The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC): Recommendations for Surgical Technique for Spinal Cord Stimulation

6. Persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2

INTRODUCTION

Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS) refers to chronic axial pain and/or extremity pain. Two subtypes have been defined: PSPS-type 1 is chronic pain without previous spinal surgery and PSPS-type 2 is chronic pain, persisting after spine surgery, and is formerly known as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) or post-laminectomy syndrome. The etiology of PSPS-type 2 can be gleaned using elements from the patient history, physical examination, and additional medical imaging. Origins of persistent pain following spinal surgery may be categorized into an inappropriate procedure (eg a lumbar fusion at an incorrect level or for sacroiliac joint [SIJ] pain); technical failure (eg operation at non-affected levels, retained disk fragment, pseudoarthrosis), biomechanical sequelae of surgery (eg adjacent segment disease or SIJ pain after a fusion to the sacrum, muscle wasting, spinal instability); and complications (eg battered root syndrome, excessive epidural fibrosis, and arachnoiditis), or undetermined.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of PSPS-type 2 was retrieved and summarized.

RESULTS

There is low-quality evidence for the efficacy of conservative treatments including exercise, rehabilitation, manipulation, and behavioral therapy, and very limited evidence for the pharmacological treatment of PSPS-type 2. Interventional treatments such as pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the dorsal root ganglia, epidural adhesiolysis, and spinal endoscopy (epiduroscopy) might be beneficial in patients with PSPS-type 2. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be an effective treatment for chronic, intractable neuropathic limb pain, and possibly well-selected candidates with axial pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of PSPS-type 2 is based on patient history, clinical examination, and medical imaging. Low-quality evidence exists for conservative interventions. Pulsed radiofrequency, adhesiolysis and SCS have a higher level of evidence with a high safety margin and should be considered as interventional treatment options when conservative treatment fails.

A Systematic Guideline by the ASPN Workgroup on the Evidence, Education, and Treatment Algorithm for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: SWEET

Introduction

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a leading cause of pain and disability globally with a lack of consensus on the appropriate treatment of those suffering from this condition. Recent advancements in both pharmacotherapy and interventional approaches have broadened the treatment options for PDN. There exists a need for a comprehensive guideline for the safe and effective treatment of patients suffering from PDN.

Objective

The SWEET Guideline was developed to provide clinicians with the most comprehensive guideline for the safe and appropriate treatment of patients suffering from PDN.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations for PDN. A multidisciplinary group of international experts developed the SWEET guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Meeting Abstracts, and Scopus to identify and compile the evidence for diabetic neuropathy pain treatments (per section as listed in the manuscript) for the treatment of pain. Manuscripts from 2000-present were included in the search process.

Results

After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN SWEET guideline was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades for most available treatments for PDN utilizing the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria.

Conclusion

The ASPN SWEET Guideline represents the most comprehensive review of the available treatments for PDN and their appropriate and safe utilization.

Distinct Functional Connectivity Patterns for Intermittent Vs Constant Neuropathic Pain Phenotypes in Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2 Patients

Background

Chronic low back pain (cLBP) has been associated with alterations in brain functional connectivity (FC) but based upon heterogeneous populations and single network analyses. Our goal is to study a more homogeneous cLBP population and focus on multiple cross-network (CN) connectivity analysis. We hypothesize that within this population: 1) altered CN FC, involving emotion and reward/aversion functions are related to their pain levels and 2) altered relationships are dependent upon pain phenotype (constant neuropathic vs intermittent pain).

Methods

In this case series, resting state fcMRI scans were obtained over a study duration of 60 months from 23 patients (13 constant neuropathic and 10 intermittent pain) with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS Type 2) being considered for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy at a single academic center. Images were acquired using a Discovery MR750 GE scanner. During the resting state acquisitions, they were asked to close their eyes and relax. The CN analysis was performed on 7 brain networks and compared to age-matched controls. Linear regression was used to test the correlation between CN connectivity and pain scores.

Results

CN FC involving emotion networks (STM: striatum network index) was significantly lower than controls in all patients, regardless of pain phenotype (P < 0.003). Pain levels were positively correlated with emotional FC for intermittent pain but negatively correlated for constant pain.

Conclusion

This is the first report of 1) altered CN FC involving emotion/reward brain circuitry in 2) a homogeneous population of cLBP patients with 3) two different pain phenotypes (constant vs intermittent) in PSPS Type 2 patients being considered for SCS. FC patterns were altered in cLBP patients as compared to controls and were characteristic for each pain phenotype. These data support fcMRI as a potential and objective tool in assessing pain levels in cLBP patients with different pain phenotypes.

