Spinal cord stimulation: Current applications for treatment of chronic pain

Neuromodulation and Habituation: A Literature Review and Conceptional Analysis of Sustaining Therapeutic Efficacy and Mitigating Habituation

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a therapeutic modality for the treatment of various chronic pain conditions that has rapidly evolved over the past 50 years. Unfortunately, over time, patients implanted with SCS undergo a habituation phenomenon leading to decreased pain relief. Consequently, the discovery of new stimulation waveforms and SCS applications has been shown to prolong efficacy and reduce explantation rates. This article explores various SCS waveforms, their applications, and proposes a graded approach to habituation mitigation. We suspect the neural habituation phenomenon parallels that seen in pharmacology. Consequently, we urge further exploration of the early introduction of these stimulation strategies to abate spinal cord stimulation habituation.

Long-term efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for chronic primary neuropathic pain in the contemporary era: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a modern neuromodulation technique extensively proven to be an effective modality for treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. It has been mainly studied for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and recent data almost uniformly establishes its statistically significant positive therapeutic results. It has also been compared with other available treatment modalities across various studies. However, long term data on maintenance of its efficacious potential remains less explored. Few studies have reported data on long follow-up times (>= 12 months) and have compared its efficacy with other treatment options for chronic pain, respectively. Our study pools and analyzes the available data and compares SCS with other treatment options. It also analyzes the efficacy of SCS in long term management of patients with chronic pain.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We reviewed all the data available on MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL using a search strategy designed to fit our pre-set inclusion and exclusion criteria. Both single-arm and double-arm studies were included. The primary outcome was defined as decrease of visual analogue scale (VAS) by >50% at 6, 12 and/or 24 months after SCS.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

According to the pooled data of double-arm studies, SCS has unanimously proven its superiority over other treatment options at 6 months follow-up; however it fails to prove statistically significant difference in results at longer treatment intervals. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation, a relatively recent technique with the same underlying physiologic mechanisms as SCS, showed far more promising results than SCS. Single-arm studies show around 70% patients experiencing greater than 50% reduction in their VAS scores at 6 and 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

SCS is a viable option for management of chronic neuropathic pain secondary to FBSS and CRPS. However, data available for its long term efficacy remains scarce and show no further statistically significant results.

Efficacy of the latest new stimulation patterns of spinal cord stimulation for intractable neuropathic pain compared to conventional stimulation: study protocol for a clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is one of the neuromodulation therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. The conventional paresthesia-based SCS involves the application of tonic stimulation that induces a sense of paresthesia. Recently, new SCS stimulation patterns without paresthesia have been developed. Differential target multiplexed (DTM) stimulation and fast-acting subperception therapy (FAST) stimulation are the latest paresthesia-free SCS patterns.

METHODS

A single-center, open-label, crossover, randomized clinical trial to investigate the superiority of SCS using the latest new stimulation patterns over conventional tonic stimulation for neuropathic pain is planned. This study consists of two steps: SCS trial (first step) and SCS system implantation (second step). In the SCS trial, participants will be randomly assigned to 4 groups receiving stimulation, including tonic, DTM, and FAST. Each stimulation will then be performed for 2 days, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain will be evaluated before and after each stimulation pattern. A stimulation-off period for 1 day is set between each stimulation pattern to wash out the residual previous stimulation effects. Pain improvement is defined as more than 33% reduction in the pain VAS. The primary analysis will compare pain improvement between the new stimulation patterns and the conventional tonic stimulation pattern in the SCS trial. The secondary outcomes will be evaluated as follows: (1) the relationships between causative disease and improvement rate by each stimulation pattern; (2) comparison of pain improvement between the DTM and FAST stimulation patterns in all cases and by causative disease; (3) changes in assessment items preoperatively to 24 months after the implantation; (4) preoperative factors associated with long-term effects defined as continuing for more than 12 months; and (5) adverse events related to this study 3 months after the implantation.

DISCUSSION

This study aims to clarify the effectiveness of the latest new stimulation patterns compared to the conventional tonic stimulation. In addition, which stimulation pattern is most effective for which kind of causative disease will be clarified.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) 1,042,220,094. Registered on 21 November 2022, and last modified on 6 January 2023. jRCT is an approved member of the Primary Registry Network of WHO ICTRP.

Differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation using a paddle-type lead placed at the appropriate site for neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury in patients with past spinal surgical histories: study protocol for an exploratory clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury (SCI), both traumatic and non-traumatic, is refractory to various treatments. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is one of the neuromodulation therapies for neuropathic pain, although SCS has insufficient efficacy for neuropathic pain after SCI. The reasons are presumed to be inappropriate locations of SCS leads and conventional tonic stimulation itself does not have a sufficient analgesic effect for the pain. In patients with past spinal surgical histories, the cylinder-type leads are likely to be placed on the caudal side of the SCI because of surgical adhesions. Differential target multiplexed (DTM) stimulation is one of the latest new stimulation patterns that is superior to conventional stimulation.

METHODS

A single-center, open-label, randomized, two-way crossover trial is planned to investigate the efficacy of SCS using DTM stimulation placing a paddle lead at the appropriate site for neuropathic pain after SCI in patients with spinal surgical histories. The paddle-type lead delivers energy more efficiently than a cylinder-type lead. This study consists of two steps: SCS trial (first step) and SCS system implantation (second step). The primary outcome is rates of achieving pain improvement with more than 33% reduction 3 months after SCS system implantation. The secondary outcomes are to be evaluated as follows: (1) effectiveness of DTM and tonic stimulations during the SCS trial; (2) changes of assessment items from 1 to 24 months; (3) relationships between the result of the SCS trial and the effects 3 months after SCS system implantation; (4) preoperative factors associated with a long-term effect, defined as continuing for more than 12 months; and (5) whether gait function improves from 1 to 24 months.

DISCUSSION

A paddle-type lead placed on the rostral side of SCI and using DTM stimulation may provide significant pain relief for patients with intractable neuropathic pain after SCI in patients with past spinal surgical histories.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT) jRCT 1042220093. Registered on 21 November 2022, and last modified on 6 January 2023. jRCT is approved as a member of the Primary Registry Network of WHO ICTRP.

Relief of Central Poststroke Pain Affecting Both the Arm and Leg on One Side by Double-independent Dual-lead Spinal Cord Stimulation Using Fast-acting Subperception Therapy Stimulation: A Case Report

Central poststroke pain is a chronic, intractable, central neuropathic pain. Spinal cord stimulation is a neuromodulation therapy for chronic neuropathic pain. The conventional stimulation method induces a sense of paresthesia. Fast-acting subperception therapy is one of the latest new stimulation methods without paresthesia. A case of achieving pain relief of central poststroke pain affecting both the arm and leg on one side by double-independent dual-lead spinal cord stimulation using fast-acting subperception therapy stimulation is presented. A 67-year-old woman had central poststroke pain due to a right thalamic hemorrhage. The numerical rating scale scores of the left arm and leg were 6 and 7, respectively. Using dual-lead stimulation at the Th 9-11 levels, a spinal cord stimulation trial was performed. Fast-acting subperception therapy stimulation achieved pain reduction in the left leg from 7 to 3. Therefore, a pulse generator was implanted, and the pain relief continued for 6 months. Then, two additional leads were implanted at the C 3-5 levels, and pain in the arm decreased from 6 to 4. Independent setting and adjustments of the dual-lead stimulation were required because the thresholds of paresthesia perception were significantly different. To achieve pain relief in both the arm and leg, double-independent dual-lead stimulation placed at cervical and thoracic levels is an effective treatment. Fast-acting subperception therapy stimulation may be effective for central poststroke pain, especially in cases where the paresthesia is perceived as uncomfortable or the conventional stimulation itself is ineffective.

Advances in Epidural Spinal Cord Stimulation to Restore Function after Spinal Cord Injury: History and Systematic Review

Epidural spinal cord stimulation (eSCS) has been recently recognized as a potential therapy for chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). eSCS has been shown to uncover residual pathways within the damaged spinal cord. The purpose of this review is to summarize the key findings to date regarding the use of eSCS in SCI. Searches were carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science database and reference lists of the included articles. A combination of medical subject heading terms and keywords was used to find studies investigating the use of eSCS in SCI patients to facilitate volitional movement and to restore autonomic function. The risk of bias was assessed using Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool for nonrandomized studies. We were able to include 40 articles that met our eligibility criteria. The studies included a total of 184 patient experiences with incomplete or complete SCI. The majority of the studies used the Medtronic 16 paddle lead. Around half of the studies reported lead placement between T11- L1. We included studies that assessed motor (n = 28), autonomic (n = 13), and other outcomes (n = 10). The majority of the studies reported improvement in outcomes assessed. The wide range of included outcomes demonstrates the effectiveness of eSCS in treating a diverse SCI population. However, the current studies cannot definitively conclude which patients benefit the most from this intervention. Further study in this area is needed to allow improvement of the eSCS technology and allow it to be more widely available for chronic SCI patients.

