Analgesic efficacy of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study

Spinal Cord Stimulation Improves Quality of Life for Patients With Chronic Pain-Data From the UK and Ireland National Neuromodulation Registry

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment for chronic pain and is supported by numerous studies. However, some recent articles have questioned its efficacy. This article examines a cohort of >1800 patients with SCS from the UK and Ireland National Neuromodulation Registry. It is intended to provide a "real-world" assessment of efficacy and compare its effects with other procedures performed for painful indications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Quality of life (QoL) data (EuroQoL five-level [EQ5D]) and demographic data were extracted from the National Neuromodulation Registry for all patients (N = 1811) who underwent SCS for chronic pain in 27 centers in the UK between February 2018 and July 2022. These were compared with data from the published literature for other commonly performed elective surgical procedures.

RESULTS

The EQ5D utility index increased by a mean of 0.202 in the 1236 patients with paired pre- and postoperative utility scores. The median utility was 0.263 (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.384; n = 1811) preoperatively, whereas at six months after the operation, it was 0.550 (IQR = 0.396; n = 1025), p < 0.0001, Wilcoxon rank sum test. The median utility score at 12 months postoperation was 0.548 (IQR = 0.417; n = 970). There was no difference in utility scores at six months and 12 months after implantation (p = 0.15, Wilcoxon rank sum test). There was a significant improvement in QoL in all five domains of the five-level EQ5D tool at six months after baseline (p < 0.01, for all subcategories), and this was sustained at one year after implantation. The baseline utility was lower than in patients who underwent elective surgery for other painful conditions, and the absolute (and proportionate) increase in utility produced by SCS was greater than that achieved with most other interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

SCS increases the QoL in patients requiring surgery for pain. Similar results were seen regardless of SCS indication. When comparing analogous data bases, SCS produces a greater percentage improvement in EQ5D utility than do many other elective surgical procedures for painful conditions, including spinal surgery and some joint replacements.

Examining the Duration of Carryover Effect in Patients With Chronic Pain Treated With Spinal Cord Stimulation (EChO Study): An Open, Interventional, Investigator-Initiated, International Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVES

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical treatment for severe, chronic, neuropathic pain. It is based on one to two lead(s) implanted in the epidural space, stimulating the dorsal column. It has long been assumed that when deactivating SCS, there is a variable interval before the patient perceives the return of the pain, a phenomenon often termed echo or carryover effect. Although the carryover effect has been problematized as a source of error in crossover studies, no experimental investigation of the effect has been published. This open, prospective, international multicenter study aimed to systematically document, quantify, and investigate the carryover effect in SCS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible patients with a beneficial effect from their SCS treatment were instructed to deactivate their SCS device in a home setting and to reactivate it when their pain returned. The primary outcome was duration of carryover time defined as the time interval from deactivation to reactivation. Central clinical parameters (age, sex, indication for SCS, SCS treatment details, pain score) were registered and correlated with carryover time using nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney/Kruskal-Wallis) for categorical data and linear regression for continuous data.

RESULTS

In total, 158 patients were included in the analyses. A median carryover time of five hours was found (interquartile range 2.5;21 hours). Back pain as primary indication for SCS, high-frequency stimulation, and higher pain score at the time of deactivation were correlated with longer carryover time.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the existence of the carryover effect and indicates a remarkably high degree of interindividual variation. The results suggest that the magnitude of carryover may be correlated to the nature of the pain condition and possibly stimulation paradigms.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03386058.

Spinal Cord Stimulation Waveforms for the Treatment of Chronic Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Since the advent of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), advances in technology have allowed for improvement and treatment of various conditions, especially chronic pain. Additionally, as the system has developed, the ability to provide different stimulation waveforms for patients to treat different conditions has improved. The purpose and objective of the paper is to discuss basics of waveforms and present the most up-to-date literature and research studies on the different types of waveforms that currently exist. During our literature search, we came across over sixty articles that discuss the various waveforms we intend to evaluate.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are several publications on several waveforms used in clinical practice, but to our knowledge, this is the only educational document teaching on waveforms which provides essential knowledge. There is a gap of knowledge related to understanding wave forms and how they work.

The deep and the deeper: Spinal cord and deep brain stimulation for neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain occurs in people experiencing lesion or disease affecting the somatosensorial system. It is present in 7 % of the general population and may not fully respond to first- and second-line treatments in up to 40 % of cases. Neuromodulation approaches are often proposed for those not tolerating or not responding to usual pharmacological management. These approaches can be delivered surgically (invasively) or non-invasively. Invasive neuromodulation techniques were the first to be employed in neuropathic pain. Among them is spinal cord stimulation (SCS), which consists of the implantation of epidural electrodes over the spinal cord. It is recommended in some guidelines for peripheral neuropathic pain. While recent studies have called into question its efficacy, others have provided promising data, driven by advances in techniques, battery capabilities, programming algorithms and software developments. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is another well-stablished neuromodulation therapy routinely used for movement disorders; however, its role in pain management remains limited to specific research centers. This is not only due to variable results in the literature contesting its efficacy, but also because several different brain targets have been explored in small trials, compromising comparisons between these studies. Structures such as the periaqueductal grey, posterior thalamus, anterior cingulate cortex, ventral striatum/anterior limb of the internal capsule and the insula are the main targets described to date in literature. SCS and DBS present diverse rationales for use, mechanistic backgrounds, and varying levels of support from experimental studies. The present review aims to present their methodological details, main mechanisms of action for analgesia and their place in the current body of evidence in the management of patients with neuropathic pain, as well their particularities, effectiveness, safety and limitations.

