Case report: Dorsal root ganglion stimulator lead fracture

BACKGROUND

One of the unique advances in neuromodulation for chronic pain has been spinal cord stimulators (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion stimulators (DRG-S). These devices have aided in conditions such as neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndromes, failed back surgery, and peripheral neuropathies. With these benefits, however, complications from implantable stimulators have included lead fractures and migration. The authors reviewed a lead migration, kinking, and subsequent fracture event involving a patient with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) II, who was treated with a DRG-S.

CASE PRESENTATION

The case report follows this patient, from their past medical history to assessment of appropriate qualifications for neuromodulation, to successful surgical placement, to follow-up care. The authors further monitored assessment of inefficacy of pain relief, and identification of lead migration and kinking through imaging. In the process of removal, due to lead stress, lead fracturing occurred. After lead removal, the leads were fully replaced, and the patient was followed up and experienced improved pain relief.

CONCLUSION

The case report assesses probable mechanisms of lead fracture and considerations for physicians for future assessment and triage of neuromodulation efficacy.

Pocket pain following spinal cord stimulator generator implantation: A narrative review of this under-reported risk

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment option for chronic pain. Pain over the implantable pulse generator, or pocket pain, is an incompletely understood risk of SCS implantation which may limit the efficacy of treatment and patient quality of life. The goal of this narrative review is to analyze the literature to gain a more thorough understanding of the incidence and risk factors for the development of pocket pain to help guide treatment options and minimize its occurrence in the future.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted investigating the development of pocket pain in patients with SCS for the management of a variety of pain conditions.

RESULTS

In total, 305 articles were included in the original database search and 50 met the criteria for inclusion. The highest level of evidence for papers that specifically investigated pocket pain was level III. Four retrospective, observational analyses included pocket pain as a primary outcome. The remainder of the included studies listed pocket pain as an adverse event of SCS implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a relative dearth of primary literature that examines the incidence, characteristics, and health economic implications of pocket pain in patients with SCS. This highlights the need for large-scale, high-quality prospective or randomized controlled trials examining pocket pain. This may ultimately help prevent and reduce pocket pain leading to improved efficacy of treatment and greater patient quality of life.

Variables associated with nonresponders to high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation

INTRODUCTION

The use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy to treat chronic pain continues to rise. Optimal patient selection remains one of the most important factors for SCS success. However, despite increased utilization and the existence of general indications, predicting which patients will benefit from neuromodulation remains one of the main challenges for this therapy. Therefore, this study aims to identify the variables that may correlate with nonresponders to high-frequency (10 kHz) SCS to distinguish the subset of patients less likely to benefit from this intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center observational study of patients who underwent 10 kHz SCS implant. Patients were divided into nonresponders and responders groups. Demographic data and clinical outcomes were collected at baseline and statistical analysis was performed for all continuous and categorical variables between the two groups to calculate statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

The study population comprised of 237 patients, of which 67.51% were responders and 32.49% were nonresponders. There was a statistically significant difference of high levels of kinesiophobia, high self-perceived disability, greater pain intensity, and clinically relevant pain catastrophizing at baseline in the nonresponders compared to the responders. A few variables deemed potentially relevant, such as age, gender, history of spinal surgery, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use, psychiatric illness, and opioid utilization at baseline were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Our study is the first in the neuromodulation literature to raise awareness to the association of high levels of kinesiophobia preoperatively in nonresponders to 10 kHz SCS therapy. We also found statistically significant differences with greater pain intensity, higher self-perceived disability, and clinically relevant pain catastrophizing at baseline in the nonresponders relative to responders. It may be appropriate to screen for these factors preoperatively to identify patients who are less likely to respond to SCS. If these modifiable risk factors are present, it might be prudent to consider a pre-rehabilitation program with pain neuroscience education to address these factors prior to SCS therapy, to enhance successful outcomes in neuromodulation.

Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring and spinal cord stimulator implantation

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is one of the most dreaded complications after spinal cord stimulation (SCS) implantation surgery. As a result, intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring (IONM) has been proposed to avoid accidental damage to nervous structures under anesthesia and confirm positioning for optimal stimulation. Our study uses a large administrative claims database to determine the 30-day risk of SCI after SCS implantation.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases from 2016 to 2019. Adult patients undergoing SCS surgical procedures with at least 90 days of follow-up, IONM use, the type of sedation used during the procedure, and subsequent SCI were identified using administrative codes. In addition, logistic regression was used to examine the relationship between various risk factors and subsequent SCI.

RESULTS

A total of 9676 patients underwent SCS surgery (64.7% percutaneous implants) during the study period. Nine hundred and forty-four (9.75%) patients underwent SCS implantation with IONM. Conscious sedation, Monitored Anesthesia Care anesthesia, and general anesthesia were used in patients with 0.9%, 60.2%, and 28.6%, respectively. Eighty-one (0.8%) patients developed SCI within 30 days after SCS implant surgery. The SCI rate was higher in the group that underwent IONM (2% vs 0.7%, p value <0.001) during the implantation procedure, reflecting the underlying risk. After adjustment for other factors, the OR of SCI is 2.39 (95% CI: 1.33 to 4.14, p value=0.002) times higher for those with IONM than those without IONM.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased SCI risk among patients with IONM likely reflects higher baseline risk, and further research is needed for risk mitigation.

Does high-frequency stimulation of sensory axons break the causal link between pain relief and paresthesia?

Neurostimulation produces unnatural cutaneous sensations with potent analgesic effects in pain syndromes. In this issue of Neuron, Sagalajev et al.1 demonstrate that these sensations are an epiphenomenon and explain how high-frequency stimulation can provide analgesia without these unnecessary sensations.

4. Painful diabetic polyneuropathy

INTRODUCTION

Pain as a symptom of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) significantly lowers quality of life, increases mortality and is the main reason for patients with diabetes to seek medical attention. The number of people suffering from painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN) has increased significantly over the past decades.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy was retrieved and summarized.

RESULTS

The etiology of PDPN is complex, with primary damage to peripheral nociceptors and altered spinal and supra-spinal modulation. To achieve better patient outcomes, the mode of diagnosis and treatment of PDPN evolves toward more precise pain-phenotyping and genotyping based on patient-specific characteristics, new diagnostic tools, and prior response to pharmacological treatments. According to the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group, a presumptive diagnosis of "probable PDPN" is sufficient to initiate treatment. Proper control of plasma glucose levels, and prevention of risk factors are essential in the treatment of PDPN. Mechanism-based pharmacological treatment should be initiated as early as possible. If symptomatic pharmacologic treatment fails, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) should be considered. In isolated cases, where symptomatic pharmacologic treatment and SCS are unsuccessful or cannot be used, sympathetic lumbar chain neurolysis and/or radiofrequency ablation (SLCN/SLCRF), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGs) or posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) may be considered. However, it is recommended that these treatments be applied only in a study setting in a center of expertise.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of PDPN evolves toward pheno-and genotyping and treatment should be mechanism-based.

Complications of Spinal Cord Stimulators-A Comprehensive Review Article

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Spinal cord stimulation has been increasing in influence as an option to regulate pain, especially in the chronic pain patient population. However, even with the numerous changes made to this technology since its inception, it is still prone to various complications such as hardware issues, neurological injury/epidural hematoma, infections, and other biological concerns. The purpose of this article is to thoroughly review and evaluate literature pertaining to the complications associated with percutaneous spinal cord stimulation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lead migration is generally the most common complication of percutaneous spinal cord stimulation; however, recent utilization of various anchoring techniques has been discussed and experienced clinical success in decreasing the prevalence of lead migration and lead fractures. With newer high-frequency systems gaining traction to improve pain management and decrease complications as compared to traditional systems, rechargeable implantable pulse generators have been the preferred power source. However, recent findings may suggest that these rechargeable implantable pulse generators do not significantly increase battery life as much as was proposed. Intraoperative neuromonitoring has seen success in mitigating neurological injury postoperatively and may see more usage in the future through more testing. Though the occurrence of infection and biological complications, including dural puncture and skin erosion, has been less frequent over time, they should still be treated in accordance with established protocols. While many complications can arise following percutaneous spinal cord stimulator implantation, the procedure is less invasive than open implantation and has seen largely positive patient feedback. Hardware complications, the more common issues that can occur, rarely indicate a serious risk and can generally be remedied through reoperation. However, less common cases such as neurological injury, infections, and biological complications require prompt diagnosis to improve the condition of the patient and prevent significant damage.

