Cascade Programming for 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Single Center Case Series of 114 Patients With Neuropathic Back and Leg Pain

ObjectiveTen kilohertz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is usually initiated in a single-bipolar configuration over the radiological reference point T9/T10 intervertebral disc space for neuropathic back and leg pain. Cascade is a duty-cycled, multi-bipolar contact configuration across an entire eight-contact lead. Potential advantages by using a broader area of SCS coverage include mitigation against minor lead migration and a reduction in the need for reprogramming. We report here the results of a retrospective case series of 114 patients using Cascade.Materials and MethodsRetrospective data were collected over two years. We selected patients with neuropathic back with or without/leg pain who had a trial of SCS. Pain assessments using Numerical Rating Scales (NRS) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores were collected at baseline, six months, and last follow-up beyond 12 months (mean 15.1 months). Patients were programmed with 10 kHz SCS using Cascade during the trial, which was continued unless reporting inadequate pain relief. Morbidity and deviations from Cascade programming were also obtained.ResultsAt six months, 87 of 97 (90.6%) patients with active devices were using Cascade and 58 of 72 (81%) patients at the last follow-up >12 months. There was a significant reduction in back NRS (8.3 vs. 3.9 [p < 0.0001], N = 97) and leg pain (7.53 vs. 3.83 [p < 0.0001], N = 77) at 6 months and last follow-up >12 months back (8.3 vs. 3.95 [p < 0.0001] N = 72), leg (7.53 vs. 3.534 [p < 0.0001], N = 58). The PGIC score was 6 of 7 or all of 7 in 72% of patients (70/97) at six months and in 68% (49/72) of patients at the last follow-up beyond 12 months.ConclusionCascade is an effective programming methodology that may have benefits over a single-bipole configuration for 10 kHz SCS, particularly during a trial of stimulation. Results from this study suggest it is a durable program for patients with neuropathic back and leg pain.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation With Additional Peripheral Nerve/Field Stimulation Versus Spinal Cord Stimulation Alone on Back Pain and Quality of Life in Patients With Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome

IntroductionPersistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) or failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) refers to new or persistent pain following spinal surgery for back or leg pain in a subset of patients. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a neuromodulation technique that can be considered in patients with predominant leg pain refractory to conservative treatment. Patients with predominant low back pain benefit less from SCS. Another neuromodulation technique for treatment of chronic low back pain is subcutaneous stimulation or peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS). We investigated the effect of SCS with additional PNFS on pain and quality of life of patients with PSPS compared with that of SCS alone after 12 months.Materials and MethodsThis is a comparative study of patients with PSPS who responded to treatment with either SCS + PNFS or SCS only following a multicenter randomized clinical trial protocol. In total, 75 patients completed the 12-month follow-up: 21 in the SCS-only group and 54 in the SCS + PNFS group. Outcome measures were pain (visual analog scale), quality of life (36-Item Short Form Survey [SF-36]), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), overall health (EuroQol Five-Dimension [EQ-5D]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and pain assessed by the McGill questionnaire.ResultsThere were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Both groups showed a significant reduction in back and leg pain at 12 months compared with baseline measurements. No significant differences were found between the groups in effect on both primary (pain) and secondary parameters (SF-36, HADS, EQ-5D, ODI, and McGill pain).ConclusionIn a subgroup of patients with chronic back and leg pain, SCS alone provided similar long-term pain relief and quality-of-life improvement as PNFS in addition to SCS. In patients with refractory low back pain not responding to SCS alone, adding PNFS should be recommended.Clinical Trial RegistrationThe Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT01776749.     