Integrative approaches in spinal cord stimulation: Neuropathic pain management and motor recovery in spinal cord injury. A narrative review

Introduction

Spinal cord stimulation is a widespread treatment of chronic neuropathic pain from different conditions. Several novel and improving technologies have been recently developed to increase the effect of neuromodulation in patients refractory to pharmacological therapy.

Research question

To explore spinal cord stimulation's mechanisms of action, indications, and management.

Material and methods

The paper initially explores the mechanism of action of this procedure based on the generation of an electric field between electrodes placed on the posterior dural surface of the spinal cord probably interfering with the transmission of pain stimuli to the brain. Subsequently, the most consolidated criteria for selecting patients for surgery, which constitute a major issue of debate, were defined. Thereafter, the fundamental patterns of stimulation were summarized by exploring the advantages and side effects. Lastly, the most common side effects and the related management were discussed.

Results

Proper selection of the patient is of paramount importance to achieve the best results from this specific neuromodulation treatment. Regarding the different types of stimulation patterns, no definite evidence-based guidelines exist on the most appropriate approach in relation to the specific type of neuropathic pain. Both burst stimulation and high-frequency stimulation are innovative techniques that reduce the risk of paresthesias compared with conventional stimulation.

Discussion and conclusion

Novel protocols of stimulation (burst stimulation and high frequency stimulation) may improve the trade-off between therapeutic benefits and potential side effects. Likewise, decreasing the rates of hardware-related complications will be also useful to increase the application of neuromodulation in clinical settings.

Optimizing Preoperative Chronic Pain Management in Elective Spine Surgery Patients: A Narrative Review of Outcomes with Opioid and Adjuvant Pain Therapies

» Chronic preoperative opioid use negatively affects outcomes after spine surgery, with increased complications and reoperations, longer hospital stays, decreased return-to-work rates, worse patient-reported outcomes, and a higher risk of continued opioid use postoperatively.» The definition of chronic opioid use is not consistent across studies, and a more specific and consistent definition will aid in stratifying patients and understanding their risk of inferior outcomes.» Preoperative weaning periods and maximum dose thresholds are being established, which may increase the likelihood of achieving a meaningful improvement after surgery, although higher level evidence studies are needed.» Spinal cord stimulators and intrathecal drug delivery devices are increasingly used to manage chronic back pain and are equivalent or perhaps even superior to opioid treatment, although few studies exist examining how patients with these devices do after subsequent spine surgery.» Further investigation is needed to determine whether a true mechanistic explanation exists for spine-related analgesia related to spinal cord stimulators and intrathecal drug delivery devices.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Efficacy of Continuous Intrathecal Infusion Trialing with a Mixture of Fentanyl and Bupivacaine in Chronic Low Back Pain Patients

Intrathecal trialing is used as a screening prognostic measure prior to intrathecal drug delivery system implant. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a continuous intrathecal infusion of an admixture of bupivacaine and fentanyl in patients with chronic low back pain. Patients with refractory chronic low back pain in the setting of previous lumbar spine surgery and/or chronic vertebral compression fracture(s) were enrolled in a randomized double blind cross-over study comparing saline infusion to infusion of a solution containing bupivacaine combined with low-dose fentanyl over a 14-18 hour period. The primary outcome measure was the change in pain intensity at the end of the screening trial. Patients who experienced significant pain reduction from either infusion relative to baseline pain were offered a permanent implant. In total, 36 patients were enrolled, with 31 patients trialed and 25 implanted. At the end of the screening trial, pain scores, at rest or with activity, decreased appreciably in both groups; however, significantly better improvements occurred in the fentanyl/bupivacaine group compared to saline both with activity and at rest (P = .016 and .006, respectively). Treatment order appeared to affect outcome with saline demonstrating a placebo response. At 12 months following implant, primary and secondary outcome measures continued to be significantly reduced from baseline. Continuous intrathecal delivery of a combination of zlow-dose fentanyl with bupivacaine is superior to saline in screening intrathecal trialing for back pain reduction. With longer term delivery, a sustained reduction of chronic low back pain was also observed.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Narrative review of current neuromodulation modalities for spinal cord injury

Neuromodulation is a developing field of medicine that includes a vast array of minimally invasive and non-invasive therapies including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), peripheral nerve stimulation, and spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Although the current literature surrounding the use of neuromodulation in managing chronic pain is abundant, there is an insufficient amount of evidence specifically regarding neuromodulation in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Given the pain and functional deficits that these patients face, that are not amenable to other forms conservative therapy, the purpose of this narrative review is to examine and assess the use of various neuromodulation modalities to manage pain and restore function in the SCI population. Currently, high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (HF-SCS) and burst spinal cord stimulation (B-SCS) have been shown to have the most promising effect in improving pain intensity and frequency. Additionally, dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) and TMS have been shown to effectively increase motor responses and improve limb strength. Although these modalities carry the potential to enhance overall functionality and improve a patient's degree of disability, there is a lack of long-term, randomized-controlled trials in the current space. Additional research is warranted to further support the clinical use of these emerging modalities to provide improved pain management, increased level of function, and ultimately an overall better quality of life in the SCI population.

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.

Combination therapy with simultaneous delivery of spinal cord stimulation modalities: COMBO randomized controlled trial

Aim: The Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of various spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities for chronic pain. Specifically, combination therapy (simultaneous use of customized sub-perception field and paresthesia-based SCS) versus monotherapy (paresthesia-based SCS) was evaluated. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled (key inclusion criterion: chronic pain for ≥6 months). Primary end point was the proportion with ≥50% pain reduction without increased opioids at the 3-month follow-up. Patients were followed for 2 years. Results: The primary end point was met (n = 89; p < 0.0001) in 88% of patients in the combination-therapy arm (n = 36/41) and 71% in the monotherapy arm (n = 34/48). Responder rates at 1 and 2 years (with available SCS modalities) were 84% and 85%, respectively. Sustained functional outcomes improvement was observed out to 2 years. Conclusion: SCS-based combination therapy can improve outcomes in patients with chronic pain. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03689920 (ClinicalTrials.gov), Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes (COMBO).