Analysis of spinal canal diameter in the placement of thoracic spinal cord stimulator paddle leads

BACKGROUND

Neurologic deficit is known as a rare complication of thoracic spinal cord stimulator (SCS) paddle lead implantation, but many believe its incidence after SCS paddle lead placement is under-reported. It is possible that imaging characteristics may be used to help predict safe paddle lead placement.

OBJECTIVE

This imaging study was undertaken to determine the minimum canal diameter required for safe paddle lead placement.

METHODS

Patients who underwent thoracic laminotomy for new SCS paddle lead placement from January 2018 to March 2023 were identified retrospectively. Preoperative thoracic canal diameter was measured in the sagittal plane perpendicular to the disc space from T5/6 to T11/12. These thoracic levels were chosen because they span the most common levels targeted for SCS placement. Patients with and without new neurologic deficits were compared using a Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

Of 185 patients initially identified, 180 had thoracic imaging available for review. One (0.5%) and 2 (1.1%) of 185 patients complained of permanent and transient neurologic deficit after thoracic SCS placement, respectively. Patients with neurologic deficits had average canal diameters of <11 mm. The average canal diameter of patients with and without neurologic deficits was 10.2 mm (range 6.1-12.9 mm) and 13.0 mm (range 5.9-20.2), respectively (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative neurologic deficit is an uncommon complication after thoracic laminotomy for SCS paddle lead placement. The authors recommend ensuring a starting thoracic canal diameter of at least 12 mm to accommodate a SCS paddle lead measuring 2 mm thick to ensure a final diameter of >10 mm. If canal diameter is <12 mm, aggressive undercutting of the lamina, a second laminotomy, or placement of smaller SCS wire leads should be considered.

Incidence and Management of Hardware-Related Wound Infections in Spinal Cord, Peripheral Nerve Field, and Deep Brain Stimulation Surgery: A Single-Center Study

INTRODUCTION

Neuromodulation using deep brain stimulation (DBS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), and peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) to treat neurological, psychiatric, and pain disorders is a rapidly growing field. Infections related to the implanted hardware are among the most common complications and result in health-related and economic burden. Unfortunately, conservative medical therapy is less likely to be successful. In this retrospective study, we aimed to identify characteristics of the infections and investigated surgical and antimicrobial treatments.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of patients with an infection related to DBS, SCS, and/or PNFS hardware over an 8-year period at our institution. Data were analyzed for type of neurostimulator, time of onset of infection following the neurosurgical procedure, location, and surgical treatment strategy. Surgical treatment of infections consisted of either a surgical wound revision without hardware removal or a surgical wound revision with partial or complete hardware removal. Data were further analyzed for the microorganisms involved, antimicrobial treatment and its duration, and clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Over an 8-year period, a total of 1,250 DBS, 1,835 SCS, and 731 PNFS surgeries were performed including de novo system implantations, implanted pulse generator (IPG) replacements, and revisions. We identified 82 patients with infections related to the neurostimulator hardware, representing an incidence of 3.09% of the procedures. Seventy-one percent of the patients had undergone multiple surgeries related to the neurostimulator prior to the infection. The infections occurred after a mean of 12.2 months after the initial surgery. The site of infection was most commonly around the IPG, especially in DBS and SCS. The majority (62.2%) was treated by surgical wound revision with simultaneous partial or complete removal of hardware. Microbiological specimens predominantly yielded Staphylococcus epidermidis (39.0%) and Staphylococcus aureus (35.4%). After surgery, antimicrobials were given for a mean of 3.4 weeks. The antimicrobial regime was significantly shorter in patients with hardware removal in comparison to those who only had undergone surgical wound revision. One intracranial abscess occurred. No cases of infection-related death, sepsis, bacteremia, or intraspinal abscesses were found.

CONCLUSION

Our data did show the predominance of S. epidermidis and S. aureus as etiologic organisms in hardware-related infections. Infections associated with S. aureus most likely required (partial) hardware removal. Aggressive surgical treatment including hardware removal shortens the duration of antimicrobial treatment. Clear strategies should be developed to treat hardware-related infections to optimize patient management and reduce health- and economic-related burden.

Spinal Cord Stimulators and Intrathecal Pain Pump Removal Versus Retention During Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Matched Cohort Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine risks associated with posterior lumbar arthrodesis after spinal cord stimulator (SCS) and intrathecal pain pump (IPP) insertion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

SCS and IPPs aid in the management of chronic back and radicular pain. Little is known regarding the risks of subsequent fusion with these devices in place.

METHODS

The PearlDiver Mariner database was queried for spinal fusion between 2010 and 2020. Study groups were created for indwelling SCS or IPP and matched to a separate cohort without SCS or IPP. Subgroups were created for those who had their device removed and those who retained their device at the time of surgery. Complications up to 2 years postoperatively were reviewed and confounding variables were controlled using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Four thousand five hundred three patients had an indwelling SCS/IPP and underwent posterior lumbar fusion. Compared with patients without history of an SCS/IPP, patients undergoing a lumbar fusion with an SCS/IPP which was removed or retained had higher rates of revision surgery at 1 year [7.3% vs. 5.0%, odds ratio (OR) =1.48, P <0.001] and 2 year (10.8% vs. 7.0%, OR =1.59, P <0.001). For all time intervals, there were higher odds of instrumentation failure (2 y: OR =1.65, P <0.001), and pulmonary complications (2 y: OR =1.18, P <0.001). At 2 years, there were higher odds of surgical site complications (OR 1.15, P =0.02) and urinary complications (OR=1.07, P =0.04). There were no differences in complications up to 2 years postoperatively in patients with an SCS/IPP who had their devices retained or removed ( P >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a history of spinal cord stimulators and intrathecal pain pumps are at increased risk of mechanical complications and revision fusion compared with patients without these devices. Patients with an SCS or IPP have similar rates of complications during lumbar fusion whether the device is removed or retained.

Complications of Spinal Cord Stimulator Trials and Implants: A Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used for decades to alleviate chronic pain. A growing body of literature suggests that the procedure is not without risks. Understanding the risks of SCS implantation can help treating physicians formulate individualized care plans that promote patient safety and minimize risks.

RECENT FINDINGS

The overall complication rate associated with SCS has been reported to be 31.9 to 43%. The most common complication in the literature appears to be electrode migration. Other complications ranging in rates of occurrence include hematoma formation, infection, spinal cord injury, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak. Case reports of syrinx formation, foreign body reaction, and fibrosis have also been described. Our review shows that there are strategies available to reduce and prevent complications. In addition, close monitoring and early intervention may prevent some of the adverse neurological outcomes. Nevertheless, additional research regarding patient and procedural factors is necessary to improve the safety profile of this intervention.

Efficacy and Safety of Cervical and High-Thoracic Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation Therapy for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome of the Upper Extremities

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate analgesic and safety considerations for high thoracic and cervical dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neuromodulation for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). We hypothesized that DRG neuromodulation would provide sustained analgesia with complications like that of low thoracic or lumbar electrode implantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center, retrospective study was conducted of patients with CRPS I or II of the upper extremities, refractory to previous therapies, who were treated with DRG neuromodulation in the upper thoracic and cervical spine. The primary outcome was successful DRG therapy, defined as ≥ 50% pain relief on a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) 0 to 10 pain scale at six months after implantation. A secondary outcome was a reduction in daily opioid use after DRG therapy.

RESULTS

After a DRG stimulation trial, 17 of 20 patients (85%) had ≥ 50% improvement in NRS pain and underwent a permanent pulse generator implant, with 100% endorsing ≥ 50% pain relief at six months. Mean NRS pain scores before DRG neuromodulation were 9.3 ± 1.1, with a mean reduction of 5.5 (95% CI, 4.5-6.6; p < 0.001) at six months. Ten patients were taking opioids at baseline; the median (interquartile range) dose was 45 mg (23 to 120) morphine equivalents (MME), which was reduced to 20 MME (15 to 40) at six months. The median reduction in daily MME use was -25 (95% CI, -100 to 20; p = 0.099). Six of 20 patients (30%) experienced a complication: three had lead migration; two experienced paresthesias; and one had a reduction in shoulder mobility. One patient had symptoms of a reversible spinal cord compression immediately after implant, requiring emergent electrode removal.

CONCLUSIONS

DRG neuromodulation for patients with CRPS of the upper extremities produced clinically important analgesia and reduced opioid use for ≥ six months but was associated with one serious complication.

