Effects of sub-perception threshold spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled double-blind crossover study

Absence of paresthesia during high-rate spinal cord stimulation reveals importance of synchrony for sensations evoked by electrical stimulation

Electrically activating mechanoreceptive afferents inhibits pain. However, paresthesia evoked by spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at 40-60 Hz becomes uncomfortable at high pulse amplitudes, limiting SCS "dosage." Kilohertz-frequency SCS produces analgesia without paresthesia and is thought, therefore, not to activate afferent axons. We show that paresthesia is absent not because axons do not spike but because they spike asynchronously. In a pain patient, selectively increasing SCS frequency abolished paresthesia and epidurally recorded evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs). Dependence of ECAP amplitude on SCS frequency was reproduced in pigs, rats, and computer simulations and is explained by overdrive desynchronization: spikes desychronize when axons are stimulated faster than their refractory period. Unlike synchronous spikes, asynchronous spikes fail to produce paresthesia because their transmission to somatosensory cortex is blocked by feedforward inhibition. Our results demonstrate how stimulation frequency impacts synchrony based on axon properties and how synchrony impacts sensation based on circuit properties.

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.

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation for the treatment of joint pain with predominantly nociceptive characteristics: A case series

INTRODUCTION

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) has recently emerged as a novel therapy in neuromodulation that demonstrated a higher rate of success than spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in a prospective, head-to-head randomized comparative trial to treat complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and causalgia. In contrast to SCS, DRG-S also shows promise in treating conditions that are not purely neuropathic such as axial low back pain, which has a prominent nociplastic pain component. It is not known to what extent the effectiveness of DRG-S for such indications is due to effective treatment of the neuropathic pain component versus the effects of DRG-S on mechanical pain. Although rarely studied, reporting outcomes of DRG-S to treat predominantly mechanical/nociceptive pain may help point toward expanding the utility of this therapy. Here, we present five cases of refractory mechanical pain treated with DRG-S.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent a successful DRG-S trial and implant between September 2017 and September 2021 at our institute was performed. Patients who had intractable joint pain without strong evidence of neuropathic pain were included in this case series. The Budapest criteria for CRPS, the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) survey, or a definable nerve injury were used to determine the presence of neuropathic pain. Baseline assessments for pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]), function (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimension [EQ-5D]), and other applicable joint surveys were extracted from pre-trial baseline and follow-up appointments.

RESULTS

Five patients were identified and included. Patient diagnoses consisted of refractory joint pain of the hip, knee, or ankle. Mean NRS pain scores improved by 74% from 9.2 at baseline to 2.4 at the last follow-up (mean = 28 months post-implant). From baseline to the last follow-up, mean ODI scores improved by 65% from 66 to 23 and EQ-5D scores more than doubled from an average of 0.371 to 0.797.

CONCLUSION

This clinical report illustrates the potential utility DRG-S has in treating pain that clinically presents as predominantly refractory mechanical joint pain without a significant neuropathic component. The physiological reasons for our observations may be that DRG-S is able to directly influence the conduction of nociceptive signaling at the DRG and within the spinal cord. Further investigations are warranted to determine if DRG-S is a potential treatment option for chronic mechanical pain.

Implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Ultra-Low Energy Cycled Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation Yields Robust Outcomes in Pain, Function, and Affective Domains: A Subanalysis From Two Prospective, Multicenter, International Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

DeRidder's burst stimulation design has become a key spinal cord stimulation (SCS) waveform because it reduces the intensity of pain as well as its associated emotional distress. The brain pathways underlying these outcomes may also allow for the effects of stimulation to carry over after stimulation is turned off, making it amenable to intermittent application. Here, the utility of intermittently cycled burst was evaluated using data from two large real-world prospective studies (TRIUMPH, REALITY).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects used intermittent dosing in a 1:3 ratio (30 sec on, 90 sec off; N = 100) in TRIUMPH and 1:12 ratio in REALITY (30-sec on, 360-sec off; N = 95) for six months. Pain intensity (0-10 numeric rating scale), pain-related emotions on the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS), and physical function on PROMIS questionnaires were compared with preimplant baseline ratings and by group.

RESULTS

In both groups, mean pain intensity decreased by nearly 50% relative to baseline, PCS scores significantly decreased, and physical function improved. Importantly, no differences between the 1:3 and 1:12 groups were identified. A high proportion, 80% and 77% of the 1:3 and 1:12 groups, respectively, were considered responders on a multiple measures. No adverse events were associated with intermittent stimulation.