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin Have Clinical Utility (TRIAL-STIM)? 36-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Screening trials before full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation device are recommended by clinical guidelines and regulators, although there is limited evidence for their use. The TRIAL-STIM study showed that a screening trial strategy does not provide superior patient pain outcome at 6-month follow-up compared with not doing a screening trial and that it was not cost-effective.

OBJECTIVE

To report the long-term follow-up results of the TRIAL-STIM study.

METHODS

The primary outcome of this pragmatic randomized controlled trial was pain intensity as measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS) and secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months, health-related quality of life, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Thirty patients allocated to the "Trial Group" (TG) and 36 patients allocated to the "No Trial Group" (NTG) completed outcome assessment at 36-month follow-up. Although there was a reduction in NRS pain and improvements in utility scores from baseline to 36 months in both groups, there was no difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity NRS between TG and NTG (adjusted mean difference: -0.60, 95% CI: -1.83 to 0.63), EuroQol-5 Dimension utility values (adjusted mean difference: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.10), or proportion of pain responders (33% TG vs 31% NTG). No differences were observed between the groups for the likelihood of spinal cord stimulation device explant or reporting an adverse advent up to 36-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The long-term results show no patient outcome benefit in undertaking an SCS screening trial.

Spinal cord stimulation: Beyond pain management

INTRODUCTION

The gate control theory of pain was the starting point of the development of spinal cord stimulation (SCS). We describe the indications for the treatment in pain management and other uses not related to pain.

DEVELOPMENT

There are currently several paradigms for SCS: tonic, burst, and high frequency. The main difference lies in the presence of paraesthesias. SCS is most beneficial for treating neuropathic pain. Patients with failed back surgery syndrome show the best response rates, although a considerable reduction in pain is also observed in patients with complex regional pain syndrome, diabetic neuropathy, radiculopathy, and low back pain without previous surgery. Phantom pain or pain related to cardiovascular or peripheral vascular disease may improve, although there is a lack of robust evidence supporting generalisation of its use. SCS also improves cancer-related pain, although research on this issue is scarce. Non-pain-related indications for SCS are movement disorders, spasticity, and sequelae of spinal cord injury. The main limiting factors for the use of SCS are mechanical complications and the cost of the treatment.

CONCLUSION

In its 50-year history, SCS has progressed enormously. The perfection of hardware and software may improve its effectiveness and reduce the rate of complications. Indications for SCS could include other diseases, and its use could be expanded, if the costs of the technology are reduced.

Gaps and roadmap of novel neuromodulation targets for treatment of gait in Parkinson's disease

Gait issues in Parkinson's disease (PD) are common and can be highly disabling. Although levodopa and deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus and the globus pallidus internus have been established therapies for addressing the motor symptoms of PD, their effects on gait are less predictable and not well sustained with disease progression. Given the high prevalence of gait impairment in PD and the limitations in currently approved therapies, there has been considerable interest in alternative neuromodulation targets and techniques. These have included DBS of pedunculopontine nucleus and substantia nigra pars reticulata, spinal cord stimulation, non-invasive modulation of cortical regions and, more recently, vagus nerve stimulation. However, successes and failures have also emerged with these approaches. Current gaps and controversies are related to patient selection, optimal electrode placement within the target, placebo effects and the optimal programming parameters. Additionally, recent advances in pathophysiology of oscillation dynamics have driven new models of closed-loop DBS systems that may or may not be applicable to gait issues. Our aim is to describe approaches, especially neuromodulation procedures, and emerging challenges to address PD gait issues beyond subthalamic nucleus and the globus pallidus internus stimulation.

Comparison of Spinal Cord Stimulation vs. Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation vs. Association of Both in Patients with Refractory Chronic Back and/or Lower Limb Neuropathic Pain: An International, Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Crossover Trial (BOOST-DRG Study)

While spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy to address refractory persistent spinal pain syndrome after spinal surgery (PSPS-T2), its lack of spatial selectivity and reported discomfort due to positional effects can be considered as significant limitations. As alternatives, new waveforms, such as burst stimulation and different spatial neural targets, such as dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS), have shown promising results. Comparisons between DRGS and standard SCS, or their combination, have never been studied on the same patients. "BOOST DRG" is the first prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover study to compare SCS vs. DRGS vs. SCS+DRGS. Sixty-six PSPS-T2 patients will be recruited internationally in three centers. Before crossing over, patients will receive each stimulation modality for 1 month, using tonic conventional stimulation. After 3 months, stimulation will consist in switching to burst for 1 month, and patients will choose which modality/waveform they receive and will then be reassessed at 6 and 12 months. In addition to our primary outcome based on pain rating, this study is designed to assess quality of life, functional disability, psychological distress, pain surface coverage, global impression of change, medication quantification, adverse events, brain functional imaging and electroencephalography, with the objective being to provide a multidimensional insight based on composite pain assessment.

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.

A Comparison of 1000 Hz to 30 Hz Spinal Cord Stimulation Strategies in Patients with Unilateral Neuropathic Leg Pain Due to Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Crossover Clinical Study (HALO)

INTRODUCTION

Multicenter, randomized, double-blinded crossover study. The Netherlands (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02112474). We hypothesized that the pain suppressive effects of 1000 Hz and 30 Hz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) strategies are equally effective in patients with chronic, neuropathic, unilateral leg pain after back surgery.