Effect of Implantable Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Cortical Dynamics in Patients With Herpes Zoster–Related Pain: A Prospective Pilot Study

Implantable electrical nerve stimulation (ENS) can be used to treat neuropathic pain caused by herpes zoster. However, little is known about the cortical mechanism underlying neuromodulation therapy. Here, we recorded a 16-channel resting-state electroencephalogram after the application of spinal cord stimulation (n = 5) or peripheral nerve stimulation (n = 3). The neuromodulatory effect was compared between specific conditions (active ENS versus rest). To capture the cortical responses of ENS, spectral power and coherence analysis were performed. ENS therapy achieved satisfactory relief from pain with a mean visual analog scale score reduction of 5.9 ± 1.1. The spectral analysis indicated that theta and alpha oscillations increased significantly during active neuromodulation compared with the resting state. Furthermore, ENS administration significantly increased frontal-frontal coherence in the alpha band. Our findings demonstrate that, despite methodological differences, both spinal cord and peripheral nerve stimulation can induce cortical alpha oscillation changes in patients with zoster-related pain. The dynamic change may, in part, mediate the analgesic effect of ENS on herpes zoster–related pain.

Spinal Cord Stimulation: Viable Therapeutic Option for Postlaminectomy Syndrome in Elderly Patients

We present a 76-year-old man with chronic back pain refractory to treatment secondary to spinal trauma from a motor vehicle accident 34 years ago. After trauma, multiple interventions were performed due to spinal instability. The patient was diagnosed with the postlaminectomy syndrome. Multimodal analgesia management failed to control our patient’s pain, severely affecting our patient and his family’s quality of life. For these reasons, a spinal cord stimulator was implanted despite our patient age. After four months, our patient presented with significant improvement in his life quality.

Spinal cord stimulator for neuropathic pain in a patient with severe disability due to transverse myelitis

Transverse myelitis is an inflammatory disease of the central nervous system that disrupts nerve signals' conduction. The illness is characterised by weakness in the lower limbs accompanied by paresthesia and urinary and bowel incontinence. The most disabling sequel is the onset of chronic neuropathic pain, which can severely limit the patient's independence and negatively affect her quality of life. We present the case of a patient who received a spinal neurostimulator after a failure of conventional medical treatment. Masking pain through paresthesia, a mechanism provided by the device significantly reduces pain perception. The treatment success in our patient represents an advance in pain therapy.

Neuromodulatory hacking: a review of the technology and security risks of spinal cord stimulation

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a neuromodulatory technique used to relieve chronic pain. Previous instances of malicious remote control of implantable medical devices, including insulin delivery pumps and implantable cardiac defibrillators, have been documented. Though no cases of neuromodulatory hacking have been recorded outside of the academic setting, an understanding of SCS technology and the possible consequences of manipulation is important in promoting safety.

METHODS

We review the components and implantation protocol of a SCS system, the functionality and technological specifications for SCS systems in the global market based on their device manuals, and patient- and clinician-specific adjustable factors. Furthermore, we assess documented instances of implantable medical device hacking and speculate on the potential harms of targeting SCS systems.

RESULTS

SCS systems from Abbott Laboratories, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Nevro have unique functionality and technological specifications. Six parameters in device control can potentially be targeted and elicit various harms, including loss of therapeutic effect, accelerated battery drainage, paresthesia in unintended locations, muscle weakness or dysfunction, tissue burn, and electrical shock.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the history of implantable medical device hacking, SCS systems may also be susceptible to manipulation. As the prevalence of SCS use increases and SCS systems continuously evolve in the direction of wireless control and compatibility with mobile devices, appropriate measures should be taken by manufacturers and governmental agencies to ensure safety.