Combined cervical and thoracic spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is conventionally placed at either cervical or thoracic spinal regions to treat chronic pain. However, for patients with multiarea pain, concomitant cervical and thoracic SCS (ctSCS) may be necessary to provide sufficient coverage. It remains unknown whether ctSCS is effective and safe. Thus, we aimed to survey the existing literature and assess the efficacy and safety of ctSCS.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines to investigate pain, functional, and safety outcomes related to ctSCS. Articles between 1990 and 2022 available through PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were included if they assessed these outcomes in the context of ctSCS. Data extracted from articles included study type, number of ctSCS implantations, stimulation parameters, indications for implantation, complications, and frequency. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

Three primary studies met our inclusion criteria. Overall, ctSCS was effective in providing analgesia. Pain severity was captured with patient-reported pain scales and changes in analgesic requirements. Various metrics were used to quantify quality of life and functional outcomes. Failed back surgery syndrome was the most common indication for ctSCS implantation. Implanted pulse generator pocket pain was the most common postoperative adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limited evidence available, ctSCS seems to be effective and generally well tolerated. The dearth of relevant primary literature illustrates a knowledge gap, and future studies are needed to better clarify the efficacy and safety profile of this SCS variant.

The contralateral oblique fluoroscopic view is associated with a lower incidence of postdural puncture headache in patients undergoing percutaneous spinal cord stimulation

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a minimally invasive therapy that is increasingly used to treat refractory neuropathic pain. Although this technique has a low incidence of serious long-term adverse sequelae, the risk of complications such as inadvertent dural puncture remains.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this article was to determine the impact of the contralateral oblique (CLO) fluoroscopic view incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) during spinal cord stimulator implantation as compared to lateral fluoroscopic view.

METHODS

This was a single academic institution retrospective analysis of electronic medical records spanning an approximate 20-year time period. Operative and postoperative notes were reviewed for details on dural puncture, including technique and spinal level of access, the development of a PDPH, and subsequent management.

RESULTS

Over nearly two decades, a total of 1637 leads inserted resulted in 5 PDPH that were refractory to conservative measures but responded to epidural blood patch without long-term complications. The incidence of PDPH per lead insertion utilizing loss of resistance and lateral fluoroscopic guidance was 0.8% (4/489). However, adoption of CLO guidance was associated with a lower rate of PDPH at 0.08% (1/1148), p < 0.02.

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of the CLO view to guide epidural needle placement can decrease the odds of a PDPH during percutaneous SCS procedures. This study further provides real-world data supporting the potential enhanced accuracy of epidural needle placement in order to avoid unintentional puncture or trauma to deeper spinal anatomic structures.

Cephalad extraspinal spinal cord stimulator lead migration & salvage: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation is an important therapy option for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain of spinal or peripheral etiology. As with any implantable device, complications may arise. These must be promptly identified and managed to maintain patients in successful therapy.

CASE REPORT

We report an unusual case of cephalad and extraspinal lead migration requiring surgical intervention in order to salvage therapy.

CONCLUSION

Lead migration is one of the most common complications of spinal cord stimulation, and left untreated can lead to loss of therapy and possible device explant. A strategy for correcting this issue is needed, and we present an unusual case to consider when faced with a loss of therapy from lead migration.

Multiphase Spinal Cord Stimulation in Participants With Chronic Back or Leg Pain: Results of the BENEFIT-02 Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of a new charge-distributed multiphase stimulation paradigm during an extended spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blind, feasibility study included participants with chronic low back and/or leg pain and baseline numerical rating scale (NRS) for overall pain intensity ≥6. After a successful commercial SCS trial, participants were randomized to multiphase SCS therapy A (approximately 600-1500 Hz) or B (approximately 300-600 Hz), delivered via an investigational external pulse generator and existing leads during an 11-to-12-day testing period. Primary end points were mean NRS change from baseline to final in-office visit for each multiphase therapy and between therapies. Secondary end points included mean NRS change from end of commercial trial to final study visit and incidence of device-related adverse events (AEs). Additional measures included patient-reported outcomes collected at home through electronic watches and written diaries. Power usage was compared between multiphase and commercial therapies.

RESULTS

A total of 122 participants initiated a commercial trial; 77 were randomized to a multiphase arm, and 65 completed the study. Reductions in mean NRS scores from baseline to final study visit were significant for multiphase therapy A and B (-4.3 and -4.7, respectively; both p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in mean NRS reduction or percent pain relief between multiphase therapies. In an additional analysis, 63.9% of participants reported greater pain relief with multiphase than with commercial SCS therapy in the at-home setting. On average, multiphase required less power than did commercial devices. One non-serious device-related AE was reported, and no infections occurred during the extended trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiphase SCS effectively reduced pain in participants with chronic low back and/or leg pain during a trial, with no unanticipated device-related AEs reported. Future studies should evaluate long-term effectiveness of multiphase stimulation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03594266.

Dorsal Root Entry Zone Lesioning Following Unresponsive Spinal Cord Stimulation for Post-Traumatic Neuropathic Pain

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root entry zone (DREZ) lesioning are important therapeutic options for intractable post-traumatic neuropathic pain (PNP). However, surgical choice is controversial due to the need to maximize pain relief and reduce complications. This study aims to retrospectively analyze the effect and complications of DREZ lesioning for patients with PNP who were unresponsive to SCS and provide a surgical reference.

METHODS

Demographic data and surgical characteristics of patients with PNP who underwent DREZ lesioning after an unresponsive SCS were reviewed. Long-term outcomes including numeric rating scale, global impression of change, and long-term complications were assessed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate pain-free survival.

RESULTS

Of 19 patients with PNP, 8 had brachial plexus injury (BPI), 7 had spinal cord injury, 2 had cauda equina injury, 1 had intercostal nerve injury, and 1 had lumbosacral plexus injury. All patients were unresponsive or had a recurrence of pain after SCS, with an average pain-relief rate of 9.3%. After DREZ lesioning, the mean numeric rating scale scores significantly decreased from 7.6 ± 1.5 to 1.8 ± 1.7, with an average pain-relief rate of 75.3%. Seven patients (36.8%) experienced worsened neurologic dysfunction at the last follow-up. Patients with BPI had a significantly better outcome than other pathologies (P < 0.001) after DREZ lesioning.

CONCLUSIONS

DREZ lesioning is an effective alternative procedure to SCS for patients with PNP who have lost limb function. Particularly for those with BPI, DREZ lesioning has shown good efficacy and can be considered a preferred surgical option.

A Novel, Paresthesia-Free Spinal Cord Stimulation Waveform for Chronic Neuropathic Low Back Pain: Six-Month Results of a Prospective, Single-Arm, Dose-Response Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this prospective, single-blinded, dose-response study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel, paresthesia-free (subperception) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) waveform designed to target dorsal horn dendrites for the treatment of chronic neuropathic low back pain (LBP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-seven participants with chronic neuropathic LBP were implanted with a commercial SCS system after a successful trial of SCS therapy. Devices were programmed to deliver the investigative waveform (100 Hz, 1000 μs, T9/T10 bipole) at descending stimulation perception threshold amplitudes (80%, 60%, 40%). Programs were evaluated at six, ten, and 14 weeks, after which participants selected their preferred program, with more follow-up at 26 weeks (primary outcomes). Participants were blinded to the nature of the programming. Pain score (visual analog scale [VAS]), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and health status (36-Item Short Form [SF-36]) were measured at baseline and follow-ups. Responder rate, treatment satisfaction, clinician global impression of change, and adverse events (AEs) also were evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean (± SD) baseline VAS was 72.5 ± 11.2 mm. At 26 weeks (n = 26), mean change from baseline in VAS was -51.7 mm (95% CI, -60.7 to -42.7; p < 0.001), with 76.9% of participants reporting ≥50% VAS reduction, and 46.2% reporting ≥80% VAS reduction. BPI, EQ-5D-5L, and SF-36 scores were all statistically significantly improved at 26 weeks (p < 0.001), and 100% of participants were satisfied with their treatment. There were no unanticipated AEs related to the study intervention, device, or procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel, paresthesia-free stimulation waveform may be a safe and effective option for patients with chronic neuropathic LBP eligible for SCS therapy and is deliverable by all current commercial SCS systems.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered on anzctr.org.au with identifier ACTRN12618000647235.

Precise management system for chronic intractable pain patients implanted with spinal cord stimulation based on a remote programming platform: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (PreMaSy study)

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical technique used in patients with chronic intractable pain, and its effectiveness and safety have been validated by multiple studies. However, to maintain an optimal and steady long-term effect is still challenging. Here, we report a new management paradigm integrating smartphone application and remote programming. Chronic pain patients with SCS implants can monitor their pain status on the phone and change stimulation parameters accordingly. The PreMaSy study is a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of this precise management system.