METHODS

Thirty-two patients (18-70 years, minimum leg pain 50 mm on 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), minimal back pain) were randomized (1:1) to start 1000 Hz or 30 Hz neurostimulation for 9 days. After a 5-day washout, they crossed over, for another 9 days. Primary outcome was pain suppression (mean of VAS scores 4×/day) during the crossover period. The main investigators were blinded to strategy allocation, patients were blinded to the outcome, a blinded assessor analyzed the primary outcome.

RESULTS

The primary outcome was analyzed in 26 patients. There was no period effect (delta 4 mm, p = 0.42, 95% CI [- 5, 13]), allowing direct intrapatient comparison of the treatment effect (delta 1 mm, p = 0.92, 95% CI [- 13, 14]). Ninety-two percent of patients in both periods experienced greater than 34% pain suppression (minimal clinically important difference, MCID). Secondary outcomes (22 patients): pain suppression and improved quality of life were sustained at 12 months; both were statistically significant and clinically relevant. Fifty percent of patients had greater than 80% pain suppression (p < 0.001). At study termination, all events were resolved; no unanticipated events were reported. Medtronic provided a grant for additional study costs.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that our hypothesis regarding the effect of 1000 Hz and 30 Hz stimulation strategies on pain suppression was confirmed. Both stimulation strategies led to a large, sustainable, clinically relevant pain suppression and improvement in quality of life.

New developments for spinal cord stimulation

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Newer SCS waveforms have improved patient outcomes, leading to its increased utilization among many pain conditions. More recently, SCS has been used to treat some symptoms in several movement disorders because of its good profile tolerability and capacity to stimulate local and distant areas of the central nervous system. After the original experimental findings in animal models of Parkinson's disease (PD) in the late 2000s, several studies have reported the beneficial clinical effects of SCS stimulation on gait in PD patients. Additionally, the spinal cord has emerged as a potential therapeutic target to treat essential and orthostatic tremor, some forms of ataxia, and atypical parkinsonisms. In this chapter, we describe the most recent advances in SCS for pain and the rationale and potential mechanism of action of stimulating the spinal cord for treating movement disorders, focusing on its network modulation. We also summarize the main clinical studies performed to date as well as their limitations and future perspectives.

Modulation of the Somatosensory Evoked Potential by Attention and Spinal Cord Stimulation

Introduction: Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a last-resort treatment for patients with intractable chronic pain in whom pharmacological and other treatments have failed. Conventional tonic SCS is accompanied by tingling sensations. More recent stimulation protocols like burst SCS are not sensed by the patient while providing similar levels of pain relief. It has been previously reported that conventional tonic SCS can attenuate sensory-discriminative processing in several brain areas, but that burst SCS might have additional effects on the medial, motivational-affective pain system. In this explorative study we assessed the influence of attention on the somatosensory evoked brain responses under conventional tonic SCS as well as burst SCS regime.

Methods: Twelve chronic pain patients with an implanted SCS device had 2-weeks evaluation periods with three different SCS settings (conventional tonic SCS, burst SCS, and sham SCS). At the end of each period, an electro-encephalography (EEG) measurement was done, at which patients received transcutaneous electrical pulses at the tibial nerve to induce somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP). SEP data was acquired while patients were attending the applied pulses and while they were mind wandering. The effects of attention as well as SCS regimes on the SEP were analyzed by comparing amplitudes of early and late latencies at the vertex as well as brain activity at full cortical maps.

Results: Pain relief obtained by the various SCS settings varied largely among patients. Early SEP responses were not significantly affected by attention nor SCS settings (i.e., burst, tonic, and sham). However, late SEP responses (P300) were reduced with tonic and burst SCS: conventional tonic SCS reduced P300 brain activity in the unattended condition, while burst SCS reduced P300 brain activity in both attended and unattended conditions.

Conclusion: Burst spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain seems to reduce cortical attention that is or can be directed to somatosensory stimuli to a larger extent than conventional spinal cord stimulation treatment. This is a first step in understanding why in selected chronic pain patients burst SCS is more effective than tonic SCS and how neuroimaging could assist in personalizing SCS treatment.

Research design considerations for randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation for pain: Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials/Institute of Neuromodulation/International Neuromodulation Society recommendations

ABSTRACT

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an interventional nonpharmacologic treatment used for chronic pain and other indications. Methods for evaluating the safety and efficacy of SCS have evolved from uncontrolled and retrospective studies to prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although randomization overcomes certain types of bias, additional challenges to the validity of RCTs of SCS include blinding, choice of control groups, nonspecific effects of treatment variables (eg, paresthesia, device programming and recharging, psychological support, and rehabilitative techniques), and safety considerations. To address these challenges, 3 professional societies (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials, Institute of Neuromodulation, and International Neuromodulation Society) convened a meeting to develop consensus recommendations on the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of RCTs of SCS for chronic pain. This article summarizes the results of this meeting. Highlights of our recommendations include disclosing all funding source and potential conflicts; incorporating mechanistic objectives when possible; avoiding noninferiority designs without internal demonstration of assay sensitivity; achieving and documenting double-blinding whenever possible; documenting investigator and site experience; keeping all information provided to patients balanced with respect to expectation of benefit; disclosing all information provided to patients, including verbal scripts; using placebo/sham controls when possible; capturing a complete set of outcome assessments; accounting for ancillary pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments in a clear manner; providing a complete description of intended and actual programming interactions; making a prospective ascertainment of SCS-specific safety outcomes; training patients and researchers on appropriate expectations, outcome assessments, and other key aspects of study performance; and providing transparent and complete reporting of results according to applicable reporting guidelines.

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.

Spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of peripheral vascular disease: a systematic review - revival of a promising therapeutic option?