Spinal cord stimulation for chronic intractable trunk or limb pain: study protocol for a Chinese multicenter randomized withdrawal trial (CITRIP study)

Background

Although effective results of many studies support the use of spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain patients, no randomized controlled trial has been undertaken in China to date. CITRIP is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, withdrawal study designed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of spinal cord stimulation plus remote programming management in patients with intractable trunk or limb pain.

Method

Participants will be recruited in approximately 10 centers across China. Eligible participants with intractable trunk or limb and an average visual analog scale (VAS) score ≥ 5 will undergo a spinal cord stimulation test. Participants with VAS score reduction ≥ 50% could move forward to receive implantation of an implanted pulse generator. In the withdrawal period at 3-month follow-up visit, participants randomized to the experimental group (EG) will undergo continuous stimulation while ceasing the stimulation in the control group (CG). The outcome assessment will occur at baseline and at 1, 3 (pre- and post-randomization), and 6 months. The primary outcome is the difference of maximal VAS score between EG and CG in the withdrawal period compared with baseline before the withdrawal period. Additional outcomes include VAS score change at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups; responder rate (VAS score improving by 50%); achievement rate of a desirable pain state (VAS score ≤ 4); awake times during sleep; Beck Depression Inventory for depression evaluation; short-form 36 for quality of life evaluation; drug usage; and satisfaction rating of the device. Adverse events will be collected. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle.

Discussion

The CITRIP study seeks to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a randomized withdrawal trial of spinal cord stimulation for patients with intractable trunk or limb pain.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03858790. Registered on March 1, 2019, retrospectively registered

[Spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain]

Despite the numerous analgesic drugs, the prevalence of intractable neuropathic pain remains high making up about 5%. Intervention methods, including methods of chronic electrostimulation, are used to treat these patients. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is the most common surgical method worldwide that replaced destructive and ablation procedures. Currently, common tonic SCS, HF-10 stimulation and burst SCS are applied, and the choice of method is based on clinical and neurophysiological data. Also, the introduction of nanomaterial-enabled neural stimulation could significantly minimize surgery risk.

Spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain: technical advances

Chronic severe pain results in a detrimental effect on the patient’s quality of life. Such patients have to take a large number of medications, including opioids, often without satisfactory effect, sometimes leading to medication abuse and the pain worsening. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is one of the most effective technologies that, unlike other interventional pain treatment methods, achieves long-term results in patients suffering from chronic neuropathic pain. The first described mode of SCS was a conventional tonic stimulation, but now the novel modalities (high-frequency and burst), techniques (dorsal root ganglia stimulations), and technical development (wireless and implantable pulse generator-free systems) of SCS are becoming more popular. The improvement of SCS systems, their miniaturization, and the appearance of new mechanisms for anchoring electrodes results in a significant reduction in the rate of complications and revision surgeries, and the appearance of new waves of stimulation allows not only to avoid the phenomenon of addiction, but also to improve the long-term results of chronic SCS. The purpose of this review is to describe the current condition of SCS and up-to-date technical advances.

Neural engineering: the process, applications, and its role in the future of medicine

OBJECTIVE

Recent advances in neural engineering have restored mobility to people with paralysis, relieved symptoms of movement disorders, reduced chronic pain, restored the sense of hearing, and provided sensory perception to individuals with sensory deficits.

APPROACH

This progress was enabled by the team-based, interdisciplinary approaches used by neural engineers. Neural engineers have advanced clinical frontiers by leveraging tools and discoveries in quantitative and biological sciences and through collaborations between engineering, science, and medicine. The movement toward bioelectronic medicines, where neuromodulation aims to supplement or replace pharmaceuticals to treat chronic medical conditions such as high blood pressure, diabetes and psychiatric disorders is a prime example of a new frontier made possible by neural engineering. Although one of the major goals in neural engineering is to develop technology for clinical applications, this technology may also offer unique opportunities to gain insight into how biological systems operate.

MAIN RESULTS

Despite significant technological progress, a number of ethical and strategic questions remain unexplored. Addressing these questions will accelerate technology development to address unmet needs. The future of these devices extends far beyond treatment of neurological impairments, including potential human augmentation applications. Our task, as neural engineers, is to push technology forward at the intersection of disciplines, while responsibly considering the readiness to transition this technology outside of the laboratory to consumer products.

SIGNIFICANCE

This article aims to highlight the current state of the neural engineering field, its links with other engineering and science disciplines, and the challenges and opportunities ahead. The goal of this article is to foster new ideas for innovative applications in neurotechnology.