Long-Term Efficacy of a Novel Spinal Cord Stimulation Clinical Workflow Using Kilohertz Stimulation: Twelve-Month Results From the Vectors Study

Background and ObjectivesMultiple variables play a role in spinal cord stimulation (SCS) treatment outcomes, including patient anatomy, pain pattern, lead location, stimulation parameters, and so on. A wide range of stimulation parameters are considered safe and on-label, and as a result a growing number of new frequencies and frequency-combinations are being incorporated into standard practice. A standardized approach to therapy delivery may provide more consistent outcomes for more patients. The Vectors study evaluated whether there is significant sustained improvement in pain and functional outcomes when therapy is delivered using a standardized approach.Materials and MethodsVectors, a post-market, single-arm study evaluated the safety and efficacy of SCS with an implantable neurostimulator starting with 1 kHz stimulation, targeting the T9–T10 disc space following paresthesia mapping. Subjects with chronic intractable low back and leg pain (visual analogue scale [VAS] ≥ 50 mm) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was change in overall pain (VAS) at the three-month visit compared to baseline. Subjects were followed through 12 months. Secondary endpoints included changes in low back and leg pain, quality of life (European Quality of Life – Five Dimensions, EQ-5D-5L), disability (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI), individual subject goals, and subject satisfaction.ResultsThere was a significant reduction in overall pain (VAS; 45.4 mm) through the three-month visit, which was sustained through 12 months. At 12 months, 79% of subjects had ≥50% improvement in at least one pain domain (overall, lowback or leg) with 85% of subjects reporting therapy satisfaction. There was a decrease in disability and an improvement in quality of life with 70% of subjects achieving a personal activity goal by the three-month visit.ConclusionsLong-term pain relief and improvement in quality of life and function were achieved when following a standardized workflow.Clinical Trial RegistrationThe Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03345472.     

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

ObjectivesComplex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic debilitating disease characterized by sensory abnormalities. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for CRPS, but few studies have investigated the effects of SCS therapy on sensory characteristics. Therefore, this study investigated the effect of SCS on allodynia, hyperalgesia, electrical quantitative sensory testing (QST) parameters, and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) effect.Materials and MethodsThis study is part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 36655259). Patients with CRPS in one extremity and eligible for SCS were included. The outcome parameters allodynia (symptom and sign), hyperalgesia (symptom), sensory thresholds with QST, CPM effect, and pain scores were tested before and after three months of SCS (40-Hz tonic SCS). Both the CRPS-affected extremity and the contralateral, clinically unaffected extremity were used to test three sensory thresholds with electrical QST: current perception threshold (CPT), pain perception threshold (PPT), and pain tolerance threshold (PTT). The PTT also was used as a test stimulus for the CPM paradigm both before and after the conditioning ice-water test. Nonparametric testing was used for all statistical analyses.ResultsIn total, 31 patients were included for analysis. Pain, allodynia (sign and symptom), and hyperalgesia (symptom) were all significantly reduced after SCS therapy. On the unaffected side, none of the QST thresholds (CPT, PPT, and PTT) was significantly altered after SCS therapy. However, the CPT on the CRPS-affected side was significantly increased after SCS therapy. A CPM effect was present both before and after SCS.ConclusionsStandard 40-Hz tonic SCS significantly reduces pain, hyperalgesia, and allodynia in patients with CRPS. These findings suggest that SCS therapy should not be withheld from patients who suffer from allodynia and hyperalgesia, which contradicts previous findings derived from retrospective analysis and animal research.ISRCTN Registry: The ISRCTN registration number for the study is ISRCTN 36655259.     

Treatment of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

Objectives. To evaluate the long‐term results of different therapies for failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Materials and Methods. From 1992 to 1997, 49 patients were treated for FBSS. Twenty patients were treated medically. Twenty‐four patients, who did not respond to medical therapy, underwent spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implant and five underwent further spine surgery. All patients were evaluated by VAS, PDI, and the Oswestry Scales before treatment and at follow‐up. Leg pain, back pain, work status or daily activities, drug side effects, and use of analgesic medications after implantation were examined. Follow‐up ranged from 24 to 84 months (mean 42 months). Results. At last follow‐up, the patients treated medically demonstrated good results on leg and low back pain in eight cases; in other cases, good results were transitory and several therapeutic courses were necessary to control the pain. Two patients treated medically had substantial side effects. All but two patients treated with SCS demonstrated good results for their leg pain; whereas those treated for back pain with SCS had poor results. Two patients still needed continuous drug administration. Conclusions. Medical therapy is effective for leg and back pain; nevertheless, several courses of therapy may be necessary. SCS is an effective treatment for leg pain, however, its effectiveness on back pain appears to be inadequate.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation Versus Re-operation in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: An International Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (EVIDENCE Study)