INTRODUCTION

Peripheral vascular disease (PVD) is caused by a blood circulation disorder of the arteries and Critical Limb Ischemia (CLI) is the advanced state of PVD. For patients with surgically non-reconstructable CLI, Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) appears to be an alternative therapeutic option.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to investigate the efficacy of SCS in non-reconstructable CLI compared with the conservative treatment and re-appraise the existing literature in light of the recent advances in neuromodulation.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, using electronic databases and reference lists for article retrieval.

RESULTS

A total of 404 records were identified and finally 6 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), a Cochrane review and a meta-analysis were included in our systematic review. The studies assessed the efficacy of tonic SCS in the treatment of patients with non-reconstructable CLI compared with the conservative treatment. There is moderate to high quality evidence suggesting, that tonic SCS has beneficial effects for patients suffering from non-reconstructable CLI in terms of limb salvage, pain relief, clinical improvement and quality of life. The contradictory conclusions of the two meta-analyses regarding the efficacy of SCS for limb salvage at 12 months refer rather to the magnitude of the beneficial effect than to the effect itself. So far, the current literature provides evidence about the traditional tonic SCS but there is a lack of studies investigating the efficacy of new waveforms in the treatment of non-reconstructable CLI.

CONCLUSION

SCS represents an alternative for PVD patients with non-reconstructable CLI and the existing literature provides encouraging clinical results, that should not be neglected. Instead, they should be re-appraised in light of the recent advances in neuromodulation with the emergence of novel waveform technologies and neuromodulation targets.

Finding Optimal Neuromodulation for Chronic Pain: Waves, Bursts, and Beyond

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as state-of-the-art evidence-based treatment for chronic intractable pain related to spinal and peripheral nerve disorders. Traditionally delivered as steady-state, paraesthesia-producing electrical stimulation, newer technology has augmented the SCS option and outcome in the last decade.

Objective

To present an overview of the traditional and newer SCS waveforms.

Materials and Methods

We present a short literature review of SCS waveforms in reference to newer waveforms and describing paraesthesia-free, high frequency, and burst stimulation methods as well as advances in waveform paradigms and programming modalities. Pertinent literature was reviewed, especially in the context of evolution in the waveforms of SCS and stimulation parameters.

Results

Conventional tonic SCS remains one of the most utilized and clinically validated SCS waveforms. Newer waveforms such as burst stimulation, high-frequency stimulation, and the sub-perception SCS have emerged in the last decades with favorable results with no or minimal paraesthesia, including in cases otherwise intractable to conventional tonic SCS. The recent evolution and experience of closed-loop SCS is promising and appealing. The experience and validation of the newer SCS waveforms, however, remain limited but optimistic.

Conclusions

Advances in SCS device technology and waveforms have improved patient outcomes, leading to its increased utilization of SCS for chronic pain. These improvements and the development of closed-loop SCS have been increasingly promising development and foster a clinical translation of improved pain relief as the years of research and clinical study beyond conventional SCS waveform come to fruition.

Analgesic Efficacy of "Burst" and Tonic (500 Hz) Spinal Cord Stimulation Patterns: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Crossover Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy in reducing pain intensity in adult subjects suffering from chronic back and leg pain of burst (BST) and tonic sub-threshold stimulation at 500 Hz (T500) vs. sham stimulation delivered by a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device capable of automated postural adjustment of current intensity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicentre randomized double-blind, three-period, three-treatment, crossover study was undertaken at two centers in the United Kingdom. Patients who had achieved stable pain relief with a conventional SCS capable of automated postural adjustment of current intensity were randomized to sequences of BST, T500, and sham SCS with treatment order balanced across the six possible sequences. A current leakage was programmed into the implantable pulse generator (IPG) in the sham period. The primary outcome was patient reported pain intensity using a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were enrolled and randomized. The mean reduction in pain with T500 was statistically significantly greater than that observed with either sham (25%; 95% CI, 8%-38%; p = 0.008) or BST (28%; 95% CI, 13%-41%; p = 0.002). There were no statistically significant differences in pain VAS for BST versus Sham (5%; 95% CI, -13% to 27%; p = 0.59). Exploratory sub-group analyses by study site and sex were also conducted for the T500 vs. sham and BST versus sham comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest a superior outcome versus sham from T500 stimulation over BST stimulation and a practical equivalence between BST and sham in a group of subjects with leg and back pain habituated to tonic SCS and having achieved a stable status with stimulation.

Clinical Effectiveness and Mechanism of Action of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Treating Chronic Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain: a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the present systematic review is to provide a current understanding of the mechanism of action and the evidence available to support clinical decision-making. The focus is to summarize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized or observational studies of spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain to understand clinical effectiveness and the mechanism of action.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several recent studies have demonstrated the benefit of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic pain. Until recently, the mechanism of action was founded on a central paradigm derived from gate control theory, which is the need to stimulate the dorsal column of the spinal cord to generate paresthesia. The recent development of new therapies that do not rely on paresthesia has left the field without a clear mechanism of action that could serve as a strong foundation to further improve clinical outcomes. Consequently, multiple theories have emerged to explain how electrical pulse applied to the spinal cord could alleviate pain, including activation of specific supraspinal pathways, and segmental modulation of the neurological interaction. Recent systematic reviews also have shown the clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic spinal pain, phantom limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and other chronic painful conditions. Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain is rapidly evolving with technology at its forefront. This comprehensive focused review evaluated 11 RCTs and 7 nonrandomized/observational studies which provided levels of evidence ranging from I to II.

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.

