Does Spinal Cord Stimulation Due to Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Lead to Permanent Occupational Disability?

Socioeconomic Determinants of Initiating Neuromodulation for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Neuromodulation is an effective treatment for chronic pain; however, socioeconomic differences may influence decision-making to initiate this therapy. This review investigated potential differences in accessibility of neuromodulation for patients with chronic pain due to socioeconomic determinants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four electronic databases were used for this systematic review: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified version of the Downs and Black checklist. The study protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023426035).

RESULTS

The initial database search identified a total of 1118 unique studies, of which 36 were eventually included in the systematic review. Of the 36 included studies, six studies reported on education, 24 on employment status, ten on insurance, five on household income, and three on miscellaneous topics. Neuromodulation seems accessible for patients with different education levels and different types of insurance. Additionally, it is not restricted to patients who are (un)employed. When comparing patients who initiated neuromodulation with those who did not, a significantly higher number of patients in the top quartile for education were found in the group without neuromodulation. Regarding insurance, inconclusive evidence was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Although neuromodulation was accessible for patients with varying levels of socioeconomic determinants, disparities were noted. When comparing the socioeconomic profiles of patients who receive neuromodulation and those who do not, education levels differ. Health-related inequality should be carefully monitored in chronic pain management with neuromodulation to ensure that potential disparities do not increase.

Boosting Confidence: Enhancing Spinal Cord Stimulator Needle and Lead Placement Through Simulation Training

Background This pilot study aims to examine the effectiveness of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) simulator training system in improving the confidence of pain fellows in SCS placement. Methodology Five Ukrainian physicians (neurologists, neurosurgeons, and an anesthesiologist) completed a 10-item survey regarding their confidence in various aspects of SCS placement and their opinions on how effective SCS models were for educational purposes. After placing SCS leads using the SCS simulator, the physicians took the same survey again. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine if there was a significant difference in total scores pre and post-simulator training. The software PAST (PAleontological STatistics) was used for statistical analysis. Results Overall, five participants had a 38% statistically significant increase in survey scores before and after the intervention (mean: 4.2 vs. 6.2, p = 0.0055). With regards to each item of the survey, participants had a significantly increased confidence in driving leads (2.6 vs. 5.2, p = 0.008) and in overall technical skills for the SCS procedure after the training (2.8 vs. 5.2, p = 0.0188). Although the other eight survey items were not statistically significant (p > 0.05), participants had a 28% increase in confidence when inserting epidural needles, a 20% increase in interpreting simulated X-rays, a 32% increase in navigating challenging anatomical variations, a 12% increase in identifying key anatomical landmarks, a 20% increase in ensuring the correct placement of the lead, or a 53% increase in preparedness for performing an SCS procedure in a real clinical setting. The participant's perspective on how valuable the stimulator training was for enhancing procedural skills increased by 38% and how well the simulator replicated real-life SCS procedure increased by 52%, although both were statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). Conclusions This pilot study shows that the utilization of simulated neuromodulation training is a viable means of augmenting neuromodulation education by increasing physician's confidence in aspects of the SCS placement procedure. The extent to which simulator training improves procedural skills in a real-life SCS placement needs to be investigated further.

Spinal cord stimulation and return to work of patients with failed back surgery syndrome

OBJECTIVES

Chronic pain has a substantial negative impact on work-related outcomes, which underlines the importance of interventions to reduce the burden. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) efficiently relieves pain in specific chronic pain syndromes and is recommended for treating failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) or post-surgical chronic back pain that is refractory to other treatments. To examine the impact of SCS in patients with FBSS on the return to work (RTW), we determined the RTW rate and the factors positively associated with the RTW.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among 106 patients with FBSS who benefitted from SCS at a single institution in France between September 1999 and March 2010, we retrospectively included 59 who had stopped work at the time of SCS because of disability or sick leave and evaluated the RTW (rate and predictors, estimating odds ratios [ORs] and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]).