Objective: This paper presents the protocol of the EVIDENCE study, a multicenter multinational randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) with rechargeable pulse generator versus re‐operation through 36‐month follow‐up in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Study Design: Study subjects have neuropathic radicular leg pain exceeding or equaling any low back pain and meet specified entry criteria. One‐to‐one randomization is stratified by site and by one or more prior lumbosacral operations. The sample size of 132 subjects may be adjusted to between 100 and 200 subjects using a standard adaptive design statistical method with pre‐defined rules. Crossover treatment is possible. Co‐primary endpoints are proportion of subjects reporting ≥50% leg pain relief without crossover at 6 and at 24 months after SCS screening trial or re‐operation. Insufficient pain relief constitutes failure of randomized treatment, as does crossover. Secondary endpoints include cost‐effectiveness; relief of leg, back, and overall pain; change in disability and quality of life; and rate of crossover. We are collecting data on subject global impression of change, patient satisfaction with treatment, employment status, pain/paresthesia overlap, SCS programming, and adverse events. Discussion: As the first multicenter randomized controlled trial of SCS versus re‐operation and the first to use only rechargeable SCS pulse generators, the EVIDENCE study will provide up‐to‐date evidence on the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome.     

Novel Spinal Cord Stimulation Waveforms for Treating Back and Leg Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been suggested as a treatment option to improve the quality-adjusted life years of individuals with low back pain. However, previous reviews have some methodologic limitations. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of novel SCS waveforms on pain outcomes in patients with low back pain (LBP) compared with traditional SCS or placebo comparator.Materials and MethodsNine electronic data bases, ongoing trials, gray literature, and targeted journals were searched from inception to December 27, 2021. The Cochrane risk of bias and Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations were used to appraise individual and overall evidence. Subjects aged ≥ 18 years with or without previous surgeries and having LBP for at least three months were included. The primary outcome was pain intensity including back or leg pain scores at postintervention. Secondary outcomes comprised decrease in back, leg, and overall pain, and health-related quality of life.ResultsA total of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 955 participants across four countries were included. Our meta-analysis revealed that novel SCS waveform was superior to traditional SCS or placebo comparator for treating leg pain (Z = −2.12, p = 0.03) with a small effect size (Hedges’ g = −0.18, 95% CI: −0.34 to −0.01). Back-pain intensity (g = −0.22, 95% CI: −0.47 to 0.02) and health-related quality of life (g = −0.12, 95% CI: −0.43 to 0.18) were similar between the novel SCS waveform group and the traditional SCS or placebo comparator groups. The meta-regression did not identify any effect of the covariates on back-pain intensity.ConclusionsWith low certainty of evidence, this finding provides a rationale for considering the novel SCS waveform as complements to the usual therapeutic plan. Future trials should adopt well-designed RCTs with larger sample size and follow-up assessment.     

Exploration of High- and Low-Frequency Options for Subperception Spinal Cord Stimulation Using Neural Dosing Parameter Relationships: The HALO Study

ObjectivesSubperception spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is described mostly utilizing waveforms that require high energy. However, the necessity of these waveforms for effective subperception has not been established. We aimed to explore whether effective subperception pain relief can be achieved using frequencies below 1 kHz.Materials and MethodsThirty chronic pain patients implanted with SCS were enrolled as part of a multicenter, real-world, consecutive, observational case series. An effective stimulation location was determined using a novel electric field shape designed to preferentially modulate dorsal horn elements. Subsequently, programs at lower frequencies (600, 400, 200, 100, 50, and 10 Hz) were provided with pulse-width and amplitude adjusted to optimize response.ResultsAll tested frequencies (1 kHz down to 10 Hz) provided effective subperception relief, yielding a mean of 66–72% reduction in back, leg, and overall pain. It was found that to maintain analgesia, as frequency was decreased, the electrical or “neural” dose had to be adjusted according to parameter relationships described herein. With the reduction of frequency, we observed a net reduction of charge-per-second, which enabled energy savings of 74% (200 Hz) and 97% (10 Hz) relative to 1 kHz. Furthermore, pain reduction was sustained out to one year, with 85% of patients reporting a preference for frequencies of 400 Hz or below.ConclusionsWe have derived an electric field configuration and, along with previous learnings in the kHz range, a set of neural dosing parameter relationships (10–10,000 Hz), which enable the expansion of effective subperception SCS to low frequency and achieve major energy savings.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation vs. Conventional Medical Management: A Prospective,Randomized, Controlled,Multicenter Study of Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (PROCESS Study)