DISCUSSION

Intermittent cycling of burst SCS lowers the overall electric charge delivered to the spinal cord and preserves battery consumption, without compromising pain relief and associated symptoms.

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

OBJECTIVES

Subperception 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 METHODS

Thirty 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.

RESULTS

All 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.

CONCLUSIONS

We 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.

Clinical Trial Designs for Neuromodulation in Chronic Spinal Cord Injury Using Epidural Stimulation

STUDY DESIGN

This is a narrative review focused on specific challenges related to adequate controls that arise in neuromodulation clinical trials involving perceptible stimulation and physiological effects of stimulation activation.

OBJECTIVES

1) To present the strengths and limitations of available clinical trial research designs for the testing of epidural stimulation to improve recovery after spinal cord injury. 2) To describe how studies can control for the placebo effects that arise due to surgical implantation, the physical presence of the battery, generator, control interfaces, and rehabilitative activity aimed to promote use-dependent plasticity. 3) To mitigate Hawthorne effects that may occur in clinical trials with intensive supervised participation, including rehabilitation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Focused literature review of neuromodulation clinical trials with integration to the specific context of epidural stimulation for persons with chronic spinal cord injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard of care control groups fail to control for the multiple effects of knowledge of having undergone surgical procedures, having implanted stimulation systems, and being observed in a clinical trial. The irreducible effects that have been identified as "placebo" require sham controls or comparison groups in which both are implanted with potentially active devices and undergo similar rehabilitative training.

A novel fast-acting sub-perception spinal cord stimulation therapy enables rapid onset of analgesia in patients with chronic pain

Background: Treating chronic pain using sub-perception Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) does not elicit paresthesia but is associated with long analgesic 'wash-in' (i.e. duration until maximum pain relief) and prolonged assessment of therapy. We describe the attainment of clinically meaningful and rapid-onset analgesic outcomes using a novel sub-perception SCS approach.Methods: This observational case-series evaluated patients implanted with an SCS device for chronic pain, who underwent re-programming utilizing a new methodology in which paresthesia was used to guide sub-perception stimulation field targeting at specific parameters including charge-balanced symmetrical pulses at 90 Hz (termed Fast-Acting Sub-Perception Therapy, FAST). Pain scores (NRS) were collected as reported per standard-of-care from patient charts.Results: Mean overall pain score at baseline was 8.4 ± 0.2 (n = 41). After activation of FAST, a 7.1-point reduction in overall pain score was (1.3 ± 0.2, p < 0.0001) reported within 11.2 ± 1.9 minutes (n = 34). This decrease in pain score was sustained out to 3-month (1.6 ± 0.3, n = 26) and 6-month follow-up (1.7 ± 0.4, n = 18). At last follow up (mean = 223 ± 132 days), a pain score of 1.6 ± 0.3, n = 30 was determined.Conclusions: After FAST implementation, a profound analgesic response, requiring substantially less energy than conventional sub-perception methodologies, was observed. This rapid analgesic onset achieved with the novel FAST technique suggests the potential for an alternative mechanism of action(s) of sub-perception SCS.

Using Lower Amplitudes to Maintain Effective High Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy (SCS Dosing Pilot Study)

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation is an effective therapy for chronic back and/or leg pain. Amplitude dose-response studies are lacking; therefore, little guidance exists regarding the minimum amplitude requirements with specific high dose parameters. This study characterized the minimum amplitude level that maintained SCS therapy satisfaction and pain relief when stimulating at 1000 Hz and 90 μsec.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualified patients had back and leg pain, an implanted neurostimulator programmed to 1000 Hz and 90 μsec, and were very or somewhat satisfied with the therapy, and an average overall VAS pain score ≤ 4 from a daily diary. Patients received four blinded amplitudes (titrated from 80%, 60%, 40%, and 20% of baseline perception threshold), approximately two weeks each, with 1000 Hz and 90 μsec and position-adaptive stimulation enabled. Patients' satisfaction and overall VAS pain scores were collected for each period. All patients continued through the study, even after reporting lack of therapy satisfaction or pain relief.

RESULTS

The minimum amplitude, which maintained therapy satisfaction, was 80% of perception threshold for two patients, 60% for one patient, and 20% for 21 patients. Additionally, six patients lost satisfaction changing from their baseline amplitude to 80% perception threshold. The minimum amplitude level, which maintained overall pain relief, was 80% perception threshold for three patients, 60% perception threshold for one patient, 40% perception threshold for two patients, and 20% perception threshold for 19 patients. Five patients required the setting they were programmed to during the baseline period.