METHODS

Patients with chronic intractable pain will be screened for eligibility, and 82 participants are anticipated to be enrolled in this trial. After the electrode implantation, the stimulation effectiveness will be tested. Participants with a reduction of more than 50% in the visual analog scale (VAS) will receive implantation of an implantable pulse generator and randomized (1:1) into the experimental group or control group. All participants will be asked to take online follow-ups and complete assessments using a smartphone application. Daily pain characteristic assessments and monthly quality of life questionnaires are integrated into the App, and participants will be required to complete these assessments. The daily VAS for pain intensity will be monitored and a threshold will be set based on baseline VAS score. The interventional appointment will be scheduled once the threshold is reached. The primary outcome is the health condition and quality of life assessed by the five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). Utility values of EQ-5D-5L will be assessed at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months post-operative.

DISCUSSION

The PreMaSy study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a novel App-based, patient-centered, self-assessment management system for chronic intractable pain. A randomized controlled trial is designed to test the non-inferiority of this precise management system compared to the monthly online follow-ups. It is also expected to yield valuable experiences regarding precision medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05761392. Registered on March 07, 2023.

Exploring Psychophysical and Neurophysiological Responses to Intra-Epidermal Electrical Stimuli in Patients With Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2 with a Spinal Cord Stimulator

There is a lack of measures that provide insights into how spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modulates nociceptive function in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS-T2). Recently, we observed altered nociceptive detection thresholds (NDTs) in response to intra-epidermal electrical stimulation (IES) on the feet of PSPS-T2 patients when dorsal root ganglion stimulation was turned on. Furthermore, we observed altered NDTs and evoked potentials (EPs) in response to IES on the hands of PSPS-T2 patients. To explore whether EPs were obstructed by SCS artifacts, we applied IES twice to the hands of patients with SCS turned on (SCS-ON/ON group). To explore possible confounding effects of SCS outside the stimulated area, we repeated IES on the hands of these patients, once with SCS turned off and subsequently once with SCS turned on (SCS-OFF/ON group). The results demonstrated that EPs were not obstructed by SCS artifacts. Additionally, NDTs and EPs did not significantly change between measurements in the SCS-ON/ON and the SCS-OFF/ON groups. Therefore, the results suggested that possible confounding effects of SCS outside the nociceptive system did not interfere with the detection task performance. This work warrants further exploration of NDT-EP phenomena in response to IES at the painful feet of patients.Clinical Relevance-This work contributes to developing a clinical tool to explore psychophysical and neurophysiological biomarkers for observing modulating effects of SCS in patients with PSPS-T2.

Spinal Cord Injury Community Personal Opinions and Perspectives on Spinal Cord Stimulation

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) clinical trials are evaluating its efficacy and safety for motor, sensory, and autonomic recovery following spinal cord injury (SCI). The perspectives of people living with SCI are not well known and can inform the planning, delivery, and translation of SCS.

Objectives

To obtain input from people living with SCI on the top priorities for recovery, expected meaningful benefits, risk tolerance, clinical trial design, and overall interest in SCS.

Methods

Data were collected anonymously from an online survey between February and May 2020.

Results

A total of 223 respondents living with SCI completed the survey. The majority of respondents identified their gender as male (64%), were 10+ years post SCI (63%), and had a mean age of 50.8 years. Most individuals had a traumatic SCI (81%), and 45% classified themselves as having tetraplegia. Priorities for improved outcome for those with complete or incomplete tetraplegia included fine motor skills and upper body function, whereas priorities for complete or incomplete paraplegia included standing and walking, and bowel function. The meaningful benefits that are important to achieve are bowel and bladder care, less reliance on caregivers, and maintaining physical health. Perceived potential risks include further loss of function, neuropathic pain, and complications. Barriers to participation in clinical trials include inability to relocate, out-of-pocket expenses, and awareness of therapy. Respondents were more interested in transcutaneous SCS than epidural SCS (80% and 61%, respectively).

Conclusion

SCS clinical trial design, participant recruitment, and translation of the technology can be improved by better reflecting the priorities and preferences of those living with SCI identified from this study.

Role of patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain: a comprehensive narrative review

Background/importance

Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy is crucial and is traditionally performed with clinical selection followed by a screening trial. The factors influencing patient selection and the importance of trialing have not been systematically evaluated.

Objective

We report a narrative review conducted to synthesize evidence regarding patient selection and the role of SCS trials.

Evidence review

Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for reports (any design) of SCS in adult patients, from their inception until March 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were carried out using DistillerSR. Data were organized into tables and narrative summaries, categorized by study design. Importance of patient variables and trialing was considered by looking at their influence on the long-term therapy success.

Findings

Among 7321 citations, 201 reports consisting of 60 systematic reviews, 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 41 observational studies (OSs), 51 registry-based reports, and 13 case reports on complications during trialing were included. Based on RCTs and OSs, the median trial success rate was 72% and 82%, and therapy success was 65% and 61% at 12 months, respectively. Although several psychological and non-psychological determinants have been investigated, studies do not report a consistent approach to patient selection. Among psychological factors, untreated depression was associated with poor long-term outcomes, but the effect of others was inconsistent. Most RCTs except for chronic angina involved trialing and only one RCT compared patient selection with or without trial. The median (range) trial duration was 10 (0–30) and 7 (0–56) days among RCTs and OSs, respectively.

Conclusions

Due to lack of a consistent approach to identify responders for SCS therapy, trialing complements patient selection to exclude patients who do not find the therapy helpful and/or intolerant of the SCS system. However, more rigorous and large studies are necessary to better evaluate its role.

Spinal cord stimulation for low back pain

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical intervention used to treat persistent low back pain. SCS is thought to modulate pain by sending electrical signals via implanted electrodes into the spinal cord. The long term benefits and harms of SCS for people with low back pain are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects, including benefits and harms, of SCS for people with low back pain.

SEARCH METHODS

On 10 June 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and one other database for published trials. We also searched three clinical trials registers for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials and cross-over trials comparing SCS with placebo or no treatment for low back pain. The primary comparison was SCS versus placebo, at the longest time point measured in the trials. Major outcomes were mean low back pain intensity, function, health-related quality of life, global assessment of efficacy, withdrawals due to adverse events, adverse events, and serious adverse events. Our primary time point was long-term follow-up (≥ 12 months).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with 699 participants: 55% of participants were female; mean age ranged from 47 to 59 years; and all participants had chronic low back pain with mean duration of symptoms ranging from five to 12 years. Ten cross-over trials compared SCS with placebo. Three parallel-group trials assessed the addition of SCS to medical management. Most studies were at risk of performance and detection bias from inadequate blinding and selective reporting bias. The placebo-controlled trials had other important biases, including lack of accounting for period and carryover effects. Two of the three parallel trials assessing SCS as an addition to medical management were at risk of attrition bias, and all three had substantial cross-over to the SCS group for time points beyond six months. In the parallel-group trials, we considered the lack of placebo control to be an important source of bias. None of our included studies evaluated the impact of SCS on mean low back pain intensity in the long term (≥ 12 months). The studies most often assessed outcomes in the immediate term (less than one month). At six months, the only available evidence was from a single cross-over trial (50 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that SCS probably does not improve back or leg pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo. Pain was 61 points (on a 0- to 100-point scale, 0 = no pain) at six months with placebo, and 4 points better (8.2 points better to 0.2 points worse) with SCS. Function was 35.4 points (on a 0- to 100-point scale, 0 = no disability or best function) at six months with placebo, and 1.3 points better (3.9 points better to 1.3 points worse) with SCS. Health-related quality of life was 0.44 points out of 1 (0 to 1 index, 0 = worst quality of life) at six months with placebo, and 0.04 points better (0.16 points better to 0.08 points worse) with SCS. In that same study, nine participants (18%) experienced adverse events and four (8%) required revision surgery. Serious adverse events with SCS included infections, neurological damage, and lead migration requiring repeated surgery. We could not provide effect estimates of the relative risks as events were not reported for the placebo period. In parallel trials assessing SCS as an addition to medical management, it is uncertain whether, in the medium or long term, SCS can reduce low back pain, leg pain, or health-related quality of life, or if it increases the number of people reporting a 50% improvement or better, because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Low-certainty evidence suggests that adding SCS to medical management may slightly improve function and slightly reduce opioid use. In the medium term, mean function (0- to 100-point scale; lower is better) was 16.2 points better with the addition of SCS to medical management compared with medical management alone (95% confidence interval (CI) 19.4 points better to 13.0 points better; I2 = 95%; 3 studies, 430 participants; low-certainty evidence). The number of participants reporting opioid medicine use was 15% lower with the addition of SCS to medical management (95% CI 27% lower to 0% lower; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 290 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events with SCS were poorly reported but included infection and lead migration. One study found that, at 24 months, 13 of 42 people (31%) receiving SCS required revision surgery. It is uncertain to what extent the addition of SCS to medical management increases the risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, adverse events, or serious adverse events, because the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data in this review do not support the use of SCS to manage low back pain outside a clinical trial. Current evidence suggests SCS probably does not have sustained clinical benefits that would outweigh the costs and risks of this surgical intervention.