Introduction. Since its first application in 1967, numerous case series indicate that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for the management of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). However, only one randomized controlled trial has demonstrated that SCS provides more effective pain relief than re‐operation and conventional medical management. The PROCESS randomized, controlled, multicenter trial aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of SCS when added to conventional medical management compared to conventional medical management alone in patients with FBSS. Methods/Design. A total of 100 FBSS patients with predominantly neuropathic leg pain will be recruited from 12 centers and randomized to receive either conventional medical management alone or in combination with SCS for a period of 24 months. Patients will be evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months. At the 6‐month visit, patients will be classified as successful (≥  50% pain relief in the legs) or unsuccessful (< 50% pain relief in the legs). If the results of the randomized treatment are unsuccessful, patients can cross over to the alternative treatment arm. Discussion. This paper highlights the rationale, design, methods, and challenges of an ongoing prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial that has been undertaken to obtain conclusive evidence of the clinical efficacy and cost‐effectiveness of an SCS system in patients with FBSS.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: An Integrative Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies

BackgroundSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established therapy of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), although the effects on daily functioning, quality of life (QoL), and patients’ expectations, experiences, and satisfaction remain elusive. The current integrative review aimed to summarize the overall effects of SCS in patients with FBSS on pain relief, health-related QoL, and daily activities.Materials and MethodsPubMed, CINAHL, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, gray literature, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for additional papers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Following the methods of Whittemore and Knafl, an integrative review and a meta-analysis were performed.ResultsIn total, 16 articles were included; 11 articles presented quantitative outcomes, and five articles presented qualitative data. Lower back pain, leg pain, overall pain, Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol Five Dimensions Health Questionnaire three-level/five-level, and the physical component score of Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) significantly improved during all follow-up moments. Only the mental component score of the SF-36 did not significantly improve, compared with baseline. Heterogeneity was diversely present among the studies. Patients’ expectations and goals were disparate, although patients seemed to desire a return to their pre-FBSS state. Experiences with regard to the outcomes showed that patients largely recuperated after SCS, although limitations were still present. Patients also expressed inconvenience with regard to the trial period, implantation location, and recharging of the implantable pulse generator.ConclusionsSCS showed beneficial effects on different domains of life in patients with FBSS. The quantitative analyses suggest an overall improvement in most domains, although patients’ experiences show that limitations in daily life and living with the SCS system persist. Multiple extensive preoperative counseling sessions and discussions with patients are deemed necessary to improve patient satisfaction and meet their expectations. Shared decision-making and provision of complete information are key factors for success.     

Direct Sciatic Nerve Electrical Stimulation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 1