Predictive Factors Associated with Pain Relief of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Central Post-stroke Pain

The efficacy and predictive factors associated with successful spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for central post-stroke pain (CPSP) have yet to be definitively established. Thus, this study evaluated the rates of pain relief found after more than 12 months and the predictive factors associated with the success of SCS for CPSP. The degree of pain after SCS in 18 patients with CPSP was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale preoperatively, at 1, 6 and 12 months after surgery, and at the time of the last follow-up. After calculating the percentage of pain relief (PPR), patients were separated into two groups. The first group exhibited continuing PPR ≥30% at more than 12 months (effect group) while the second group exhibited successful/unsuccessful trials followed by decreasing PPR <30% within 12 months (no effect group). Pain relief for more than 12 months was achieved in eight out of 18 (44.4%) patients during the 67.3 ± 35.5 month follow-up period. Statistically significant differences were found for both the age and stroke location during comparisons of the preoperative characteristics between the two groups. There was a significantly younger mean age for the effect versus the no effect group. Patients with stoke in non-thalamus were significantly enriched in effect group compared with those with stoke in thalamus. Multivariable analysis using these two factors found no statistical differences, suggesting that these two factors might possibly exhibit the same behaviors for the SCS effect. These results suggest that SCS may be able to provide pain relief in young, non-thalamus stroke patients with CPSP.

Spinal Cord Stimulation 50 Years Later: Clinical Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation Based on Randomized Clinical Trials-A Systematic Review

To assess the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for each indication, one must critically assess each specific clinical outcome to identify outcomes that benefit from SCS therapy. To date, a comprehensive review of clinically relevant outcome-specific evidence regarding SCS has not been published. We aimed to assess all randomized controlled trials from the world literature for the purpose of evaluating the clinical outcome-specific efficacy of SCS for the following outcomes: perceived pain relief or change pain score, quality of life, functional status, psychological impact, analgesic medication utilization, patient satisfaction, and health care cost and utilization. Interventions were SCS, without limitation to the type of controls or the type of SCS in the active arms. For each study analyzed, a quality assessment was performed using a validated scale that assesses reporting, external validity, bias, confounding, and power. Each outcome was assessed specific to its indication, and the primary measure of each abovementioned outcome was a summary of the level of evidence. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were analyzed (7 for trunk and limb pain, inclusive of failed back surgery syndrome; 8 for refractory angina pectoris; 1 for cardiac X syndrome; 3 for critical limb ischemia; 2 for complex regional pain syndrome; and 2 for painful diabetic neuropathy). Evidence assessments for each outcome for each indication were depicted in tabular format. Outcome-specific evidence scores were established for each of the abovementioned indications, providing both physicians and patients with a summary of evidence to assist in choosing the optimal evidence-based intervention. The evidence presented herein has broad applicability as it encompasses a breadth of patient populations, variations of SCS therapy, and comparable controls that, together, reflect comprehensive clinical decision making.

Cautery selection for oculofacial plastic surgery in patients with implantable electronic devices

PURPOSE

To discover oculofacial plastic surgeon practice patterns for cautery selection in the setting of implantable electronic devices and present guidelines based on a review of current literature.

METHODS

A 10-Question web-based survey was sent to the email list serve of the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery to determine surgeon cautery preference in the setting of various implantable electronic devices and comfort level with the guidelines for cautery selection in their practice or institution. The relationship between survey questions was assessed for statistical significance using Pearson's Chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-three (41% response rate) surveys were completed and included for analysis. Greater than half of respondents either had no policy (36%) or were unaware of a policy (19%) in their practice or institution regarding cautery selection in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device. Bipolar cautery was favored for use in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (79%-80%) and this number dropped in patients with implantable neurostimulators (30%). Overall, one-third of respondents did not feel comfortable with their practice/institution policy.

CONCLUSION

Choices and comfort level among oculofacial plastic surgeons for cautery selection in patients with implantable electronic devices vary considerably, and some choices may increase the risk for interference-related complications. Practice patterns vary significantly in the setting of a neurostimulator or cochlear implant, where interference can cause thermal injury to the brain and implant damage, respectively. Guidelines are proposed for cautery selection in patients with implantable electronic devices undergoing oculofacial plastic surgery.