10 kHz spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and/or leg pain: Summary of clinical studies

Chronic pain has a major impact on sufferers and their families. The associated health care costs are substantial. In the context of increasing prevalence, effective treatment options are ever more important. 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation has been shown to effectively provide pain relief, aid in opioid reduction, and improve quality of life in patients with chronic intractable pain. The present review aims to summarize the clinical evidence related to the use of 10 kHz SCS in chronic back and/or leg pain. We searched the PubMed database between 2009 and 2 June 2020 for articles reporting clinical studies that included at least 10 human subjects permanently treated with a 10 kHz SCS system (Senza^® system) for chronic back and/or leg pain for a minimum of 3 months. A randomized controlled trial (SENZA-RCT), as well as several prospective and retrospective studies, reported clinical outcomes in subjects with chronic back and leg pain treated with 10 kHz SCS. A high proportion of subjects (60%–80%) reported long-term response to therapy. Pain relief was provided without paresthesia. Other studies showed promising pain relief outcomes in subjects with back pain ineligible for spinal surgery, neuropathic limb pain, and in those with previously failed traditional low-frequency SCS. Most studies reported improved quality of life metrics and/or reduced opioid intake. Level 1 evidence has already been established for the use of 10 kHz SCS in treating chronic back and leg pain, corroborated by real-world, clinical experience. Exploratory studies also show the potential of the therapy in other refractory pain syndromes, although larger studies are desired to validate their findings. Overall, the literature suggests that 10 kHz SCS provides long-term pain relief in a high proportion of patients, along with improved quality of life and reduced opioid consumption.

Comparison of conventional, burst and high-frequency spinal cord stimulation on pain relief in refractory failed back surgery syndrome patients: study protocol for a prospective randomized double-blinded cross-over trial (MULTIWAVE study)

Background

While the evolution of technology provides new opportunities to manage chronic refractory pain using different waveform modalities of spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), there is no randomized controlled trial available to compare the efficacy of these different stimulations waveforms to date. MULTIWAVE is a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial study designed to compare the clinical efficacy of tonic conventional stimulation (TCS), burst stimulation (BURST) and high-frequency stimulation (HF) in FBSS patients over a 15-month period in SCS implanted patients.

Methods/design

Twenty-eight patients will be recruited in the Poitiers University Hospital, in Niort and La Rochelle Hospitals in France. Eligible patients with post-operative low back and leg pain with an average visual analog scale (VAS) score ≥ 5 for low back pain are implanted and randomly assigned to one of the six arms (in a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio), where they receive a 3-month combination of TCS, BURST and HF including one treatment modality per month and varying the order of the modality received within the six possible combinations. Patients receiving intrathecal drug delivery, peripheral nerve stimulation and back resurgery related to the original back pain complaint and experimental therapies are excluded from this study. Patients included in the spinal cord stimulation group undergo trial stimulation, and they all receive a TCS treatment for 2 months, as the gold standard modality. Thereafter, patients are randomly assigned to one of the six arms for the total duration of 3-month crossover period. Then, patients choose their preferred stimulation modality (TCS, BURST, or HF) for the follow-up period of 12 months. Outcome assessments are performed at baseline (first implant), before randomization (2 months after baseline) and at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 15 months post-randomization. Our primary outcome is the average global VAS of pain over 5-day pain diary period between baseline and after each period of stimulation. Additional outcomes include changes in leg and back pain intensity, functional disability, quality of life, psychological state, paraesthesia intensity perception, patient satisfaction and the number of adverse events.

Discussion

Recruitment began in February 2017 and will continue through 2019.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03014583. Registered on 9 January 2017.

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.

Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Clinical Review

Objective

Clinical review on outcomes using burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the treatment of chronic, intractable pain.

Design

Narrative clinical literature review conducted utilizing a priori search terms including key words for burst spinal cord stimulation. Synthesis and reporting of data from publications including an overview of comparative SCS outcomes.

Results

Burst SCS demonstrated greater pain relief over tonic stimulation in multiple studies, which included blinded, sham-controlled, randomized trials. Additionally, burst stimulation impacts multiple dimensions of pain, including somatic pain as well as emotional and psychological elements. Patient preference is weighted toward burst over tonic due to increased pain relief, a lack of paresthesias, and impression of change in condition.

Conclusion

Burst SCS has been shown to be both statistically and clinically superior to tonic stimulation and may provide additional benefits through different mechanisms of action. Further high-quality controlled studies are warranted to not only elucidate the basic mechanisms of burst SCS but also address how this unique stimulation signature/pattern may more adequately handle the multiple affective dimensions of pain in varying patient populations.

The Evolution of Neuromodulation in the Treatment of Chronic Pain: Forward-Looking Perspectives

Background

The field of neuromodulation is continually evolving, with the past decade showing significant advancement in the therapeutic efficacy of neuromodulation procedures. The continued evolution of neuromodulation technology brings with it the promise of addressing the needs of both patients and physicians, as current technology improves and clinical applications expand.

Design

This review highlights the current state of the art of neuromodulation for treating chronic pain, describes key areas of development including stimulation patterns and neural targets, expanding indications and applications, feedback-controlled systems, noninvasive approaches, and biomarkers for neuromodulation and technology miniaturization.