ObjectiveFoot and leg pain in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) presents a challenge even with neuromodulation techniques such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS). We report our experience with a novo technique of direct sciatic nerve electrical stimulation (DISNES) for intractable foot and leg pain in CRPS I.Materials and MethodsFollowing Research Ethics Board (REB) approval, data were gathered for 16 patients (10 women and 6 men, age 26–61 years) who had been subjected to ipsilateral DISNES. All 16 patients had failed conventional medical management. As well, seven subjects were previously treated with SCS for CRPS I pain. These subjects reported pain relief in the thigh and leg, however the SCS was unable to alleviate the disabling foot pain despite varied and multiple programming techniques. The remaining nine subjects were treated primarily with DISNES. Evaluation was done using visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index version 2 (ODI), and quality of life (EQ-5D and SF-36) scores done both pre-DISNES and at two follow-ups.ResultsVAS scores decreased by 59% at follow-up (F/U) 1 (P = 0.00001) and 46% F/U 2. ODI improving by 40% F/U 1 (P = 0.0038) and 37% F/U 2. SF-36 scores improved by 69% F/U 1 (P = 0.015) and 80% F/U 2. EQ-5D scores improved significantly by F/U 1 (P = 0.00030) but insignificantly at F/U 2 (P = 0.81). There was also a rapid resolution of autonomic features such as edema, hyperemia, and allodynia (within 7–10 days). Three subjects returned to work post-DISNES.ConclusionOur study shows that DISNES helps to control the disabling foot pain in CRPS I, thus improving the quality of life, improving ambulation and decreasing disability. DISNES also alleviates autonomic features and dystonia in CRPS I. Further studies are needed to determine long-term efficacy as this study pool is limited in size and follow-up period.     

Does Fibromyalgia Affect the Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation: An 11-Year,Multicenter, Retrospective Matched Cohort Study

BackgroundFibromyalgia is a prevalent disorder manifesting with widespread musculoskeletal pain and central sensitization, as well as fatigue, sleep issues, psychologic distress, and poor quality of life. Patients with fibromyalgia also may be diagnosed with other painful conditions amenable to treatment with spinal cord stimulation (SCS), although it is unclear how these patients respond to SCS compared with patients without fibromyalgia.Materials and MethodsWe performed an 11-year, multicenter, retrospective matched cohort study comparing SCS-treated patients with fibromyalgia and those without fibromyalgia. The primary outcome was comparison in mean calculated percentage pain relief between cohorts at six months after SCS implantation. Secondary outcomes included comparison of patient satisfaction between six and 12 months after SCS implantation, and percentage of patients reporting opioid intake and neuropathic medication intake at six months and 12 months after SCS implantation. Adjusted regression analysis was performed to make comparisons while adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, preoperative opioid intake, and preoperative neuropathic medication intake.ResultsOf 90 patients with fibromyalgia who underwent SCS trial, 18 patients (20%) failed their SCS trial and did not proceed toward implantation. Sixty-eight patients with fibromyalgia were matched to 141 patients in the control cohort based on age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score. At six months after SCS implantation, there was no statistical difference in calculated percentage change in pain intensity between the fibromyalgia cohort (46.6 ± 29.0) and the control cohort (50.9 ± 32.8; β, ?18.4; 95% CI, ?44.3 to 7.6; p = 0.157). At baseline, a greater percentage of patients in the fibromyalgia cohort reported preoperative opioid intake (51.5% vs 22.7%, p < 0.001) and preoperative neuropathic medication intake (67.6% vs 15.6%, p < 0.001). However, there was no difference between cohorts in the percentage of patients taking opioid or neuropathic medications at six months and 12 months after SCS implantation. Similarly, there was no difference between cohorts in the percentage of patients reporting satisfaction between six and 12 months.ConclusionPatients with fibromyalgia who received a diagnosis approved for treatment with SCS may expect similar post–SCS-implantation pain relief, overall satisfaction, and analgesic use rate to those of patients without fibromyalgia.     

Randomized Prospective Study in Patients With Complex Regional Pain Syndrome of the Upper Limb With High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation (10-kHz) and Low-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation

ObjectiveThe objective of this prospective randomized study of cases and controls was to evaluate the efficacy of treatment with low-frequency spinal cord stimulation (LF-SCS) and 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (10-kHz SCS) in patients diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS) with upper limb involvement.Materials and MethodsFifty patients were randomized to receive conventional treatment or SCS with a commercially available low-frequency or 10-kHz system. Patients were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was at 12-months post permanent implantation of the SCS devices. Outcome measures assessed included: Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), 12-Item Short-Format Health Survey (SF-12), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Study Sleep Scale medical outcomes (MOS-SS), Douleur Neuropathique 4 questions pain questionnaire (DN4), Patient Global Impression Scale on the impact of treatment improvement (PGI-I), Clinician Global Impression Scale on the impact of improving the patient (CGI-I).ResultsForty-one patients were finally included in the analysis, 19 patients in the conventional treatment group, 12 in the LF-SCS group, and 10 in the 10-kHz SCS group. At the primary endpoint, patients treated with LF-SCS presented improvements in the NRS and DN4 outcomes around 2.4 and 1.5 times above the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds. At the primary endpoint, patients treated with 10-kHz SCS presented improvements in the NRS and DN4 outcomes around 2 and 1.4 times above the MCID thresholds.ConclusionsPatients experienced considerable improvement after SCS. The results show that LF-SCS has very good results when compared with conventional treatment. The results obtained with 10-kHz SCS are encouraging, with the advantages of the absence of paresthesia making it an alternative in the treatment of CRPS.     

Men and Women Respond Equally Well to Spinal Cord and Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation

ObjectivesThe influence of gender on outcomes in individuals undergoing treatment for chronic pain is unclear. This retrospective, single-site study explored the impact of gender on pain, quality of life (QoL), revisions, and explants in patients with failed back surgery syndrome or visceral pain, who received a fully implanted 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS), burst SCS, or dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation system.Materials and MethodsThe following data were collected from paper and electronic records: gender, age, chronic pain diagnosis, system, baseline and follow-up scores (average pain [visual analog scale, VAS], worst pain [VAS], QoL [EQ-5D-3L]), revisions, and explants. Data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANCOVAs controlling for age, chi-square tests of independence, and logistic regression.ResultsThe final sample comprised 387 patients (176 males and 211 females). Males were significantly older compared to females (mean difference: 2.33 years, p = 0.044). Controlling for age, baseline average pain was significantly lower in males than females (mean difference: ?0.32, p = 0.049). Males and females responded equally well to 10 kHz SCS and burst SCS as well as DRG stimulation. A greater percentage of males (5%) than females (1%) had revisions due to lead fractures. Additionally, more females (13%) than males (6%) had an explant due to insufficient pain relief. Female gender and older age were associated with greater likelihood of having an explant compared to male gender and younger age.ConclusionGender may play an influential role in pain severity at baseline but have little effect at follow-up. To help identify which patients may undergo a revision or explant, gender and age could be important factors and should be further scrutinized. Even though men and women responded equally well to SCS and DRG stimulation, more men had a revision due to lead fractures, and more women were explanted due to insufficient pain relief.     

Early Experience With a Novel Miniaturized Spinal Cord Stimulation System for the Management of Chronic Intractable Pain of the Back and Legs

IntroductionA novel, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system with a battery-free miniaturized implantable pulse generator (IPG) was used in this feasibility study. The system uses an external power source that communicates bidirectionally with the IPG (< 1.5 cm³). Human factors, subject comfort, and effects on low back and leg pain were evaluated in this first-in-human study.Materials and MethodsA prospective, multicenter, open-label clinical trial was initiated to evaluate the safety and performance of a novel miniaturized stimulator in the treatment of chronic, intractable leg and low-back pain. Eligible subjects were recruited for the study and gave consent. Subjects who passed the screening/trial phase (defined as ≥ 50% decrease in pain) continued to the long-term implant phase and were followed up at predefined time points after device activation. Interim clinical and usability outcomes were captured and reported at 90 days.ResultsResults of 22 subjects who chose a novel pulsed stimulation pattern therapy using the battery-free IPG (< 1.5 cm³) are described here. At 90-days follow-up, the average pain reduction was 79% in the leg (n = 22; p < 0.0001) and 76% in the low back (n = 21; p < 0.0001) compared with baseline. Responder rates (≥ 50% pain relief) at 90 days were 86% in leg pain (19/22) and 81% in low-back pain (17/21). Subjects rated the level of comfort of the external wearable power source to be 0.41 ± 0.73 at 90 days on an 11-point rating scale (0 = very comfortable, 10 = very uncomfortable).DiscussionThese interim results from the ongoing study indicate the favorable efficacy and usability of a novel, externally powered, battery-free SCS IPG (< 1.5 cm³) for leg and low-back pain. Study subjects wore the external power source continuously and found it comfortable, and the system provided significant pain relief. These preliminary findings warrant further investigation.Clinical Trial RegistrationThe Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is ACTRN12618001862235.     