CONCLUSION

The qualified study patients defined an implanted population reporting good pain relief and satisfaction using HD SCS therapy at baseline. The majority of these patients were able to maintain therapy satisfaction and pain relief (70% and 63.3%, respectively) with 20% perception threshold amplitude. Amplitudes below perception threshold could potentially maintain effective SCS therapy with HD stimulation in a subset of patients.

Sub-Perception and Supra-Perception Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Pain Syndrome: A Randomized, Semi-Double-Blind, Crossover, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The introduction of modern sub-perception modalities has improved the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in refractory pain syndromes of the trunk and lower limbs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of low and high frequency SCS among patients with chronic pain.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomised, semi-double-blind, placebo controlled, four period (4 × 2 weeks) crossover trial was conducted from August 2018 to January 2020. Eighteen patients with SCS due to failed back surgery syndrome and/or complex regional pain syndrome were randomised to four treatment arms without washout periods: (1) low frequency (40-60 Hz), (2) 1 kHz, (3) clustered tonic, and (4) sham SCS (i.e., placebo). The primary outcome was pain scores measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) preoperatively and during subsequent treatment arms.

RESULTS

Pain scores (VAS) reported during the preoperative period was M (SD) = 8.13 (0.99). There was a 50% reduction in pain reported in the low frequency tonic treatment group (M (SD) = 4.18 (1.76)), a 37% reduction in the 1 kHz treatment group (M (SD) = 5.17 (1.4)), a 34% reduction in the clustered tonic settings group (M (SD) = 5.27 (1.33)), and a 34% reduction in the sham stimulation group (M (SD) = 5.42 (1.22)). The reduction in pain from the preoperative period to the treatment period was significant in each treatment group (p < 0.001). Overall, these reductions were of comparable magnitude between treatments. However, the modality most preferred by patients was low frequency (55% or 10 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

The pain-relieving effects of SCS reached significance and were comparable across all modes of stimulation including sham. Sub-perception stimulation was not superior to supra-perception. SCS was characterised by a high degree of placebo effect. No evidence of carryover effect was observed between subsequent treatments. Contemporary neuromodulation procedures should be tailored to the individual preferences of patients.

Systematic Review of Research Methods and Reporting Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Pain

This systematic review assessed design characteristics and reporting quality of published randomized clinical trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treatment of pain in adults and adolescents. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018090412). Relevant articles were identified by searching the following databases through December 31, 2018: MEDLINE, Embase, WikiStim, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forty-six studies were included. Eighty-seven percent of articles identified a pain-related primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included physical functioning, health-related quality of life, and reductions in opioid use. Nineteen of the 46 studies prespecified adverse events as an outcome, with 4 assessing them as a primary outcome. Eleven studies stated that they blinded participants. Of these, only 5 were assessed as being adequately blinded. The number of participants enrolled was generally low (median 38) and study durations were short (median 12 weeks), particularly in studies of angina. Fifteen studies employed an intention-to-treat analysis, of which only seven specified a method to accommodate missing data. Review of these studies identified deficiencies in both reporting and methodology. The review's findings suggest areas for improving the design of future studies and increasing transparency of reporting. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a systematic review of research methods and reporting quality of randomized clinical trials of SCS for the treatment of various pain complaints. The review identifies deficiencies in both methodology and reporting, which may inform the design of future studies and improve reporting standards.

The use of transcranial motor-evoked potentials, somatosensory-evoked potentials and free-run electromyography for proper placement of paddle leads in chronic pain

Introduction: As an alternative to those patients who cannot be performed an awake spinal cord stimulation (SCS) or had been percutaneously implanted with poor pain relief outcomes, neurophysiological monitoring through transcranial motor evoked potentials (MEPs), somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) and free-run electromyography (EMG) under general anesthesia allows the correct placement of surgical leads and provide objective responses.Methods: An initial series of 15 patients undergoing SCS implantation for chronic pain. Physiologic midline was determined with 32-channel NIM-Eclipse System equipment. During neurophysiological monitoring, MEPs, SSEPs, EMG and CMAPs were recorded.Results: MEPs, SSEPs, and EMG were able to target spinal cord physiological midline during SCS to all patients. Physiologic midline was deviated in 53% patients. No warning events in SSEPs, MEPs, or EMG were recorded in any patient.Conclusions: Bilateral CMAPs recording allows placement of paddle leads in physiological midline, obtaining an accurate coverage, pain relief and avoid unpleasant or ineffective stimulation postoperatively. While these neurophysiological techniques are generally used to provide information on the state of the nervous system and prevent neurological injury risks during SCS, our work has shown that can accurate direct lead placement.