Identifying Predictors for Early Percutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulator Explant at One and Two Years: A Retrospective Database Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Placement of percutaneous spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implant has become a therapeutic option for various chronic pain conditions; however, early surgical explant still occurs. Unfortunately, evidence regarding the incidence of early surgical explant, and patient-specific factors and comorbidities associated with such, is limited and mixed. The objective of this retrospective analysis was to elucidate the incidence and predictors of percutaneous SCS explant within the first two years of device placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PearlDiver-Mariner Patient Record Database of all payer claims was used to identify patients who underwent percutaneous lead SCS implant (leads and generator) with subsequent explant within two years of initial device implant. The primary outcome was to determine the incidence of SCS explant within the first two years of device placement. Secondary outcomes included evaluating the effects of several patient-specific comorbidities on explant rates using univariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

Across the database, a total of 52,070 patients who underwent percutaneous lead SCS implant were included, of whom 3104 (5.96%) had SCS explant within the first two years. Most explants occurred within the first-year time interval at 72.8% (2260 patients), whereas only 27.2% (844 patients) had SCS explant between years one and two. At the one-year time interval, covariates associated with an increased odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) of SCS explant were 1) depression (1.39 [1.26, 1.52]), 2) chronic preoperative (1.27 [1.16, 1.39]) or postoperative (1.23 [1,13, 1.36]) opioid use, 3) cannabis abuse (1.58 [1.20, 2.02]), 4) tobacco use (1.13 [1.04, 1.23]), and 5) coagulopathy (1.22 [1.07, 1.38]). In contrast, the OR of explant was lower in patients who were older, men, or had diabetes (complicated or uncomplicated). All associated covariates became nonsignificant after the first year of SCS implant (ie, between the first and second years), and only depression and tobacco use remained as associated factors for device explant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective analysis highlights that the rate of percutaneous SCS explant appears to considerably decrease after the first year of device implant. Furthermore, this analysis sheds additional insights into patients who may be at risk of early percutaneous SCS explant, especially within the first year of device placement, and underscores the importance of a continued multidimensional/biopsychologic assessment in patients with chronic pain.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Gait Disorders in Parkinson's Disease

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a therapeutic procedure widely used in the management of refractory chronic pain. Evidence from case reports and small descriptive studies has emerged suggesting a role for SCS in patients with gait dysfunction, such as freezing of gait (FoG) and postural imbalance. These are severely debilitating symptoms of advanced Parkinson's disease (PD).

OBJECTIVE

To establish the current evidence base for the potential application of SCS on gait and balance dysfunction in PD patients.

METHODS

Three online databases were screened for relevant manuscripts. Two separate searches and four different search strategies were applied to yield relevant results. The main parameters of interest were postural and gait symptoms; secondary outcomes were Quality of Life (QoL) and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Motor improvements using section III of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Score (UPDRS-III) were available in 13 studies. Measurements to assess FoG reported the following improvements: FoG questionnaires (in 1/19 studies); generalized freezing parameters (2); and walkway/wireless accelerometer measurements (2). Parameters of postural imbalance and falling improved as follows: BBS (1); posture sagittal vertical axis (1); and generalized data on postural instability (8). Two studies reported on adverse effects. QoL was shown to improve as follows: EQ-5D (2); ADL (1); SF-36 (1); BDI-II (1); PDQ-8 (1); HDRS (1); and VAS (5).

CONCLUSION

SCS may have a therapeutic potential in advanced PD patients suffering from postural and gait-related symptoms. The existing evidence suggests that SCS positively affects patients' QoL with an acceptable safety profile in this patient population.

Spinal cord stimulation to treat meralgia paresthetica. Is it feasible? A case report

Meralgia paresthetica is a neurological disorder caused by a neuropathy of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve. Its aetiology can be spontaneous or iatrogenic. It is characterized by pain, paresthesia, and numbness in the anterolateral aspect of the thigh. Diagnosis is based on clinical examination, although image and neurophysiological tests can be useful as well. Despite conservative measures use to be effective in most of patients, refractory cases can benefit from alternative treatments. Available surgical procedures are: nerve decompression (neurolysis) or section (neurectomy) and radiofrequency ablation. We present a case of refractory meralgia paresthetica where spinal cord stimulation was used as a possible effective technique in pain relief and to avoid the neurectomy of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve.

Spinal cord stimulator medullary compression-a very rare SCS complication and surgical treatment

INTRODUCTION

The risk of spinal cord damage after Spinal Cord Stimulator (SCS) implant is a very rare event. In our case report, the patient was affected by a progressively worsening spinal stenosis due to SCS compression.

CASE REPORT

The authors describe a progressive paraparesis in a 58-year-old woman with a long history of back pain and multiple spine surgeries. Computed tomography (CT) outlined vertebral canal stenosis corresponding to an electrode array implanted in T9. A posterior T8-T10 spinal cord decompression with explanation of the SCS device was performed and a partial neurological improvement was observed immediately postoperative.

DISCUSSION

Spinal cord stimulation has been used since 1967 for the treatment of refractory chronic pain, particularly failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Still, the mechanism underlying its function is not completely clear. Moreover, complications are mainly related to implant dysfunction and the risk of direct and indirect spinal cord compression is described as exceptional in the literature. Our aim is to describe the case SCS device spinal cord direct compression and its surgical treatment.

Spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain following traumatic spinal cord injury: a case report

INTRODUCTION

Neuropathic pain is a common complication of spinal cord injury (SCI), and is notoriously difficult to adequately treat. Gunshot wounds (GSW) near the spinal cord may cause intractable chronic pain through spinal/nerve root transection, or reactive tissue formation resulting in nerve root compression from retained bullet fragments (RBF).

CASE PRESENTATION

This case report describes a 30-year-old man with a T12 AIS B incomplete spinal cord injury with paraplegia secondary to multiple GSW who presented with severe bilateral lower extremity dysesthesias and muscle spasms. Symptoms failed to improve with oral antispasmodic medications. After being diagnosed with Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I secondary to an SCI via GSW, he underwent a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trial, which improved his symptoms by greater than 80%.

DISCUSSION

Neuropathic pain refractory to conservative treatment may benefit from SCS. Effects of therapy go beyond gate-theory in SCI patients, and may benefit patients at the cellular and molecular level. Our case demonstrates the effectiveness of SCS treatment in a patient who developed CRPS type 1 after GSW resulting in SCI.

Disability Pension Did Not Reduce Opioid Use Among Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Who Were Trialed and Implanted for Spinal Cord Stimulation

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). In patients with FBSS, opioids have often been initiated, even before SCS is trialed.

OBJECTIVE

We studied the effect of retirement on opioid use in patients with chronic pain after failed back surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study design.

SETTING

The study was conducted at Kuopio University Hospital.

METHODS

The study group consisted of all 230 patients with SCS trialed or implanted for FBSS at Kuopio University Hospital Neurosurgery from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 2014. All purchases of prescribed opioids and their daily defined doses, as well as data on working ability, were obtained from the Social Insurance Institution. Patients were divided into 3 groups: SCS trial only, SCS implanted permanently, and SCS implanted but later explanted. We analyzed the differences in opioid use among these groups 2 years before and 2 years after the start of their disability pension (DP).

RESULTS

During the follow-up period, a total of 60 patients received a DP. One year before DP, the majority of patients used opioids (n = 43, 72%), and throughout the one-year follow-up after retirement, the number of users increased slightly (n = 46, 77%). In the permanently implanted SCS group, the number of strong opioid users decreased after retirement. Most patients used a moderate dose (0.1-10.5 morphine milligram equivalent/d). Retirement appeared to interrupt dose escalation in all groups, but doses increased further as the follow-up continued.

LIMITATIONS

No structured questionnaires were used in this study. Also, many underlying factors contributing to chronic pain were missing.