Results and Conclusions

The field of neuromodulation is undergoing a renaissance of technology development with potential for profoundly improving the care of chronic pain patients. New and emerging targets like the dorsal root ganglion, as well as high-frequency and patterned stimulation methodologies such as burst stimulation, are paving the way for better clinical outcomes. As we look forward to the future, neural sensing, novel target-specific stimulation patterns, and approaches combining neuromodulation therapies are likely to significantly impact how neuromodulation is used. Moreover, select biomarkers may influence and guide the use of neuromodulation and help objectively demonstrate efficacy and outcomes.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for neuropathic pain: Systematic review and French recommendations

Neuropathic pain remains a significant unmet medical need. Several recommendations have recently been proposed concerning pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation techniques and interventional management, but no comprehensive guideline encompassing all these treatments has yet been issued. We performed a systematic review of pharmacotherapy, neurostimulation, surgery, psychotherapies and other types of therapy for peripheral or central neuropathic pain, based on studies published in peer-reviewed journals before January 2018. The main inclusion criteria were chronic neuropathic pain for at least three months, a randomized controlled methodology, at least three weeks of follow-up, at least 10 patients per group, and a double-blind design for drug therapy. Based on the GRADE system, we provide weak-to-strong recommendations for use and proposal as a first-line treatment for SNRIs (duloxetine and venlafaxine), gabapentin and tricyclic antidepressants and, for topical lidocaine and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a second-line treatment for pregabalin, tramadol, combination therapy (antidepressant combined with gabapentinoids), and for high-concentration capsaicin patches and botulinum toxin A specifically for peripheral neuropathic pain; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as a third-line treatment for high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex, spinal cord stimulation (failed back surgery syndrome and painful diabetic polyneuropathy) and strong opioids (in the absence of an alternative). Psychotherapy (cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness) is recommended as a second-line therapy, as an add-on to other therapies. An algorithm encompassing all the recommended treatments is proposed.

Identifying the Role of Block Length in Neural Heat Block to Reduce Temperatures During Infrared Neural Inhibition

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess the hypothesis that the length of axon heated, defined here as block length (BL), affects the temperature required for thermal inhibition of action potential propagation applied using laser heating. The presence of such a phenomenon has implications for how this technique, called infrared neural inhibition (INI), may be applied in a clinically safe manner since it suggests that temperatures required for therapy may be reduced through the proper spatial application of light. Here, we validate the presence of this phenomenon by assessing how the peak temperatures during INI are reduced when two different BLs are applied using irradiation from either one or two adjacent optical fibers.

STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS

Assessment of the role of BL was carried out over two phases. First, a computational proof of concept was performed in the neural conduction simulation environment, NEURON, simulating the response of action potentials to increased temperatures applied at different full-width at half-maxima (FWHM) along axons. Second, ex vivo validation of these predictions was performed by measuring the radiant exposure, peak temperature rise, and FWHM of heat distributions associated with INI from one or two adjacent optical fibers. Electrophysiological assessment of radiant exposures at inhibition threshold were carried out in ex vivo Aplysia californica (sea slug) pleural abdominal nerves ( n = 6), an invertebrate with unmyelinated axons. Measurement of the maximum temperature rise required for induced heat block was performed in a water bath using a fine wire thermocouple. Finally, magnetic resonance thermometry (MRT) was performed on a nerve immersed in saline to assess the elevated temperature distribution at these radiant exposures.

RESULTS

Computational modeling in NEURON provided a theoretical proof of concept that the BL is an important factor contributing to the peak temperature required during neural heat block, predicting a 11.7% reduction in temperature rise when the FWHM along an axon is increased by 42.9%. Experimental validation showed that, when using two adjacent fibers instead of one, a 38.5 ± 2.2% (mean ± standard error of the mean) reduction in radiant exposure per pulse per fiber threshold at the fiber output (P = 7.3E-6) is measured, resulting in a reduction in peak temperature rise under each fiber of 23.5  ± 2.1% ( P = 9.3E-5) and 15.0 ± 2.4% ( P = 1.4E-3) and an increase in the FWHM of heating by 37.7 ± 6.4% ( P = 1E-3), 68.4 ± 5.2% ( P = 2.4E-5), and 51.9  ± 9.9% ( P = 1.7E-3) in three MRT slices.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides the first experimental evidence for a phenomenon during the heat block in which the temperature for inhibition is dependent on the BL. While more work is needed to further reduce the temperature during INI, the results highlight that spatial application of the temperature rise during INI must be considered. Optimized implementation of INI may leverage this cellular response to provide optical modulation of neural signals with lower temperatures over greater time periods, which may increase the utility of the technique for laboratory and clinical use. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In Vivo Testing of a Prototype Intradural Spinal Cord Stimulator in a Porcine Model

BACKGROUND

Chronic midline low back pain is the number one reason for disability in the United States despite the prolific use of medical and surgical interventions. Notwithstanding the widespread use of epidural spinal cord stimulators (SCSs), there remains a large portion of the population with inadequate pain control thought to be because of the limited volume of stimulated neural tissue. Intradural SCSs represent an underexplored alternative strategy with the potential to improve selectivity, power efficiency, and efficacy. We studied and carried out development of an intradural form of an SCS. Herein we present the findings of in vivo testing of a prototype intradural SCS in a porcine model.

METHODS

Six female juvenile pigs underwent surgical investigation. One control animal underwent a laminectomy only, whereas the 5 other animals had implantation of an intradural SCS prototype. One of the prototypes was fully wired to enable acute stimulation and concurrent electromyographic recordings. All animals underwent terminal surgery 3 months postimplantation, with harvesting of the spinal column. Imaging (microcomputed tomography scan) and histopathologic examinations were subsequently performed.

RESULTS

All animals survived implantation without evidence of neurologic deficits or infection. Postmortem imaging and histopathologic examination of the spinal column revealed no evidence of spinal cord damage, cerebrospinal fluid fistula formation, abnormal bony overgrowth, or dural defect. Viable dura was present between the intra- and extradural plates of the device. Electromyographic recordings revealed evoked motor units from the stimulator.

CONCLUSIONS

Chronically implanted intradural device in the porcine model demonstrated safety and feasibility for translation into humans.