Randomized Placebo-/Sham-Controlled Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Methodological Appraisal

OBJECTIVES

The recent availability of paraesthesia/sensation free spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities allow the design of clinical trials of SCS using placebo/sham controls and blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers. The aims of this study were to: 1) systematically review the current evidence base of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS placebo/sham trials and 2) to undertake a methodological critique of their methods. Based on this critique, we developed a checklist for the design and reporting of future RCTs of SCS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic data bases were searched from inception until January 2019 for RCTs of SCS using a placebo/sham control. RCTs with only an active comparator arm were excluded. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Searches identified 12 eligible RCTs. SCS modalities included paraesthesia stimulation, subthreshold, burst, and high-frequency SCS and were mainly conducted in patients with failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, and refractory angina. The quality and transparency of reporting of the methods of placebo stimulation, blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers varied markedly across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

To date the methods of placebo/sham control and blinding in RCTs have been poorly reported, leading to concerns about the validity and replicability of the findings. Important aspects that need to be clearly reported in the design of placebo-/sham-controlled RCTs of SCS include the transparent reporting of stimulation programming parameters, patient position during perception threshold measurement, management of the patient handheld programmer, frequency of recharging, and assessment of the fidelity of blinding.

Modulation of Spinal Nociceptive Transmission by Sub-Sensory Threshold Spinal Cord Stimulation in Rats After Nerve Injury

OBJECTIVES

High-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) administered below the sensory threshold (subparesthetic) can inhibit pain, but the mechanisms remain obscure. We examined how different SCS paradigms applied at intensities below the threshold of Aβ-fiber activation (sub-sensory threshold) affect spinal nociceptive transmission in rats after an L5 spinal nerve ligation (SNL).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electrophysiology was used to record local field potential (LFP) at L4 spinal cord before, during, and 0-60 min after SCS in SNL rats. LFP was evoked by high-intensity paired-pulse test stimulation (5 mA, 0.2 msec, 400 msec interval) at the sciatic nerve. Epidural SCS was delivered through a miniature electrode placed at T13-L1 and L2-L3 spinal levels. Four patterns of SCS (200 Hz, 1 msec; 500 Hz, 0.5 msec; 1200 Hz; 0.2 msec; 10,000 Hz, 0.024 msec, 30 min, bipolar) were tested at 90% Aβ-threshold as a subthreshold intensity. As a positive control, traditional SCS (50 Hz, 0.2 msec) was tested at 100% Aβ-plateau as a suprathreshold intensity.

RESULTS

Traditional suprathreshold SCS at T13-L1 level significantly reduced LFP to C-fiber inputs (C-LFP). Subthreshold SCS of 200 and 500 Hz, but not 1200 or 10,000 Hz, also reduced C-LFP, albeit to a lesser extent than did traditional SCS (n = 7-10/group). When SCS was applied at the L2-L3 level, only traditional SCS and subthreshold SCS of 200 Hz inhibited C-LFP (n = 8-10/group).

CONCLUSIONS

Traditional suprathreshold SCS acutely inhibits spinal nociceptive transmission. Low-frequency subthreshold SCS with a long pulse width (200 Hz, 1 msec), but not higher-frequency SCS, also attenuates C-LFP.

Paresthesia-Free Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation: An ACCURATE Study Sub-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

ACCURATE, a randomized controlled trial comparing dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation to spinal cord stimulation, showed that DRG stimulation is a safe and effective therapy in individuals with lower extremity chronic pain due to complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I or II. Investigators noted that DRG stimulation programming could be adjusted to minimize, or eliminate, the feeling of paresthesia while maintaining adequate pain relief. The present study explores treatment outcomes for DRG subjects who were paresthesia-free vs. those who experienced the sensation of paresthesia, as well as the factors that predicted paresthesia-free analgesia.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of therapy outcomes was conducted for 61 subjects in the ACCURATE study who received a permanent DRG neurostimulator. Outcomes of subjects who were paresthesia-free were compared to those who experienced paresthesia-present therapy at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12-month follow-ups. Predictor variables for the presence or absence of paresthesias with DRG stimulation were also explored.

RESULTS

The percentage of subjects with paresthesia-free pain relief increased from 16.4% at 1-month to 38.3% at 12-months. Paresthesia-free subjects generally had similar or better outcomes for pain severity, pain interference, quality of life, and mood state as subjects with paresthesia-present stimulation. Factors that increased the odds of a subject feeling paresthesia were higher stimulation amplitudes and frequencies, number of implanted leads, and younger age.