CONCLUSIONS

DP did not reduce the use of opioids in patients with FBSS. Opioid doses were lower and dose escalation less steep with continuous SCS therapy.

Comparison of disc and wire electrodes to restore cough via lower thoracic spinal cord stimulation

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and effectiveness of wire (WE) vs. disc (DE) electrodes to restore cough in subjects with spinal cord injury (SCI).

DESIGN

Clinical trials assessing the effectiveness and clinical outcomes associated with two electrode systems to activate the expiratory muscles.

SETTING

Inpatient hospital setting for DE or WE electrode insertion; outpatient evaluation of cough efficacy and instructions for home use.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-nine subjects with SCI; 17 participants with DE and 12 with WE implants.

INTERVENTION

Surgical implantation of WE or DE to restore cough. Daily application of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at home.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Airway pressure (P) and peak airflow (F) generation achieved with SCS; clinical parameters including ease in raising secretions, incidence of acute respiratory tract infections (RTI) and side effects.

RESULTS

P and F achieved with DE and WE were not significantly different. For example, at total lung capacity (TLC) with participant effort, P was 128 ± 12 cmH2O and 118 ± 14 cmH2O, with DE and WE, respectively. The degree of difficulty in raising secretions improved markedly in both groups. The incidence of RTI per year fell from 1.3 ± 0.3 and 1.3 ± 0.5-0.3 ± 0.1 and 0.1 ± 0.1 for DE and WE groups, respectively (P < 0.01 for both when compared to pre-implant values and NS between DE and WE groups). The only significant side effect i.e. short-term autonomic dysreflexia was also similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this investigation indicate that both DE and WE result in comparable degrees of expiratory muscle activation, clinical benefits and side effects. Importantly, SCS to restore cough can be achieved with use of WE which can be placed using minimally invasive techniques and associated reduction in cost, surgical time and overall risk.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00116337., NCT01659541, FDA IDE: G980267.

Significant epidural electrode migration out of the spinal canal due to prolonged latent infection of the spinal cord stimulation hardware

Electrode migration is one of the most common complication of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS). Usually the lead migrates cranio-caudally or laterally and in the vast majority of cases occurs during the first few months after implantation. One method of preventing lead migration is the use of open-surgical insertion of paddle electrodes.

A CASE REPORT

51-year old woman was admitted for a revision of postoperative wound after implantation of Spinal Cord Stimulator, which was inserted 4 years earlier due to Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS). Two years after surgery the patient reported severe pain at the site of electrode implantation. After removal of scar tissue pulling on electrode wires the symptoms subsided. In the following months impaired healing of the postoperative wound was observed. For a long time, the patient would not consent to removal of SCS hardware because of good therapeutic effect. When she was finally admitted for surgery, radiological examination demonstrated significant electrode migration out of the vertebral canal. Surgery was performed to remove all of the hardware.

CONCLUSIONS

In this case, electrode migration out of the vertebral canal resulted from prolonged infection of SCS hardware. The importance of an infection prevention in neuromodulation procedures should be highlighted. According to our best knowledge, this is the first presented case of paddle type electrode extraspinal migration.

Adverse Events Associated With 10-kHz Dorsal Column Spinal Cord Stimulation: A 5-Year Analysis of the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) Database

BACKGROUND

High-frequency (10-kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) continues to be an emerging therapy in chronic pain management. The same complications that plagued earlier SCS systems may affect newer stimulation technologies, although there is limited data on the type of complications and surgical management of these complications.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically examine real-world complications associated with 10-kHz SCS reported on the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The MAUDE database was queried for entries reported between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. Entries were classified into procedural complications, device-related complications, patient complaints, surgically managed complications, serious adverse events, and/or other complications. Primary outcomes included type and frequency of complications, and surgical management of complications.

RESULTS

A total of 1651 entries were analyzed. Most entries were categorized as procedural complications (72.6%), followed by serious adverse events (10.5%), device-related complications (10.5%), and patient complaints (9.9%). Most complications were managed surgically with explant (50.9%) rather than revision (5.0%) or incision/drainage (6.6%). Of procedural complications, the most common entries included non-neuraxial infection (52.9%), new neurological symptoms (14.7%), and dural puncture (9.5%). Of device-related complications, the most common entries included lead damage (41.6%), erosion (18.5%), and difficult insertion (11.5%).

CONCLUSION

This retrospective 5-year analysis of complications from10-kHz SCS provides a real-world assessment of safety data unique for this stimulation modality. This analysis may help inform future clinical decisions, lead to device enhancement and optimization, and improve mitigation of risks to provide safe and efficacious use of 10-kHz SCS.

Neuromodulation for chronic pain

Neuromodulation is an expanding area of pain medicine that incorporates an array of non-invasive, minimally invasive, and surgical electrical therapies. In this Series paper, we focus on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies discussed within the framework of other invasive, minimally invasive, and non-invasive neuromodulation therapies. These therapies include deep brain and motor cortex stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and the non-invasive treatments of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. SCS methods with electrical variables that differ from traditional SCS have been approved. Although methods devoid of paraesthesias (eg, high frequency) should theoretically allow for placebo-controlled trials, few have been done. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that SCS is superior to reoperation or conventional medical management for failed back surgery syndrome, and conflicting evidence as to the superiority of traditional SCS over sham stimulation or between different SCS modalities. Peripheral nerve stimulation technologies have also undergone rapid development and become less invasive, including many that are placed percutaneously. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that peripheral nerve stimulation is effective for neuropathic pain in an extremity, low quality evidence that it is effective for back pain with or without leg pain, and conflicting evidence that it can prevent migraines. In the USA and many areas in Europe, deep brain and motor cortex stimulation are not approved for chronic pain, but are used off-label for refractory cases. Overall, there is mixed evidence supporting brain stimulation, with most sham-controlled trials yielding negative findings. Regarding non-invasive modalities, there is moderate quality evidence that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation does not provide meaningful benefit for chronic pain in general, but conflicting evidence regarding pain relief for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcranial direct current stimulation, there is low-quality evidence supporting its benefit for chronic pain, but conflicting evidence regarding a small treatment effect for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, there is low-quality evidence that it is superior to sham or no treatment for neuropathic pain, but conflicting evidence for non-neuropathic pain. Future research should focus on better evaluating the short-term and long-term effectiveness of all neuromodulation modalities and whether they decrease health-care use, and on refining selection criteria and treatment variables.

A new minimally invasive technique for lead revision of perc-paddle leads

To report on a less-invasive technique for replacing a broken lead in a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device that makes use of St. Jude Medical's "Epiducer" device. A 53-year-old woman suffered a loss of stimulation on her internal pulse generator (IPG), which was found to have a broken lead. The broken lead was withdrawn using the Epiducer device with minimal invasiveness and without pain. A new lead was put in place, and successful stimulation using the IPG resumed. Follow-up 3 weeks later showed a well-functioning SCS system. An Epiducer can be used to revise the SCS system in a minimal invasive way without a new puncture. Follow-up study of this technique as well as others for revising an SCS system should be encouraged and used in comparison study.

How to Treat a Patient with Thromboangiitis Obliterans: A Systematic Review

To date, there is still no treatment protocol for patients with thromboangiitis obliterans (TAO) who are also afflicted with critical limb ischemia (CLI). Smoking cessation on its own cannot be considered a treatment for the purposes of salvaging a limb of a TAO patient with CLI. The aim of this review was to evaluate different studies of various treatment protocols for avoiding amputation in TAO patients. A systematic search for relevant studies dating from 1990 to the end of 2016 was performed on the PubMed, SCOPUS, and Science Direct databases. Only 24 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which only one was a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The remaining studies were quasi-experimental with various treatments and follow-up durations. Therefore, meta-analysis was not performed. Judging from the major amputation rates after the suggested treatments were performed, no treatment was particularly effective. This review demonstrated that more standard RCTs are needed to resolve this treatment issue involved in TAO. In addition, because health insurance coverage for TAO patients differs by country, regional cost-benefit and cost-efficacy studies of the suggested treatments for TAO are highly recommended.

Drivers and Risk Factors of Unplanned 30-Day Readmission Following Spinal Cord Stimulator Implantation

OBJECTIVES

Unplanned 30-day readmission rates contribute significantly to growing national healthcare expenditures. Drivers of unplanned 30-day readmission after spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implantation are relatively unknown. The aim of this study was to determine drivers of 30-day unplanned readmission following SCS implantation.