Subcutaneous Stimulation as an Additional Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Lower Limb Pain and/or Back Pain: A Feasibility Study

Objective: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of subcutaneous stimulation (SubQ) as an additional therapy in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) with chronic refractory pain, for whom spinal cord stimulation (SCS) was unsuccessful in treating low back pain. Study Design: Case series. Materials and Methods: FBSS patients with chronic limb and/or low back pain whose conventional therapies had failed received a combination of SCS (8‐contact Octad lead) and/or SubQ (4‐contact Quad Plus lead(s)). Initially leads were placed in the epidural space for SCS for a trial stimulation to assess response to suppression of limb and low back pain. Where SCS alone was insufficient in treating lower back pain, leads were placed superficially in the subcutaneous tissue of the lower back, directly in the middle of the pain area. A pulse generator was implanted if patients reported more than 50% pain relief during the trial period. Pain intensity for limb and lower back pain was scored separately, using visual analog scale (VAS). Pain and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) after 12‐month treatment were compared with pain and QBPDS at baseline. Results: Eleven FBSS patients, five male and six female (age: 51 ± 8 years; mean ± SD), in whom SCS alone was insufficient in treating lower back pain, were included. In nine cases, SubQ was used in combination with SCS to treat chronic lower back and lower extremity pain. In two cases only SubQ was used to treat lower back pain. SCS significantly reduced limb pain after 12 months (VAS_bl: 62 ± 14 vs. VAS_12m: 20 ± 11; p= 0.001, N= 8). SubQ stimulation significantly reduced low back pain after 12 months (VAS_bl: 62 ± 13.0 vs. VAS_12m: 32 ± 16; p= 0.0002, N= 10). Overall pain medication was reduced by more than 70%. QBPDS improved from 61 ± 15 to 49 ± 12 (p= 0.046, N= 10). Furthermore, we observed that two patients returned to work. Conclusion: SubQ may be an effective additional treatment for chronic low back pain in patients with FBSS for whom SCS alone is insufficient in alleviating their pain symptoms.     

Treatment of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients with Low Back and Leg Pain: A Pilot Study of a New Dual Lead Spinal Cord Stimulation System

Objective. Treatment of pain associated with failed back surgery syndrome was evaluated in a pilot clinical study of a new dual lead spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system. Methods. The following data was retrospectively sought from 20 non-randomized patients at 2 centers treated by the new SCS system, instead of an implantable drug pump: 1) prior back surgeries, 2) pain and paresthesia mapping, 3) VAS ratings, 4) medication use, 5) sleep patterns, 6) physical abilities, 7) hardware problems, and 8) willingness to repeat the procedure. Two-year follow-up was sought from all patients. Results. The new dual lead SCS system provided good low back and leg paresthesia coverage. Patients reported having less pain and using fewer analgesics and narcotics during follow-up, compared to their preimplant experience. These improvements were statistically significant. Patients also improved their sleep and physical abilities during follow-up. While external hardware problems occurred, 65% of dual lead SCS patients were willing to repeat the SCS implant procedure. Conclusions. Dual lead stimulation proved beneficial for patients with low back and leg pain associated with failed back surgery syndrome.     