CONCLUSIONS

Some DRG subjects achieved effective paresthesia-free analgesia in the ACCURATE trial. This supports the observation that paresthesia is not synonymous with pain relief or required for optimal analgesia with DRG stimulation.

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation Is Paresthesia-Independent: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Neuromodulation is an important tool for achieving pain relief in otherwise-intractable neuropathic pain conditions. Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation, in which primary sensory neurons are stimulated prior to their entry into the spinal canal, provides treatment with high levels of dermatomal specificity and can provide advantages compared to conventional spinal cord stimulation. Although DRG stimulation can produce perceptible paresthesias, many patients operate their systems at subthreshold amplitudes that do not elicit this sensation. Pain relief both with and without paresthesia was investigated in this retrospective analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of all qualifying permanent DRG stimulation systems at a single center over more than a three-year period was completed. Pain (0-10 numeric rating scale) was assessed at baseline, at the end of the trial, and after three, six, and twelve months of treatment. Patients were categorized based on their usage of the stimulator at amplitudes that either did or did not produce paresthesias.

RESULTS

Of the 39 patients, 34 (87%) reported having no-paresthesias at any of the follow-up visits. Average pain relief was 73.9% after the trial period and 63.1% after 12 months of treatment. The responder rate (50% or better pain relief) after three months of treatment was more than 80%. Exploratory subgroup analyses showed that similar degrees of pain relief were achieved in numerous body regions and with various pain etiologies. The five patients who reported paresthesias during treatment had pain relief similar to those of the group that did not experience paresthesias.

DISCUSSION

Clinically significant and sustained pain relief over more than a period of 12 months was achieved with DRG stimulation programmed at amplitudes below the perceptual level. Thus, the reported analgesia was paresthesia-independent. That good clinical outcomes were observed independent of the generation of paresthesia in DRG stimulation suggests several mechanisms of action, including the inhibition of supraspinal regions involved in somatic paresthesia sensation. The retrospective results presented here posit that future prospective study of DRG stimulation delivered at below the threshold of perceptible paresthesias is warranted.

The Impact of Electrical Charge Delivery on Inhibition of Mechanical Hypersensitivity in Nerve-Injured Rats by Sub-Sensory Threshold Spinal Cord Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) represents an important neurostimulation therapy for pain. A new ultra-high frequency (10,000 Hz) SCS paradigm has shown improved pain relief without eliciting paresthesia. We aim to determine whether sub-sensory threshold SCS of lower frequencies also can inhibit mechanical hypersensitivity in nerve-injured rats and examine how electric charge delivery of stimulation may affect pain inhibition by different patterns of subthreshold SCS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a custom-made quadripolar electrode (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) to provide bipolar SCS epidurally at the T10 to T12 vertebral level. According to previous findings, SCS was tested at 40% of the motor threshold, which is considered to be a sub-sensory threshold intensity in rats. Paw withdrawal thresholds to punctate mechanical stimulation were measured before and after SCS in rats that received an L5 spinal nerve ligation.

RESULTS

Both 10,000 Hz (10 kHz, 0.024 msec) and lower frequencies (200 Hz, 1 msec; 500 Hz, 0.5 msec; 1200 Hz; 0.2 msec) of subthreshold SCS (120 min) attenuated mechanical hypersensitivity, as indicated by increased paw withdrawal thresholds after stimulation in spinal nerve ligation rats. Pain inhibition from different patterns of subthreshold SCS was not governed by individual stimulation parameters. However, correlation analysis suggests that pain inhibition from 10 kHz subthreshold SCS in individual animals was positively correlated with the electric charges delivered per second (electrical dose).

CONCLUSIONS

Inhibition of neuropathic mechanical hypersensitivity can be achieved with low-frequency subthreshold SCS by optimizing the electric charge delivery, which may affect the effect of SCS in individual animals.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Functional magnetic resonance imaging: cerebral function alterations in subthreshold and suprathreshold spinal cord stimulation

Background and purpose

Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a common and devastating chronic neuropathic pain disorder. Conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) applies electrical suprathreshold pulses to the spinal cord at a frequency of 40-60 Hz and relieves pain in FBSS patients. During the last decade, two major changes have emerged in the techniques of stimulating the spinal cord: paresthesia-free or subthreshold stimulation and administration of higher frequency or higher amounts of energy to the spinal cord. Despite the positive clinical results, the mechanism of action remains unclear. A functional MRI (fMRI) study was conducted to investigate the brain alterations during subthreshold and suprathreshold stimulation at different frequencies.