METHODS

The National Readmission Database was queried to identify all patients who underwent SCS implantation for the 2013 calendar year. Patients were grouped by readmission status, "No Readmission" and "Unplanned 30-day Readmission." Patient demographics and comorbidities were collected for each patient. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of unplanned 30-day readmissions and associated driving factors. A multivariate analysis was used to determine independent predictors of unplanned 30-day readmission after SCS implantation.

RESULTS

We identified 1521 patients who underwent SCS implantation, with 113 (7.4%) experiencing an unplanned readmission within 30 days. Baseline patient demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics were similar between both cohorts. The three main drivers for 30-day readmission after SCS implantation include: 1) infection (not related to SCS device), 2) infection due to device (limited to only hardware infection), and 3) mechanical complication of SCS device. Furthermore, obesity was found to be an independent predictor of 30-day readmission (OR: 1.86, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that infectious and mechanical complications are the primary drivers of unplanned 30-day readmission after SCS implantation, with obesity as an independent predictor of unplanned readmission. Given the technological advancements in SCS, repeated studies are necessary to identify factors associated with unplanned 30-day readmission rates after SCS implantation to improve patient outcomes and reduce associated costs.

The effect of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation on corticospinal excitability in chronic incomplete spinal cord injury

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the feasibility of modulating bilateral corticospinal excitability with different polarities of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) in chronic, incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI).

METHODS

Six subjects with chronic incomplete SCI (>12 months post injury) participated in this crossover study. Intervention consisted of 3 sessions, separated by at least 1 week, in which each subject received the conditions cathodal, anodal, and sham tsDCS. Stimulation was delivered at 2.5 mA for 20 minutes with the active electrode positioned over the spinous processes of T10-T11 and the reference electrode over left deltoid. To measure the effects of tsDCS on corticospinal excitability, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from transcranial magnetic stimulation were measured bilaterally from soleus before and after tsDCS.

RESULTS

Five subjects completed all 3 sessions. One subject withdrew after 2 sessions due to complications unrelated to the study. MEPs were measurable in 5 subjects. No significant differences in change of MEP amplitudes were found between the 3 conditions. However, there were trends that indicated laterality of response, particularly with cathodal tsDCS increasing corticospinal excitability contralateral to the reference electrode and decreasing corticospinal excitability ipsilateral to the reference electrode.

CONCLUSION

Corticospinal excitability may be modulated with laterality by tsDCS in individuals with chronic, incomplete SCI. Further research is needed to 1) determine whether different placement of the reference electrode can lead to uniform modulation bilaterally, and 2) reveal whether these alterations in corticospinal excitability can lead to improved movement function in individuals with chronic, incomplete SCI.

Cephalad Lead Migration During a Spinal Cord Stimulation Trial: A Case Presentation

Spinal cord stimulation is used in the treatment of a variety of pain conditions. Lead migration is among the most common complications associated with spinal cord stimulation. Although there have been reports of caudal lead migration, there have been no reports of significant cephalad lead migration during a spinal cord stimulation trial. Here we report what is potentially the first case of significant cephalad lead migration (from the initial T8 position to C2) during a spinal cord stimulation trial. This case demonstrates that significant lead migration is possible, and this case highlights the importance of adequately securing leads during a trial.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

Epidural Spinal Stimulation to Improve Bladder, Bowel, and Sexual Function in Individuals With Spinal Cord Injuries: A Framework for Clinical Research

While some recent studies that apply epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have demonstrated a breakthrough in improvement of the health and quality of the life of persons with spinal cord injury (SCI), the numbers of people who have received SCS are small. This is in sharp contrast to the thousands of persons worldwide living with SCI who have no practical recourse or hope of recovery of lost functions. Thus, the vision is to understand the full potential of this new intervention and to determine if it is safe and effective in a larger cohort, and if it is scalable so that it can be made available to all those who might benefit. To achieve this vision, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering called for and organized a consortium of multiple stakeholder groups: foundations addressing paralysis, federal and public agencies, industrial partners, academicians, and researchers, all interested in the same goal. Based on input from consortium participants, we have reasoned that a first step is to define a scalable SCS approach that is effective in restoring lost autonomic physiology, specifically bladder, bowel, and sexual function. These functions are most critical for improving the quality of life of persons living with SCI. This report outlines a framework for conducting the research needed to define such an effective SCS procedure that might seek Food and Drug Administration approval and be implemented at the population level.

Complications of Spinal Cord Stimulation and Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Techniques: A Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord and peripheral neurostimulation techniques have been practiced since 1967 for the relief of pain, and some techniques are also used for improvement in organ function. Neuromodulation has recognized complications, although very rarely do these cause long-term morbidity. The aim of this article is to present a review of complications observed in patients treated with neurostimulation techniques.

METHODS

A review of the major recent publications in the literature on the subjects of spinal cord, occipital, sacral, and peripheral nerve field stimulation was conducted.

RESULTS

The incidence of complications reported varies from 30% to 40% of patients affected by one or more complications. Adverse events can be subdivided into hardware-related complications and biological complications. The commonest hardware-related complication is lead migration. Other lead related complications such as failure or fracture have also been reported. Common biological complications include infection and pain over the implant. Serious biological complications such as dural puncture headache and neurological damage are rarely observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal cord and peripheral neurostimulation techniques are safe and reversible therapies. Hardware-related complications are more commonly observed than biological complications. Serious adverse events such as neurological damage are rare.

[Complications Associated with Spinal Cord Stimulation, Radiofrequency and Pulsed Radiofrequency]

Intraoperative complications regarding spinal cord stimulation (SCS) are dural or arachnoidal puncture, spinal or radicular injury and bleeding. Most common complications after SCS are malposition of epidural lead and unexpected device trouble. Other severe complica- tions are infection, hematoma and post dural puncture headache. Complications associated with radiofre- quency and pulsed radiofrequency are bleeding, infec- tion, tissue damage, sensory or motor disturbance and burn injury. And there is known spinal cord infarction as a severe complication. We should explain about the therapeutic procedure and associated complications to patients. Moreover, the immediate assessing of complications and appropriate treatments are necessary.

Late Extrusion of an Implantable Pulse Generator of a Spinal Cord Stimulator

The objective of this manuscript was to report a case of a patient with extruded pulse generator 3 years after implantation of a spinal cord stimulator system.With the increasing incidence of chronic pain, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is becoming more commonly utilized by pain physicians. SCS is a generally safe intervention with minimal adverse effects; however, there are risks of complications which practitioners should be aware of prior to and after placement of the SCS. We present a case of a patient with a late complication of extrusion of an implantable pulse generator (IPG) of a SCS that was promptly identified and successfully removed without any complications. A 60-year-old male truck driver with history of failed back syndrome and diabetes underwent a SCS system implanted with excellent relief of his pain. The SCS was implanted with 2 leads with the IPG being sutured 3 cm in depth in the superior gluteal region. Three years after the implantation, he developed pain over the site of the generator and presented to our clinic with extrusion of the non-rechargeable pulse generator from his gluteal region.The pulse generator was successfully removed with the battery not being infected. This late complication may have been related to his ongoing profession of daily driving with pressure necrosis from prolonged sitting and constant vibration during long rides associated. Structural size and design of the pulse generator may have had an important contribution as well. To our knowledge this complication has not been reported in the literature.Physicians that place or manage patients with SCSs should be aware of this rare complication and maintain vigilance even after remote implantation of the SCS systems.

KEY WORDS

Spinal cord stimulator, complication, extrusion, implantable pulse generator, neuromodulation, failed back syndrome, battery complication.

Advanced Innovations for Pain

Chronic pain represents one of the most important public health problems in terms of both the number of patients afflicted and health care costs. Most patients with chronic pain are treated with medications as the mainstay of therapy, and yet most medically treated patients continue to report ongoing pain. Additionally, adverse effects from pain medications represent a major challenge for clinicians and patients. Spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal drug delivery systems are well-established techniques that have been utilized for over 25 years. Intrathecal drug delivery systems have proven efficacy for a wide variety of intractable pain conditions and fewer adverse effects than systemic medical therapy in patients with refractory cancer-related pain. Spinal cord stimulation is cost-effective and provides improved pain control compared with medical therapy in patients with a variety of refractory pain conditions including complex regional pain syndrome, painful diabetic neuropathy, and chronic radiculopathy. Patients who have intractable pain that has not responded to reasonable attempts at conservative pain care measures should be referred to a qualified interventional pain specialist to determine candidacy for the procedures discussed in this article.

Twiddler's syndrome in spinal cord stimulation

Background

The aims are to present a case series of Twiddler’s syndrome in spinal cord stimulators with analysis of the possible mechanism of this syndrome and discuss how this phenomenon can be prevented.