RESULTS

The mean (SD) post-surgery follow-up for the 59 patients (34 men; mean [SD] age 46.9 [7.4] years) was 7.5 (3.6) years (range 5-15). The RTW rate was 30.5%, with a median [IQR] recovery time of 5.5 months [3-8.5]. RTW was improved with functional improvement evolution (OR 1.1, 95% CI [1.01-1.1], p = 0.02) and was reduced with unemployment > 3 years (OR 0.1, 95% CI [0.01-0.7], p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Our protocol for SCS for patients with FBSS, including a strict selection of patients and a multidisciplinary approach, led to good results, especially for the RTW. RTW should be a therapeutic goal, directly affecting indirect costs related to FBSS.

Personalised rehabilitation to improve return to work in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type II after spinal cord stimulation implantation: a study protocol for a 12-month randomised controlled trial-the OPERA study

BACKGROUND

For patients with therapy-refractory persistent spinal pain syndrome type II (PSPS-T2), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may serve as an effective minimally invasive treatment. Despite the evidence that SCS can improve return to work (RTW), only 9.5 to 14% of patients implanted with SCS are effectively capable of returning to work. Thus, it seems that current post-operative interventions are not effective for achieving RTW after SCS implantation in clinical practice. The current objective is to examine whether a personalised biopsychosocial rehabilitation programme specifically targeting RTW alters the work ability in PSPS-T2 patients after SCS implantation compared to usual care.

METHODS

A two-arm, parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled trial will be conducted including 112 patients who will be randomised (1:1) to either (a) a personalised biopsychosocial RTW rehabilitation programme of 14 weeks or (b) a usual care arm, both with a follow-up period until 12 months after the intervention. The primary outcome is work ability. The secondary outcomes are work status and participation, pain intensity, health-related quality of life, physical activity and functional disability, functional capacities, sleep quality, kinesiophobia, self-management, anxiety, depression and healthcare expenditure.

DISCUSSION

Within the OPERA project, we propose a multidisciplinary personalised biopsychosocial rehabilitation programme specifically targeting RTW for patients implanted with SCS, to tackle the high socio-economic burden of patients that are not re-entering the labour market. The awareness is growing that the burden of PSPS-T2 on our society is expected to increase over time due to the annual increase of spinal surgeries. However, innovative and methodologically rigorous trials exploring the potential to decrease the socio-economic burden when patients initiate a trajectory with SCS are essentially lacking.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05269212. Registered on 7 March 2022.

Goals, Expectations, and the Definition of Success for Neuromodulation for Pain According to Representatives of Neuromodulation Device Manufacturers

Representatives of neuromodulation device manufacturers are expected to facilitate the relationship between patients and healthcare providers. Nevertheless, the goals, expectations, and definition of success for neuromodulation for pain have not yet been explored. Representatives present at the 2nd Joint Congress of the INS European Chapters in September 2021 completed a survey to ascertain their opinions about the goals to achieve with neuromodulation, the factors that they expect to change, and their definition of success for neuromodulation. In total, 39 representatives completed the survey. To provide excellent service for patients (22.4%), to become a trusted partner for physicians (21.5%), and to provide excellent service for physicians (20.7%) were the highest ranked goals. The most frequently reported factors that were expected to change were pain intensity (23.1%), patient satisfaction (19.7%), mobility/functioning (14.5%), and capacity to return to work (13.7%). Within the definitions of success, increased quality of life of the patient was stated in 21% of the definitions, closely followed by pain control (19.3%) and happiness/patient satisfaction (15.8%). The goals of representatives of neuromodulation device manufacturers seem to focus on ensuring a good relationship with physicians on the one hand and providing good service towards patients on the other hand, whereby pain control, quality of life, and patient satisfaction seem to be important for company representatives.

Pathogenesis, etiology and treatment of failed back surgery syndrome

Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is associated with persistent lower back pain after and despite one or more surgical interventions. A number of factors underlie and maintain FBSS and successful management of pain chiefly depends on identifying them. Pharmacological, surgical, and non-surgical therapeutic measures are taken to treat the pain. Spinal cord stimulation and nerve stimulation have been widely practiced in this regard and enhanced pain reduction and patient satisfaction. In hernia and recurrent disc degeneration and sagittal imbalance, discectomy and/or fusion are indicated. The present review focuses on FBSS and its underlying components and on available treatment options.

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.