Systematic Literature Review of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Back Pain Without Prior Spine Surgery

ObjectiveLow back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide and one of the most common reasons for seeking health care. Despite numerous care strategies, patients with low back pain continue to exhibit poor outcomes. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an evidence-based therapeutic modality for patients with failed back surgery syndrome. For patients without a surgical lesion or history, minimally invasive interventions that provide long-term reduction of chronic back pain are needed. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of the evidence on SCS therapy in patients with chronic back pain who have not undergone spinal surgery.Materials and MethodsA systematic literature search was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes for SCS in chronic back pain patients (with or without secondary radicular leg pain) without prior surgery using date limits from database inception to February 2021. Study results were analyzed and described qualitatively.ResultsA total of ten primary studies (16 publications) were included. The included studies consistently demonstrated favorable outcomes in terms of pain reduction and functional improvement following SCS therapy. Improvements also occurred in quality of life scores; however, not all studies reported statistically significant findings. Additionally, the studies reported that SCS resulted in high patient satisfaction, reductions in opioid use, and an acceptable safety profile, although these data were more limited.ConclusionFindings suggest that SCS is a promising, safe, minimally invasive, and reversible alternative option for managing chronic back pain in patients who have not undergone spinal surgery.     

New Therapy for Refractory Chronic Mechanical Low Back Pain—Restorative Neurostimulation to Activate the Lumbar Multifidus: One Year Results of a Prospective Multicenter Clinical Trial

Objectives

The purpose of the international multicenter prospective single arm clinical trial was to evaluate restorative neurostimulation eliciting episodic contraction of the lumbar multifidus for treatment of chronic mechanical low back pain (CMLBP) in patients who have failed conventional therapy and are not candidates for surgery or spinal cord stimulation (SCS).

Materials and Methods

Fifty‐three subjects were implanted with a neurostimulator (ReActiv8, Mainstay Medical Limited, Dublin, Ireland). Leads were positioned bilaterally with electrodes close to the medial branch of the L2 dorsal ramus nerve. The primary outcome measure was low back pain evaluated on a 10‐Point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Responders were defined as subjects with an improvement of at least the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of ≥2‐point in low back pain NRS without a clinically meaningful increase in LBP medications at 90 days. Secondary outcome measures included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Quality of Life (QoL; EQ‐5D).

Results

For 53 subjects with an average duration of CLBP of 14 years and average NRS of 7 and for whom no other therapies had provided satisfactory pain relief, the responder rate was 58%. The percentage of subjects at 90 days, six months, and one year with ≥MCID improvement in single day NRS was 63%, 61%, and 57%, respectively. Percentage of subjects with ≥MCID improvement in ODI was 52%, 57%, and 60% while those with ≥MCID improvement in EQ‐5D was 88%, 82%, and 81%. There were no unanticipated adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs related to the device, procedure, or therapy. The initial surgical approach led to a risk of lead fracture, which was mitigated by a modification to the surgical approach.

Conclusions

Electrical stimulation to elicit episodic lumbar multifidus contraction is a new treatment option for CMLBP. Results demonstrate clinically important, statistically significant, and lasting improvement in pain, disability, and QoL.     

Invasive Electrical Neuromodulation for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

ObjectiveNeuromodulation is a treatment option for people suffering from painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) unresponsive to conventional pharmacotherapy. We systematically examined the pain outcomes of patients with PDN receiving any type of invasive neuromodulation for treatment of neuropathic pain.Materials and MethodsMEDLINE and Embase were searched through 10 January 2020, without language restriction. All study types were included. Two reviewers independently screened publications and extracted data. Quantitative meta-analysis was performed with pain scores converted to a standard 100-point scale. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) scores were pooled using the inverse variance method and expressed as mean differences.ResultsRCTs of tonic spinal cord stimulation (t-SCS) showed greater pain improvement than best medical therapy at six months (intention-to-treat: 38/100, 95% CI: 29–47). By per-protocol analysis, case series of t-SCS and dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) showed improvement by 56 (95% CI: 39–73) and 55 (22–87), respectively, at 12 months. For t-SCS, the rate of failing a therapeutic stimulation trial was 16%, the risk of infection was 4%, and the rate of lead problems requiring surgery to resolve was 4% per year of follow-up. High-frequency SCS and burst SCS both showed efficacy, with few patients studied.ConclusionEfficacious, lasting and safe surgical pain management options are available to diabetic patients suffering from PDN. Tonic-SCS is the established standard of treatment; however, other SCS paradigms and DRGS are emerging as promising treatments offering comparable pain benefits, but with few cases published to date. Randomized controlled trials are ongoing to assess their relative merits.