Methods

Ten subjects with FBSS, treated with externalized SCS, received randomly four different stimulation frequencies (4 Hz, 60 Hz, 500 Hz, and 1 kHz) during four consecutive days. At every frequency, the patient underwent sub- and suprathreshold stimulation. Cerebral activity was monitored and assessed using fMRI.

Results

Suprathreshold stimulation is generally accompanied with more activity than sub-threshold SCS. Suprathreshold SCS resulted in increased bilateral activation of the frontal cortex, thalamus, pre- and postcentral gyri, basal ganglia, cingulate gyrus, insula, thalamus, and claustrum. We observed deactivation of the bilateral parahippocampus, amygdala, precuneus, posterior cingulate gyrus, postcentral gyrus, and unilateral superior temporal gyrus.

Conclusion

Suprathreshold stimulation resulted in greater activity (both activation and deactivation) of the frontal brain regions; the sensory, limbic, and motor cortices; and the diencephalon in comparison with subthreshold stimulation. Each type of frequency at suprathreshold stimulation was characterized by an individual activation pattern.

Sub-paresthesia spinal cord stimulation reverses thermal hyperalgesia and modulates low frequency EEG in a rat model of neuropathic pain

Paresthesia, a common feature of epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain management, presents a challenge to the double-blind study design. Although sub-paresthesia SCS has been shown to be effective in alleviating pain, empirical criteria for sub-paresthesia SCS have not been established and its basic mechanisms of action at supraspinal levels are unknown. We tested our hypothesis that sub-paresthesia SCS attenuates behavioral signs of neuropathic pain in a rat model, and modulates pain-related theta (4–8 Hz) power of the electroencephalogram (EEG), a previously validated correlate of spontaneous pain in rodent models. Results show that sub-paresthesia SCS attenuates thermal hyperalgesia and power amplitude in the 3–4 Hz range, consistent with clinical data showing significant yet modest analgesic effects of sub-paresthesia SCS in humans. Therefore, we present evidence for anti-nociceptive effects of sub-paresthesia SCS in a rat model of neuropathic pain and further validate EEG theta power as a reliable ‘biosignature’ of spontaneous pain.

Conventional and Novel Spinal Stimulation Algorithms: Hypothetical Mechanisms of Action and Comments on Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) emerged as a direct clinical spin-off from the Gate Control Theory from 1965. Over the last decade, several new modes of SCS have appeared. This review discusses these novel techniques and their hypothetical mechanisms of action.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A recent literature search on SCS coupled with the most recent data from poster presentations and congress lectures have been used to illustrate new hypothetical ways of modulating pain.

RESULTS

Several physiological and neurochemical mechanisms for conventional paresthetic SCS have been described in detail. However, much less is known about the novel SCS modes of action. One new algorithm utilizes very high frequencies (up to 10 kHz) intended for direct stimulation of dorsal horns at the T9-T10 level to treat both low back pain and leg pain. Another technique uses bursts of impulses with a high internal frequency delivered to the dorsal spinal cord with a frequency of 40 Hz. Both of these therapies intend to be subparesthetic and effective both for neuropathic and nociceptive pain components. During the last few years, more moderate changes in SCS parameters have been tried in order to increase the amount of electric charge passed from the lead to the neural tissue. This strategy, called "high density SCS," utilizes frequencies up to 1200 Hz or long pulse widths.

CONCLUSIONS

The present SCS therapies have developed beyond the Gate Control Concept. New hypotheses about mechanisms of action are presented and some improved results are discussed.

High-Density in Spinal Cord stimulation: Virtual Expert Registry (DISCOVER): Study Protocol for a Prospective Observational Trial

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a proven and effective treatment for neuropathic pain conditions such as failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). The hypothesis that different settings for SCS parameters activate unique, pain-relieving mechanisms has boosted the development of various SCS paradigms. High density spinal cord stimulation (HD-SCS) is one of those promising, novel stimulation forms characterized by subthreshold stimulation, delivering more pulses per second and a higher pulse density to the spinal cord than conventional SCS.

Objectives

The aim of DISCOVER is to gather evidence about the effectiveness, feasibility, and (possible) side effects of HD stimulation.

