimulation (SCS) lead in the period following his stenosis surgery, which had good therapeutic effect on the postoperative-onset pain. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first description of SCS having a strong positive effect on an acute exacerbation of neuropathic pain. At follow-up 12 months later, assessment of the patient's pain diary revealed a modal pain intensity of 3/10 on the numeric rating scale over the preceding 3 months. The Brief Pain Inventory (Short Form) scores at this time were 10/40 in the pain severity domain and 18/70 in the interference with function domain, demonstrating the long-term effectiveness of this SCS strategy.

CONCLUSION

While SCS has hitherto been untested as a therapy for acute-onset pain, this report demonstrates its utility as a salvage treatment in select cases of uncontrollable postoperative pain.

Ovine model of neuropathic pain for assessing mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation therapy via dorsal horn recordings, von Frey filaments, and gait analysis

Background

It is becoming increasingly important to understand the mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in alleviating neuropathic pain as novel stimulation paradigms arise.

Purpose

Additionally, the small anatomic scale of current SCS animal models is a barrier to more translational research.

Methods

Using chronic constriction injury (CCI) of the common peroneal nerve (CPN) in sheep (ovine), we have created a chronic model of neuropathic pain that avoids motor deficits present in prior large animal models. This large animal model has allowed us to implant clinical grade SCS hardware, which enables both acute and chronic testing using von Frey filament thresholds and gait analysis. Furthermore, the larger anatomic scale of the sheep allows for simultaneous single-unit recordings from the dorsal horn and SCS with minimal electrical artifact.

Results

Detectable tactile hypersensitivity occurred 21 days after nerve injury, with preliminary indications that chronic SCS may reverse it in the painful limb. Gait analysis revealed no hoof drop in the CCI model. Single neurons were identified and discriminated in the dorsal horn, and their activity was modulated via SCS. Unlike previous large animal models that employed a complete transection of the nerve, no motor deficit was observed in the sheep with CCI.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first reported large animal model of chronic neuropathic pain which facilitates the study of both acute and chronic SCS using complementary behavioral and electrophysiologic measures. As demonstrated by our successful establishment of these techniques, an ovine model of neuropathic pain is suitable for testing the mechanisms of SCS.

Treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: an updated systematic review and narrative synthesis

PURPOSE

Although multiple treatments have been advocated for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), the levels of supportive evidence are variable and sometimes limited. The purpose of this updated review is to provide a critical analysis of the evidence pertaining to the treatment of CRPS derived from recent randomized-controlled trials (RCTs).

SOURCE

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, and CINAHL databases were searched to identify relevant RCTs conducted on human subjects and published in English between 1 May 2009 and 24 August 2017.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The search yielded 35 RCTs of variable quality pertaining to the treatment of CRPS. Published trials continue to support the use of bisphosphonates and short courses of oral steroids in the setting of CRPS. Although emerging evidence suggests a therapeutic role for ketamine, memantine, intravenous immunoglobulin, epidural clonidine, intrathecal clonidine/baclofen/adenosine, aerobic exercise, mirror therapy, virtual body swapping, and dorsal root ganglion stimulation, further confirmatory RCTs are warranted. Similarly, trials also suggest an expanding role for peripheral sympathetic blockade (i.e., lumbar/thoracic sympathetic, stellate ganglion, and brachial plexus blocks).

CONCLUSIONS

Since our prior systematic review article (published in 2010), 35 RCTs related to CRPS have been reported. Nevertheless, the quality of trials remains variable. Therefore, further research is required to continue investigating possible treatments for CRPS.

Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Review of Preclinical Studies and Comments on Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS) technology uses a novel waveform that consists of closely packed high-frequency electrical impulses followed by a quiescent period. Within the growing field of neuromodulation, burst stimulation is unique in that it mimics the natural burst firing of the nervous system, in particular the thalamo-cingulate rhythmicity, resulting in modulation of the affective and attentional components of pain processing (e.g., medial thalamic pathways).

STUDY DESIGN

A review of preclinical and clinical studies regarding burst SCS for various chronic pain states.

METHODS

Available literature was reviewed on burst stimulation technology. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID, SCOPUS, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was to understand the mechanisms of action with regards to burst stimulation and to review clinical data on the indications of burst SCS for various chronic pain states.

RESULTS

We present both mechanisms of action and review uses of burst stimulation for various pain states.

CONCLUSIONS

Burst stimulation offers a novel pain reduction tool with the absence of uncomfortable paresthesia for failed back surgery syndrome, diabetic neuropathic pain, and anesthesia dolorosa. Preclinical models have emphasized that the potential mechanisms for burst therapy could be related to neural coding algorithms that mimic the natural nervous system firing patterns, resulting in effects on both the medial and lateral pain pathways. Other mechanisms include frequency dependent opioid release, modulation of the pain gate, and activation of electrical and chemical synapses.

Comparison of Bladder Inhibitory Effects of Patterned Spinal Nerve Stimulation With Conventional Neuromodulation in the Rat

OBJECTIVES

The present study compared the effectiveness of patterned frequency of spinal nerve stimulation (SNS) with continuous, fixed-frequency nerve stimulation in an animal model of the bladder reflex contraction (BRC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In anesthetized female rats, wire electrodes were placed under each of the L6 spinal nerve to produce bilateral SNS. A cannula was placed into the bladder via the urethra, and the urethra was ligated to ensure an isovolumetric bladder.