Method

Data were collected retrospectively between 2007 and 2013 for all patients presenting with failure of spinal cord stimulators. The diagnostic criterion for Twiddler’s syndrome is radiological evidence of twisting of wires in the presence of failure of spinal cord stimulation.

Results

Our unit implants on average 110 spinal cord stimulators a year. Over the 5-year study period, all consecutive cases of spinal cord stimulation failure were studied. Three patients with Twiddler’s syndrome were identified. Presentation ranged from 4 to 228 weeks after implantation. Imaging revealed repeated rotations and twisting of the wires of the spinal cord stimulators leading to hardware failure.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge this is the first reported series of Twiddler’s syndrome with implantable pulse generators (IPGs) for spinal cord stimulation. Hardware failure is not uncommon in spinal cord stimulation. Awareness and identification of Twiddler’s syndrome may help prevent its occurrence and further revisions. This may be achieved by implanting the IPG in the lumbar region subcutaneously above the belt line. Psychological intervention may have a preventative role for those who are deemed at high risk of Twiddler’s syndrome from initial psychological screening.

National Perioperative Outcomes for Intrathecal Pump, Spinal Cord Stimulator, and Peripheral Nerve Stimulator Procedures

BACKGROUND

There is abundant literature on the long-term complications of intrathecal pumps (ITP), spinal cord stimulators (SCS), and peripheral nerve stimulators (PNS) used in the treatment of chronic pain. There is less information, however, on the perioperative complications of these procedures.

OBJECTIVE

Exploration of the perioperative outcomes of implantable pain devices.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

University hospitals, community hospitals, specialty hospitals, attached surgery centers, and freestanding surgery centers

METHODS

Data were obtained from the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry (NACOR) of the Anesthesia Quality Institute (AQI). Information was collected on patient demographics, procedure information, anesthetic administered, diagnosis linked to the procedure, and perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

The search yielded 12,611 ITP, 19,276 SCS, and 15,184 PNS cases from 2010 to 2014. In this sample, the majority of procedures were performed at community hospitals, not university medical centers. The most common diagnosis cited for an ITP was an implant complication (n = 2,570), followed by spasticity, and non-malignant back pain. For SCS, the most common diagnoses were lower back pain (n = 5,515) or radiculopathy (n = 2,398). For PNS, by far the most common diagnosis related to urinary dysfunction (n = 8,745), with painful bladder syndrome a small minority (n = 133). General anesthetics were more often performed for ITP than for SCS and PNS procedures (60.6% vs. 31.8% and 32.2%, respectively). Hemodynamic instability was a common outcome (13.9% for ITP procedures); other common outcomes for all the procedures included case delays, inadequate pain control, and extended PACU stays.

LIMITATIONS

Despite the large sample size in this study, not all medical centers transmit their outcome data to NACOR. Furthermore, some institutions do not report clinical outcomes for every case to NACOR, making the sample size of assessing complications smaller and potentially more biased. Finally, procedures identified in the NACOR database using CPT may be similar but not identical and therefore potentially influence outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Databases such as NACOR can provide rich information on ITP, SCS, and PNS for physicians performing these procedures. In this sample, ITP procedures, performed on the patients with the most severe cormobidities and often-requiring general anesthesia, were the most likely to be associated with hemodynamic instability, inadequate pain control, and extended PACU stays. Complications relating to the ITP are also the most common reason for an operation. These findings underscore the importance of proper patient selection for ITP and other implantable pain devices, in particular for patients with malignant pain or multiple co-morbidities. To identify the root causes of complications, additional information is needed on the procedure performed (e.g., an implant vs a revision), the surgical technique used, and the device implanted, as well as on specific patient comorbidities. Such information will likely become more available as resources like NACOR expand and as electronic medical record systems and coding become more integrated.

Spinal cord stimulation: a review of the safety literature and proposal for perioperative evaluation and management

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

There is currently no consensus on appropriate perioperative management of patients with spinal cord stimulator implants. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered safe under strict labeling conditions. Electrocautery is generally not recommended in these patients but sometimes used despite known risks.

PURPOSE

The aim was to discuss the perioperative evaluation and management of patients with spinal cord stimulator implants.

STUDY DESIGN

A literature review, summary of device labeling, and editorial were performed, regarding the safety of spinal cord stimulator devices in the perioperative setting.

METHODS

A literature review was performed, and the labeling of each Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved spinal cord stimulation system was reviewed. The literature review was performed using PubMed and the FDA website (www.fda.gov).

RESULTS

Magnetic resonance imaging safety recommendations vary between the models. Certain systems allow for MRI of the brain to be performed, and only one system allows for MRI of the body to be performed, both under strict labeling conditions. Before an MRI is performed, it is imperative to ascertain that the system is intact, without any lead breaks or low impedances, as these can result in heating of the spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and injury to the patient. Monopolar electrocautery is generally not recommended for patients with SCS; however, in some circumstances, it is used when deemed required by the surgeon. When cautery is necessary, bipolar electrocautery is recommended. Modern electrocautery units are to be used with caution as there remains a risk of thermal injury to the tissue in contact with the SCS. As with MRI, electrocautery usage in patients with SCS systems with suspected breaks or abnormal impedances is unsafe and may cause injury to the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal cord stimulation is increasingly used in patients with pain of spinal origin, particularly to manage postlaminectomy syndrome. Knowledge of the safety concerns of SCS and appropriate perioperative evaluation and management of the SCS system can reduce risks and improve surgical planning.

Spinal cord stimulation for cancer-related pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 2013. Cancer-related pain places a heavy burden on public health with related high expenditure. Severe pain is associated with a decreased quality of life in patients with cancer. A significant proportion of patients with cancer-related pain are under-treated. There is a need for more effective control of cancer-related pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may have a role in pain management. The effectiveness and safety of SCS for patients with cancer-related pain is currently unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of SCS for cancer-related pain compared with standard care using conventional analgesic medication. We also appraised risk and potential adverse events associated with the use of SCS.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of a review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 2013. The search strategy for the update was the same as in the original review. We searched the following bibliographic databases in order to identify relevant studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; and CBM (Chinese Biomedical Database) in October 2014. We also handsearched relevant journals. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared SCS with other interventions with regards to the effectiveness of pain management. We also planned to include cross-over trials that compared SCS with another treatment. We planned to identify non-randomised controlled trials but these would only be included if no RCTs could be found.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The literature search for the update of this review found 121 potentially eligible articles. The initial search strategy yielded 430 articles. By scrutinising titles and abstracts, we found 412 articles irrelevant to the analytical purpose of this systematic review due to different scopes of diseases or different methods of intervention (intrathecal infusion system; oral medication) or aims other than pain control (spinal cord function monitoring, bladder function restoration or amelioration of organ metabolism). The remaining 18 trials were reviewed as full manuscripts. No RCTs were identified. Fourteen sporadic case reports and review articles were excluded and four before-and-after case series studies (92 participants) were included. Two review authors independently selected the studies to be included in the review according to the prespecified eligibility criteria. A checklist for methodological quality of non-randomised controlled trials was used (STROBE checklist) and all review authors discussed and agreed on the inclusion of trials and the results of the quality assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

No new studies were identified for inclusion in this update of the review. Four before-and-after case series studies (a total of 92 participants) met our criteria for inclusion in the previous version of the review. All included trials adopted a visual analogue scale (VAS) to evaluate pain relief. Heterogeneity existed in terms of baseline characteristics, electrode and stimulator parameters, level of implantation and route of implantation; each trial reported data differently. In two trials, pain relief was achieved in 76% (48/63) of participants at the end of the follow-up period. In the third trial, pre-procedure VAS was 6 to 9 (mean 7.43 ); the one-month post-implant VAS was 2 to 4 (mean 3.07); the 12-month post-implant VAS was 1 to 3 (mean 2.67). In the fourth trial, the pre-procedure VAS was 6 to 9 (mean 7.07); 1 to 4 (mean 2.67) at one-month; 1 to 4 (mean 1.87) at 12 months. Analgesic use was largely reduced. The main adverse events were infection of sites of implantation, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, pain at the sites of electrodes, dislodgement of the electrodes, and system failure; however, the incidence in participants with cancer could not be calculated. Since all trials were small, non-randomised controlled trials, they carried high or unclear risk of all types of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the first publication of this review, no new studies were identified. Current evidence is insufficient to establish the role of SCS in treating refractory cancer-related pain. Future randomised studies should focus on the implantation of SCS in participants with cancer-related pain.