Methods

The prospective, non-interventional, multi-center, clinical study, DISCOVER, is currently restricted to Belgium where 19 neuromodulation centers were selected. Patient recruitment started in October 2016 and is expected to end in October 2017. Subjects included are (1) patients with insufficient pain relief from conventional SCS or (2) neurostimulation-naïve patients suited for SCS. Patients will be assessed 1 month, 3 months, and 12 months after conversion to HD-SCS settings. Each patient’s visit will include: a numerical rating scale (NRS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI), EQ-5D, a pain map, registration of SCS settings, and a list of used pain medication.

Conclusions

Although promising results have been reported, adequate registration of its effectiveness and (possible) side-effects remains an unmet need. Main results are expected in 2019.

Therapeutic value of spinal cord stimulation in irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized crossover pilot study

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is characterized by abdominal pain and changed bowel habits. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used for treatment of chronic pain syndromes. Animal studies have shown SCS to reduce the reaction to colonic balloon distension, known to be increased in IBS patients. To elucidate the potential for SCS as treatment for IBS, a pilot study was performed. Ten IBS patients (age 26–56 yr) were recruited. A SCS system with a four-polar electrode was implanted at the T5-T8 level. After a 2-wk run-in, a randomized, crossover design SCS during 6 wk was compared with no stimulation, with an ensuing stimulation period for 12 wk; total study period 28 wk. Patients recorded pain level, pain attacks, diarrheas, and global quality of life in a diary. At end of the study patients could choose to retain their SCS system or have it removed. Nine patients completed the whole trial. During stimulation periods the median pain scores were significantly reduced from visual analogue scale (VAS) 7 (4–8) to 3 (2.5–7) and to 4 (2–6) during early and late stimulation periods, respectively ( P < 0.03–0.04). Pain attacks were numerically reduced. A few patients reported reduced number of diarrheas. After study termination, six patients chose to retain their SCS system. To conclude, SCS is a minimally invasive treatment option for pain in IBS. With SCS the pain level was reduced though with merely a trend for number of attacks and diarrheas. The efficacy of SCS in IBS pain indicates a possible usefulness in other painful bowel disorders.

Reporting of sample size calculations in analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review

Sample size calculations determine the number of participants required to have sufficiently high power to detect a given treatment effect. In this review, we examined the reporting quality of sample size calculations in 172 publications of double-blind randomized controlled trials of noninvasive pharmacologic or interventional (ie, invasive) pain treatments published in European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain from January 2006 through June 2013. Sixty-five percent of publications reported a sample size calculation but only 38% provided all elements required to replicate the calculated sample size. In publications reporting at least 1 element, 54% provided a justification for the treatment effect used to calculate sample size, and 24% of studies with continuous outcome variables justified the variability estimate. Publications of clinical pain condition trials reported a sample size calculation more frequently than experimental pain model trials (77% vs 33%, P < .001) but did not differ in the frequency of reporting all required elements. No significant differences in reporting of any or all elements were detected between publications of trials with industry and nonindustry sponsorship. Twenty-eight percent included a discrepancy between the reported number of planned and randomized participants. This study suggests that sample size calculation reporting in analgesic trial publications is usually incomplete. Investigators should provide detailed accounts of sample size calculations in publications of clinical trials of pain treatments, which is necessary for reporting transparency and communication of pre-trial design decisions.

PERSPECTIVE

In this systematic review of analgesic clinical trials, sample size calculations and the required elements (eg, treatment effect to be detected; power level) were incompletely reported. A lack of transparency regarding sample size calculations may raise questions about the appropriateness of the calculated sample size.

Spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain: current perspectives

Neuropathic pain constitutes a significant portion of chronic pain. Patients with neuropathic pain are usually more heavily burdened than patients with nociceptive pain. They suffer more often from insomnia, anxiety, and depression. Moreover, analgesic medication often has an insufficient effect on neuropathic pain. Spinal cord stimulation constitutes a therapy alternative that, to date, remains underused. In the last 10 to 15 years, it has undergone constant technical advancement. This review gives an overview of the present practice of spinal cord stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain and current developments such as high-frequency stimulation and peripheral nerve field stimulation.

Efficacy of kilohertz-frequency and conventional spinal cord stimulation in rat models of different pain conditions

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to compare the effects of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (HF-SCS) at subparesthetic intensity with conventional SCS in rat models of different types of pain. In addition, microrecordings of afferent activity in the dorsal columns during both types of SCS were performed to elucidate their mode of action.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Miniature SCS electrodes were implanted in all rats. One group was submitted to the spared nerve injury procedure (SNI) and another to inflammatory pain after carrageenan injection into a hind paw. All animals were tested for hypersensitivity to normally innocuous tactile and thermal stimuli. One group of normal healthy rats was submitted to acute nociceptive (pinch, heat) pain. Microrecording of afferent activity in the gracile nucleus (GN) was performed in a group of nerve-lesioned rats responding to conventional SCS.