Activation of the expiratory muscles via lower thoracic high frequency spinal cord stimulation in awake animals

Lower thoracic spinal cord stimulation is an effective method of restoring an effective cough in participants with complete spinal cord injury. The high voltage requirements however significantly limits this application in subjects with intact lower chest wall sensation. In anesthetized animals, we have shown that the expiratory muscles can also be effectively activated with low stimulus currents (1 mA) but with high stimulus frequencies (HF-SCS -500 Hz). In 3 intact, awake pigs the responses to HF-SCS, were evaluated. HF-SCS was associated with marked expansion of the abdominal wall and external oblique EMG activity without any associated changes in heart rate or vocalization. During a terminal procedure under general anesthesia, responses to HF-SCS were re-assessed. Abdominal movement and EMG were similar to that observed in the awake state. HF-SCS (1.5 mA) resulted in an airway pressure of 65 ± 2cmH₂O. Our results indicate that lower thoracic HF-SCS may be a useful method to restore an effective cough in patients with intact chest wall sensation.

Differences in Gene Expression of Endogenous Opioid Peptide Precursor, Cannabinoid 1 and 2 Receptors and Interleukin Beta in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells of Patients With Refractory Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Treated With Spinal Cord Stimulation: Markers of Therapeutic Outcomes?

OBJECTIVE

The use of spinal cord stimulation for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is very common. In order to better understand the mechanisms of action of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), our aim was to determine potential changes in relative gene and protein expression in the peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of patients as potential biomarkers of disease outcomes and potential new targets for therapy.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with diagnosis of FBSS refractory to conservative therapy for at least six months were included in the study. Clinical evaluation in this study included validated questionnaires. Blood samples (10 mL) were collected five times from baseline until two months after implant of the leads. Proenkephalin (PENK), cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, and interleukin 1β (IL 1β) were analyzed. Each patient served as his/her own control by comparing the samples collected at different time points against the baseline sample collected at T0.

RESULTS

A total of 16 patients met all relevant criteria during the whole study and were assessed. Only PENK showed significant changes over time (Friedman p = 0.000). A positive correlation was observed between changes in visual analog scale (VAS) scores and PENK and a negative correlation between changes in PENK and Short Form-12 (SF-12) mental component score (MCS) scores, as well as between changes in IL 1β and Pain Detect Questionnaire (PD-Q) scores. As PENK changes increased, so did pain (VAS). As changes in PENK increased, SF-12 MCS health worsened. As changes in IL 1β increased, PD-Q values decreased. No severe adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Previously unknown effects of SCS on levels of PBMCs biomarkers are demonstrated. The findings of our research suggest a potential for useful integration of genome analysis and lymphocyte expression in the daily practice of neurostimulation for pain management and represent a novel road map in the light of the important questions that remain unanswered.

A Novel Approach in Spinal Cord Stimulation for Enhancing Gastric Motility: A Preliminary Study on Canines

Background/Aims

Gastroparesis is commonly seen in patients with diabetes and functional dyspepsia with no satisfactory therapies. Dysautonomia is one of the main reasons for the imbalanced motility. We hypothesized that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a viable therapy for gastroparesis via the autonomic modulation to improve gastric motility. The aim is to find an optimal method of SCS for treating gastroparesis.

Methods

Eight healthy-female dogs were implanted with a gastric cannula, a duodenal cannula, 2 multi-electrode spinal leads, and an implantable pulse generator. Gastric motility index (MI) was used to determine the best stimulation location/parameters of SCS. Optimized SCS was used to improve glucagon-induced gastroparesis.

Results

With fixed parameters, SCS at Thoracic 10 (T10) was found most effective for increasing gastric MI (37.8%, P = 0.013). SCS was optimized with different parameters (pulse width: 0.05–0.6 msec, frequency: 5–500 Hz, motor threshold: 30–90%) on T10. Our findings revealed that 0.5 msec, 20 Hz with 90% motor threshold at T10 were the best parameters in increasing MI. Glucagon significantly delayed gastric emptying, and this inhibitory effect was partially blocked by SCS. Gastric emptying at 120 minutes was 25.6% in the control session and 15.7% in glucagon session (P = 0.007 vs control), while it was 22.9% with SCS session (P = 0.041 vs glucagon). SCS with the optimal parameters was found to maximally enhance vagal activity and inhibit sympathetic activity assessed by the spectral analysis of heart rate variability.

Conclusions

SCS with optimized stimulation location and parameters improves gastric motility in healthy-dogs and accelerates gastric emptying impaired by glucagon via enhancing vagal activity.

Fiber Threshold Accommodation as a Mechanism of Burst and High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

Burst and high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS), in contrast to low-frequency stimulation (LFS, < 200 Hz), reduce neuropathic pain without the side effect of paresthesia, yet it is unknown whether these methods' mechanisms of action (MoA) overlap. We used empirically based computational models of fiber threshold accommodation to examine the three MoA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Waveforms used in SCS are composed of cathodic, anodic, and rest phases. Empirical studies of human peripheral sensory nerve fibers show different accommodation effects occurring in each phase. Notably, larger diameter fibers accommodate more than smaller fibers. We augmented our computational axon model to replicate fiber threshold accommodation behavior for diameters from 5 to 15 μm in each phase. We used the model to predict threshold change in variations of burst, high frequency, and LFS.

RESULTS

The accommodation model showed that 1) inversion of larger and smaller diameter fiber thresholds produce a therapeutic window in which smaller fibers fire while larger ones do not and 2) the anodic pulses increase accommodation and perpetuate threshold inversion from burst to burst and between cathodic pulses in burst, high frequency, and variations, resulting in an amplitude "window" in which larger fibers are inactivated while smaller fibers fire. No threshold inversion was found for traditional LFS.

CONCLUSIONS

The model, based on empirical data, predicts that, at clinical amplitudes, burst and high-frequency SCS do not activate large-diameter fibers that produce paresthesia while driving medium-diameter fibers, likely different from LFS, which produce analgesia via different populations of dorsal horn neural circuits.