The Evolution of Surgical Technique in Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Scoping Review

Since the advent of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), its operative technique has consistently advanced. We performed a scoping review of the literature regarding SCS operative techniques to highlight key advancements. To review, summarize, and highlight key changes in SCS implantation techniques since their inception. The authors performed a MEDLINE search inclusive of articles from 1967 to June 2023 including human and modeling studies written in English examining the role of trialing, intraoperative neuromonitoring, and surgical adaptations. Using the Rayyan platform, two reviewers performed a blinded title screen. Of the 960 articles, 197 were included in the title screen, 107 were included in the abstract review, and ultimately 69 articles met inclusion criteria. We examined the utility of trialing and found that historical controls showed significant efficacy, whereas recent results are more equivocal. We discuss the significant improvement in outcomes with intraoperative neuromonitoring for asleep SCS placement. We highlight technique improvements that led to significant reductions in infection, lead migration, and inadequate pain relief. Physicians implanting SCS systems for chronic pain management must continually refine their surgical techniques to keep up with this rapidly evolving therapy. In addition, through collaborative efforts of neuromodulators and industry, SCS is safer and more effective for patients suffering from chronic pain.

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

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

Spinal Neuromodulation for Peripheral Arterial Disease of Lower Extremities: A Ten-Year Retrospective Analysis

OBJECTIVE

This long-term retrospective study evaluated the survival and amputation outcome of subjects who received neuromodulation therapy for the management of peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study reviews the health data of a single cohort of 51 patients who received spinal neuromodulation (spinal cord stimulation [SCS] or dorsal root ganglion stimulation [DRG-S]) for PAD from 2007 to 2022 in a single German center. Survival rate and major amputation rate were determined. Pain, quality of life, walking distance, and opioid usage were assessed before implantation (baseline), one, six, and 12 months (M) after implantation, and then annually (during a follow-up visit). Implant-related complications also were documented.

RESULTS

In total, 51 patients (37 men [mean age 68.9 ± 10.2 years], 14 women [mean age (68.7 ± 14.6 years]) underwent SCS (n = 49) or DRG-S (n = 2) implantation owing to persistent ischemic pain. The follow-up mean years ± SD is 4.04 ± 2.73. At baseline, patients were classified as Rutherford's category 3 (n = 23), category 4 (n = 15) or category 5 (n = 9). At 24 M, 42 of 47 patients did not require a major amputation after the implant. All the patients reported nearly complete pain relief from pain at rest. A total of 75% of patients were able to walk >200 m, and 87% of patients who used opioids at baseline were off this medication at 24 M. Overall, 93% of patients reported an improvement in their overall health assessment. These improved outcomes were sustained through years three to 10 for patients who have reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our single-center data support the efficacy of spinal neuromodulation for improvements in limb salvage, pain relief, mobility, and quality of life. The data also show that neuromodulative therapy has a long-term therapeutic effect in patients with chronic limb pain with Rutherford category 3, 4, and 5 PAD.

First Report on Real-World Outcomes with Evoked Compound Action Potential (ECAP)-Controlled Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation for Treatment of Chronic Pain

INTRODUCTION

A novel closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system has recently been approved for use which records evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) from the spinal cord and utilizes these recordings to automatically adjust the stimulation strength in real time. It automatically compensates for fluctuations in distance between the epidural leads and the spinal cord by maintaining the neural response (ECAP) at a determined target level. This data collection was principally designed to evaluate the performance of this first closed-loop SCS system in a 'real-world' setting under normal conditions of use in a single European center.

METHODS

In this prospective, single-center observational data collection, 22 patients were recruited at the outpatient pain clinic of the St. Antonius Hospital. All candidates were suffering from chronic pain in the trunk and/or limbs due to PSPS type 2 (persistent spinal pain syndrome). As standard of care, follow-up visits were completed at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-device activation. Patient-reported outcome data (pain intensity, patient satisfaction) and electrophysiological and device data (ECAP amplitude, conduction velocity, current output, pulse width, frequency, usage), and patient interaction with their controller were collected at baseline and during standard of care follow-up visits.