RESULTS

HF-SCS at 500, 1,000, or 10,000 Hz at subparesthetic amplitudes produced similar reductions in hypersensitivity due to nerve lesion as did conventional SCS at 50 Hz. HF-SCS showed no effect on thermal pain. A trial to rescue non-responders to conventional SCS using HF-SCS was not successful. There were no effects either of conventional or of HF-SCS on acute or inflammatory pain. Conventional SCS produced massive activation in the GN but no activation during HF-SCS, though normal peripherally evoked afferent activity remained.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional SCS proved equally effective to HF-SCS in various pain models. As no activity is conveyed rostrally in subparesthetic HF-SCS, we hypothesize that its mechanisms of action are primarily segmental.

Comparison of intensity-dependent inhibition of spinal wide-dynamic range neurons by dorsal column and peripheral nerve stimulation in a rat model of neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) are thought to reduce pain by activating a sufficient number of large myelinated (Aβ) fibres, which in turn initiate spinal segmental mechanisms of analgesia. However, the volume of neuronal activity and how this activity is associated with different treatment targets is unclear under neuropathic pain conditions.

METHODS

We sought to delineate the intensity-dependent mechanisms of SCS and PNS analgesia by in vivo extracellular recordings from spinal wide-dynamic range neurons in nerve-injured rats. To mimic therapeutic SCS and PNS, we used bipolar needle electrodes and platinum hook electrodes to stimulate the dorsal column and the tibial nerve, respectively. Compound action potentials were recorded to calibrate the amplitude of conditioning stimulation required to activate A-fibres and thus titrate the volume of activation.

RESULTS

Dorsal column stimulation (50 Hz, five intensities) inhibited the windup (a short form of neuronal sensitization) and the C-component response of wide-dynamic range neurons to graded intracutaneous electrical stimuli in an intensity-dependent manner. Tibial nerve stimulation (50 Hz, three intensities) also suppressed the windup in an intensity-dependent fashion but did not affect the acute C-component response.

CONCLUSIONS

SCS and PNS may offer similar inhibition of short-term neuronal sensitization. However, only SCS attenuates spinal transmission of acute noxious inputs under neuropathic pain conditions. Our findings begin to differentiate peripheral from spinal-targeted neuromodulation therapies and may help to select the best stimulation target and optimum therapeutic intensity for pain treatment.

Conventional and kilohertz-frequency spinal cord stimulation produces intensity- and frequency-dependent inhibition of mechanical hypersensitivity in a rat model of neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a useful neuromodulatory technique for treatment of certain neuropathic pain conditions. However, the optimal stimulation parameters remain unclear.

METHODS

In rats after L5 spinal nerve ligation, the authors compared the inhibitory effects on mechanical hypersensitivity from bipolar SCS of different intensities (20, 40, and 80% motor threshold) and frequencies (50, 1 kHz, and 10 kHz). The authors then compared the effects of 1 and 50 Hz dorsal column stimulation at high- and low-stimulus intensities on conduction properties of afferent Aα/β-fibers and spinal wide-dynamic-range neuronal excitability.

RESULTS

Three consecutive daily SCS at different frequencies progressively inhibited mechanical hypersensitivity in an intensity-dependent manner. At 80% motor threshold, the ipsilateral paw withdrawal threshold (% preinjury) increased significantly from pre-SCS measures, beginning with the first day of SCS at the frequencies of 1 kHz (50.2 ± 5.7% from 23.9 ± 2.6%, n = 19, mean ± SEM) and 10 kHz (50.8 ± 4.4% from 27.9 ± 2.3%, n = 17), whereas it was significantly increased beginning on the second day in the 50 Hz group (38.9 ± 4.6% from 23.8 ± 2.1%, n = 17). At high intensity, both 1 and 50 Hz dorsal column stimulation reduced Aα/β-compound action potential size recorded at the sciatic nerve, but only 1 kHz stimulation was partially effective at the lower intensity. The number of actions potentials in C-fiber component of wide-dynamic-range neuronal response to windup-inducing stimulation was significantly decreased after 50 Hz (147.4 ± 23.6 from 228.1 ± 39.0, n = 13), but not 1 kHz (n = 15), dorsal column stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Kilohertz SCS attenuated mechanical hypersensitivity in a time course and amplitude that differed from conventional 50 Hz SCS, and may involve different peripheral and spinal segmental mechanisms.