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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Improved Outcomes and Therapy Longevity after Salvage Using a Novel Spinal Cord Stimulation System for Chronic Pain: Multicenter, Observational, European Case Series

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is proven to effectively relieve chronic neuropathic pain. However, some implanted patients may face loss of efficacy (LoE) over time, and conversion to more recent devices may rescue SCS therapy. Recent SCS systems offer novel stimulation capabilities, such as temporal modulation and spatial neural targeting, and can be used to replace previous neurostimulators without changing existing leads. Our multicenter, observational, consecutive case series investigated real-world clinical outcomes in previously implanted SCS patients who were converted to a new implantable pulse generator. Data from 58 patients in seven European centers were analyzed (total follow-up 7.0 years, including 1.4 years after conversion). In the Rescue (LoE) subgroup (n = 51), the responder rate was 58.5% at the last follow-up, and overall pain scores (numerical rating scale) had decreased from 7.3 ± 1.7 with the previous SCS system to 3.5 ± 2.5 (p < 0.0001). Patients who converted for improved battery longevity (n = 7) had their pain scores sustained below 3/10 with their new neurostimulator. Waveform preferences were diverse and patient dependent (34.4% standard rate; 44.8% sub-perception modalities; 20.7% combination therapy). Our results suggest that patients who experience LoE over time may benefit from upgrading to a more versatile SCS system.

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

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

An optimization framework for targeted spinal cord stimulation

Objective. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a common neurostimulation therapy to manage chronic pain. Technological advances have produced new neurostimulation systems with expanded capabilities in an attempt to improve the clinical outcomes associated with SCS. However, these expanded capabilities have dramatically increased the number of possible stimulation parameters and made it intractable to efficiently explore this large parameter space within the context of standard clinical programming procedures. Therefore, in this study, we developed an optimization approach to define the optimal current amplitudes or fractions across individual contacts in an SCS electrode array(s).Approach. We developed an analytic method using the Lagrange multiplier method along with smoothing approximations. To test our optimization framework, we used a hybrid computational modeling approach that consisted of a finite element method model and multi-compartment models of axons and cells within the spinal cord. Moreover, we extended our approach to multi-objective optimization to explore the trade-off between activating regions of interest (ROIs) and regions of avoidance (ROAs).Main results. For simple ROIs, our framework suggested optimized configurations that resembled simple bipolar configurations. However, when we considered multi-objective optimization, our framework suggested nontrivial stimulation configurations that could be selected from Pareto fronts to target multiple ROIs or avoid ROAs.Significance. We developed an optimization framework for targeted SCS. Our method is analytic, which allows for the fast calculation of optimal solutions. For the first time, we provided a multi-objective approach for selective SCS. Through this approach, we were able to show that novel configurations can provide neural recruitment profiles that are not possible with conventional stimulation configurations (e.g. bipolar stimulation). Most importantly, once integrated with computational models that account for sources of interpatient variability (e.g. anatomy, electrode placement), our optimization framework can be utilized to provide stimulation settings tailored to the needs of individual patients.

Research hotspots and trends on spinal cord stimulation for pain treatment: a two-decade bibliometric analysis

Background

Chronic pain poses a significant social burden. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is considered to be the most promising treatment for refractory pain. The aim of this study was to summarize the current research hotspots on SCS for pain treatment during the past two decades and to predict the future research trends by bibliometric analysis.

Methods

The literature over the last two decades (2002-2022) which was related to SCS in pain treatment was obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection. Bibliometric analyses were conducted based on the following aspects: (1) Annual publication and citation trends; (2) Annual publication changes of different publication types; (3) Publications and citations/co-citations of different country/institution/journal/author; (4) Citations/co-citation and citation burst analysis of different literature; and (5) Co-occurrence, cluster, thematic map, trend topics, and citation burst analysis of different keywords. (6) Comparison between the United States and Europe. All analyses were performed on CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and R bibliometrix package.

Results

A total of 1,392 articles were included in this study, with an increasing number of publications and citations year by year. The most highly published type of literature was clinical trial. United States was the country with the most publications and citations; Johns Hopkins University was the institution with the most publications; NEUROMODULATION published the most papers; the most published author was Linderoth B; and the most cited paper was published in the PAIN by Kumar K in 2007. The most frequently occurring keywords were "spinal cord stimulation," "neuropathic pain," and "chronic pain," etc.

Conclusion

The positive effect of SCS on pain treatment has continued to arouse the enthusiasm of researchers in this field. Future research should focus on the development of new technologies, innovative applications, and clinical trials for SCS. This study might facilitate researchers to comprehensively understand the overall perspective, research hotspots, and future development trends in this field, as well as seek collaboration with other researchers.

"Neuro-Fiber Mapping": An Original Concept of Spinal Cord Neural Network Spatial Targeting Using Live Electrostimulation Mapping to (Re-)Explore the Conus Medullaris Anatomy

Spinal cord (SC) anatomy is often assimilated to a morphologically encapsulated neural entity, but its functional anatomy remains only partially understood. We hypothesized that it could be possible to re-explore SC neural networks by performing live electrostimulation mapping, based on "super-selective" spinal cord stimulation (SCS), originally designed as a therapeutical tool to address chronic refractory pain. As a starting point, we initiated a systematic SCS lead programming approach using live electrostimulation mapping on a chronic refractory perineal pain patient, previously implanted with multicolumn SCS at the level of the conus medullaris (T12-L1). It appeared possible to (re-)explore the classical anatomy of the conus medullaris using statistical correlations of paresthesia coverage mappings, resulting from 165 different electrical configurations tested. We highlighted that sacral dermatomes were not only located more medially but also deeper than lumbar dermatomes at the level of the conus medullaris, in contrast with classical anatomical descriptions of SC somatotopical organization. As we were finally able to find a morphofunctional description of "Philippe-Gombault's triangle" in 19th-century historical textbooks of neuroanatomy, remarkably matching these conclusions, the concept of "neuro-fiber mapping" was introduced.

Combining Awake Anesthesia with Minimal Invasive Surgery Optimizes Intraoperative Surgical Spinal Cord Stimulation Lead Placement

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective and validated treatment to address chronic refractory neuropathic pain in persistent spinal pain syndrome-type 2 (PSPS-T2) patients. Surgical SCS lead placement is traditionally performed under general anesthesia due to its invasiveness. In parallel, recent works have suggested that awake anesthesia (AA), consisting of target controlled intra-venous anesthesia (TCIVA), could be an interesting tool to optimize lead anatomical placement using patient intra-operative feedback. We hypothesized that combining AA with minimal invasive surgery (MIS) could improve SCS outcomes. The goal of this study was to evaluate SCS lead performance (defined by the area of pain adequately covered by paraesthesia generated via SCS), using an intraoperative objective quantitative mapping tool, and secondarily, to assess pain relief, functional improvement and change in quality of life with a composite score. We analyzed data from a prospective multicenter study (ESTIMET) to compare the outcomes of 115 patients implanted with MIS under AA (MISAA group) or general anesthesia (MISGA group), or by laminectomy under general anesthesia (LGA group). All in all, awake surgery appears to show significantly better performance than general anesthesia in terms of patient pain coverage (65% vs. 34–62%), pain surface (50–76% vs. 50–61%) and pain intensity (65% vs. 35–40%), as well as improved secondary outcomes (quality of life, functional disability and depression). One step further, our results suggest that MISAA combined with intra-operative hypnosis could potentialize patient intraoperative cooperation and could be proposed as a personalized package offered to PSPS-T2 patients eligible for SCS implantation in highly dedicated neuromodulation centers.