RESULTS

Using motor threshold intensity, continuous stimulation at fixed frequencies of 4 Hz (n = 5) and 10 Hz (n = 7) decreased the frequency of BRC of 71 ± 24% (mean, SEM) and 85 ± 18% of controls, respectively (vs. no stimulation, n = 10, p < 0.05, two-way analysis of variance [ANOVA]). Fixed-frequency stimulation at 0.01, 0.1, 1, 40, and 100 Hz, did not demonstrate a trend change on BRC. When stimulation frequency is delivered with a 4-6 pulse/burst pattern every 1-100 sec, neuromodulation has demonstrated a trend toward effectiveness, with a four-pulse 40 Hz burst stimulation per second showing the most difference, reducing the BRC frequency of 74 ± 8% of control (n = 8, p < 0.05, two-way ANOVA). However, it is not more effective than continuous neuromodulation at a fixed frequency of 4 Hz or 10 Hz at BRC inhibition.

CONCLUSIONS

Burst stimulations may inhibit bladder contractions; however, they are not more effective than continuous neuromodulation. Without further knowledge regarding mechanisms and potential benefit of burst stimulation on bladder control in patients with neuropathological conditions, applications should utilize continuous fixed 10 Hz stimulation for maximal clinical outcomes.

Recent advances in spinal cord stimulation for pain treatment

Traditional (40–50 Hz) spinal column stimulation is an efficacious and widely accepted treatment for chronic neuropathic pain conditions. However, there are major challenges including its ineffectiveness for axial back pain, the burden of paresthesia-related discomfort and difficulties producing indisputable research. Recently, there have been the major technological innovations of high-frequency and burst stimulation. Studies have shown these to provide improved analgesia even for axial pain without the problems associated with paresthesia. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation may be useful in certain subsets of patients with dermatomal distribution of pain. Other scientific data and technological improvements such as recent research on cost–effectiveness, MRI compatibility and very recent advances in spinal column stimulation are appraised.

A Comprehensive Outcome-Specific Review of the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a painful, debilitating affliction that is often difficult to treat. It has become common international practice to use spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of CRPS as other therapies fail to provide adequate relief, quality of life, or improvement in function. This comprehensive outcome-specific systematic review of the use of SCS for CRPS was performed to elucidate the available evidence with focus on clinically relevant patient-specific outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to evaluate the effects of SCS on patients with CRPS for the following outcomes and provide summary levels of evidence in regard to each outcome: perceived pain relief, pain score, resolution of CRPS signs, functional status, quality of life, psychological impact, sleep hygiene, analgesic medication utilization, and patient satisfaction with SCS therapy. Search terms included "complex regional pain syndrome," "spinal cord stimulation," and "reflex sympathetic dystrophy," without restriction of language, date, or type of publication, albeit only original data were included in analyses. Of 30 studies selected, seven systematic reviews were excluded, as were four studies reporting combination therapy that included SCS and other therapies (ie, concurrent peripheral nerve stimulation, intrathecal therapy) without clear delineation to the effect of SCS alone on outcomes. A total of 19 manuscripts were evaluated.

RESULTS

Perceived pain relief, pain score improvement, quality of life, and satisfaction with SCS were all rated 1B+, reflecting positive high-level (randomized controlled trial) evidence favoring SCS use for the treatment of CRPS. Evidence for functional status improvements and psychological effects of SCS was inconclusive, albeit emanating from a randomized controlled trial (evidence level 2B±), and outcomes evidence for both sleep hygiene and resolution of CRPS signs was either nonexistent or of too low quality from which to draw conclusions (evidence level 0). An analgesic sparing effect was observed in nonrandomized reports, reflecting an evidence level of 2C+.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal cord stimulation remains a favorable and effective modality for treating CRPS with high-level evidence (1B+) supporting its role in improving CRPS patients' perceived pain relief, pain score, and quality of life. A paucity of evidence for functional improvements, resolution of CRPS signs, sleep hygiene, psychological impact, and analgesic sparing effects mandate further investigation before conclusions can be drawn for these specific outcomes.

Preferred frequencies and waveforms for spinal cord stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: A multicentre, double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Conventional tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for patients with therapy-resistant complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Although the therapeutic effect of SCS can diminish over time due to tolerance, pain control can be regained by changing the pulse width and the amplitude and/or by increasing the stimulation frequency. This multicentre, double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled crossover trial was conducted to investigate whether more effective pain reduction is achieved with different frequencies (trial registration, current controlled trials, ISRCTN 36655259).

METHODS

The investigated settings are as follows: standard 40, 500, 1200 Hz, burst and placebo stimulation. All five were programmed in random order during the 10-week crossover period (2 weeks/setting). The primary outcome parameters were scores on the visual analogue scale (VAS), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and the Global Perceived Effect (GPE); at the end of the crossover period, patients decided which SCS setting they preferred. A linear mixed models analysis was performed in 29 patients who completed the crossover trial.

RESULTS

Significant pain reduction and GPE satisfaction was achieved with four SCS settings compared with placebo stimulation, and these four settings did not differ significantly from each other. Standard stimulation was preferred by 48% of the patients, while 52% preferred non-standard stimulation. Other than pain reduction, factors such as user-friendliness, comfort and recharging time may have influenced the patient's final decision for the preferred stimulation setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Apparently, for various reasons, patients have a preference for different SCS setting. Therefore, future neuromodulation should aim to implement customized individual patient care by incorporating all stimulation options in one device.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study demonstrates that standard frequency SCS is an effective therapy for patients with CRPS. However, it also demonstrates that patients can often gain better pain reduction with non-standard frequencies of SCS. Furthermore, it shows that the preferred stimulation setting is not solely driven by the amount of pain reduction, but is also influenced by which stimulation setting feels most comfortable and provides the best user-friendliness. Therefore, we strive to maximize the therapeutic effects of SCS in as many patients as possible. This can be achieved with customized individual patient care by incorporating the various frequencies and waveforms into one single device.