RESULTS

Significant decreases in pain intensity for overall back or leg pain scores (verbal numerical rating score = VNRS) were observed between baseline [mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean); n = 22; 8.4 ± 0.2)], 3 months (n = 12; 1.9 ± 0.5), 6 months (n = 16; 2.6 ± 0.5), and 12 months (n = 20; 2.0 ± 0.5), with 85.0% of the patients being satisfied at 12 months. Additionally, no significant differences in average pain relief at 3 months and 12 months between the real-world data (77.2%; 76.8%) and the AVALON (71.2%; 73.6%) and EVOKE (78.1%; 76.7%) studies were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

These initial 'real-world' data on ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS in a real-world clinical setting appear to be promising, as they provide novel insights of the beneficial effect of ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS in a real-world setting. The presented results demonstrate a noteworthy maintenance of pain relief over 12 months and corroborate the outcomes observed in the AVALON prospective, multicenter, single-arm study and the EVOKE double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The data collection is registered on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Trial NL7889).

Remote Management of Spinal Cord Stimulation Devices for Chronic Pain: Expert Recommendations on Best Practices for Proper Utilization and Future Considerations

OBJECTIVE

Emerging spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remote monitoring and programming technologies provide a unique opportunity to address challenges of in-person visits and improve patient care, although clinical guidance on implementation is needed. The goal of this document is to establish best clinical practices for integration of remote device management into the care of patients with SCS, including remote monitoring and remote programming.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A panel of experts in SCS met in July 2022, and additional experts contributed to the development of recommendations after the meeting via survey responses and correspondence.

RESULTS

Major goals of remote SCS device management were identified, including prompt identification and resolution of SCS-related issues. The panel identified metrics for remote monitoring and classified them into three categories: device-related (eg, stimulation usage); measurable physiologic or disease-related (eg, patient physical activity or pedometry); and patient-reported (eg, sleep quality and pain intensity). Recommendations were made for frequency of reviewing remote monitoring metrics, although providers should tailor follow-up to individual patient needs. Such periodic reviews of remote monitoring metrics would occur separately from automatic monitoring system notifications (if key metrics fall outside an acceptable range). The guidelines were developed in consideration of reimbursement processes, privacy concerns, and the responsibilities of the care team, industry professionals, manufacturers, patients, and caregivers. Both existing and needed clinical evidence were covered, including outcomes of interest for future studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the expansion of SCS device capabilities, this document provides critical guidance on best practices for using remote device management, although medical necessity should drive all remote monitoring decisions, with individualized patient care. The authors also describe the potential of these emerging technologies to improve outcomes for patients with SCS, although more clinical evidence is needed.

Correlation Between Abdominal Wall Stimulation and Spinal Cord Stimulator Tip Location: A Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the correlation between the vertebral level of paddle placement and abdominal wall stimulation (AWS) after differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to improve the safety and effectiveness of SCS for patients with chronic pain, particularly those with low back pain (LBP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Correlation Between Abdominal Wall Stimulation and Spinal Cord Stimulator Tip Location study was a nonrandomized clinical trial that included 24 patients with SCS for persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) type 2 (trial ID: NCT05565469). The intervention involved increasing stimulation amplitude to a maximum tolerable value and obtaining numerical rating scores for AWS. The primary outcome measure was the association between AWS, the neurostimulator tip, and conus medullaris location, whereas the secondary outcome was the pre-postinterventional difference in proportion of patients experiencing AWS. Patient demographics and postoperative imaging were assessed. Statistical analyses involved descriptive statistics, a descriptive logistic regression, and a McNemar test.

RESULTS

The results of the study showed that seven (29%) of the 24 patients experienced AWS either previously or during interventional stimulation. However, there was no significant correlation found between AWS and the location of the neurostimulator tip or conus medullaris, and there was no difference in the pre-postinterventional proportion of patients experiencing AWS.

CONCLUSIONS

The study concludes that a relatively high proportion of patients who received SCS for PSPS type 2 experienced or previously experienced AWS. There was no significant correlation found between the location of the neurostimulator tip and the occurrence of AWS. This suggests that AWS may not be solely dependent on the stimulation itself and emphasizes the need to consider other factors. Nonetheless, this study provides important insights into the occurrence of AWS in patients receiving SCS for PSPS type 2 and highlights the need for further research in this area.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT05565469.

Pain Education and Knowledge (PEAK) Consensus Guidelines for Neuromodulation: A Proposal for Standardization in Fellowship and Training Programs

The need to be competent in neuromodulation is and should be a prerequisite prior to completing a fellowship in interventional pain medicine. Unfortunately, many programs lack acceptable candidates for these advanced therapies, and fellows may not receive adequate exposure to neuromodulation procedures. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) desires to create a consensus of experts to set a minimum standard of competence for neurostimulation procedures, including spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). The executive board of ASPN accepted nominations for colleagues with excellence in the subject matter of neuromodulation and physician education. This diverse group used peer-reviewed literature and, based on grading of evidence and expert opinion, developed critical consensus guides for training that all accredited fellowship programs should adopt. For each consensus point, transparency and recusal were used to eliminate bias, and an author was nominated for evidence grading oversight and bias control. Pain Education and Knowledge (PEAK) Consensus Guidelines for Neuromodulation sets a standard for neuromodulation training in pain fellowship training programs. The consensus panel has determined several recommendations to improve care in the United States for patients undergoing neuromodulation. As neuromodulation training in the United States has evolved dramatically, these therapies have become ubiquitous in pain medicine. Unfortunately, fellowship programs and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) pain program requirements have not progressed training to match the demands of modern advancements. PEAK sets a new standard for fellowship training and presents thirteen practice areas vital for physician competence in neuromodulation.

A Case Report on Spinal Neurostimulator Treatment for Painful Postsurgical Neuropathy of the Genitofemoral Nerve

Painful postsurgical neuropathy is an adverse event inherent to a wide variety of surgical treatments, so its diagnosis and specialized treatment are essential to maintaining the quality of life of the people who suffer from it. We present the case of a 31-year-old male with neuropathy of the genitofemoral nerve diagnosed by electromyography, resulting in intractable left testicular and thigh pain associated with a recent history of ipsilateral inguinal hernioplasty. After assessment by pain medicine and motor and sensory tests, a neurostimulator was placed in T8-T9 with action at the L1-L2 level, as well as a simultaneous electrode in S3, generating optimal pain relief and recovery of functionality.

Best Practices for Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Chronic Pain: Guidelines from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience

With continued innovations in neuromodulation comes the need for evolving reviews of best practices. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) has significantly improved the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and it has broad applicability across a wide range of other conditions. Through funding and organizational leadership by the American Society for Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN), this best practices consensus document has been developed for the selection, implantation, and use of DRG stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes. This document is composed of a comprehensive narrative literature review that has been performed regarding the role of the DRG in chronic pain and the clinical evidence for DRG-S as a treatment for multiple pain etiologies. Best practice recommendations encompass safety management, implantation techniques, and mitigation of the potential complications reported in the literature. Looking to the future of neuromodulation, DRG-S holds promise as a robust intervention for otherwise intractable pain.

Retrospective Efficacy and Cost-Containment Assessment of 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in Non-Surgical Refractory Back Pain Patients

Background

Non-surgical refractory back pain (NSRBP) is persistent, severe back pain that is not considered surgically correctable. Published studies have demonstrated clinically important long-term improvement in pain and functional capacity when 10kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is used to treat NSRBP. This study examines if real-world patients in interventional pain practice obtain the same outcomes, and have any reduction in health care utilization (HCU) following 10kHz SCS implant.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective chart review of 105 patients from two clinical sites who underwent implantation of 10kHz SCS for NSRBP. The three most frequent diagnoses were lumbosacral radiculopathy, degenerative disc disease (DDD)/discogenic back pain and foraminal stenosis. The complete set of patient-level electronic data, including clinical outcomes, HCU, and at least 12 months (12M) follow-up were available in 90 subjects.

Results

The 90 analyzed patients were 63.9 years old (median 67) with an average of 10.2 years since back pain diagnosis. Reported pain on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) decreased from 7.78±1.3 cm to 3.4±2.4 cm at 12M after SCS implant (p<0.001). Opioid usage (n = 65) decreased from 57.9±89.9 mg to 34.3±66.4 mg MSO4 equivalents (p = 0.004) at 12M. There were 46 patients on various doses of anticonvulsants, mostly gabapentin. The average dose decreased from 1847.91±973.6 mg at baseline to 1297.9±1184.6 mg at 12M after implant (p = 0.016). HCU was analyzed comparing the 12M before to the 12M after implant. Number of office visits decreased from 10.83±8.0 per year to 8.86±7.64 (p = 0.036), number of procedures to control chronic pain decreased from 2.2±1.9 to 0.6±1.2 (p<0.001). There was no significant change in number of imaging procedures, hospital admissions, or days spent in the hospital.

Conclusion

10kHz SCS warrants consideration as a therapeutic option for NSRBP patients and appears to provide a substantial reduction in HCU in the year following implant.

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

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