Improved Psychosocial and Functional Outcomes and Reduced Opioid Usage Following Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation

Real-world outcomes in spinal cord stimulation: predictors of reported effect and explantation using a comprehensive registry-based approach

Introduction

Despite advancements in implanted hardware and development of novel stimulation paradigms in Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS), real world evidence suggests a large variation in patient reported outcomes and a proportion of patients are later explanted due to loss of analgesia. Possible predictors for outcome have been explored in smaller short-term evaluations, but few clinically applicable robust measures for long term outcome have emerged.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive retrospective study based on an assembled patient-level aggregated database from multiple local and national registries in Sweden. Variables associated with risk of explantation (due to insufficient analgesia) and analgesic effect was analyzed using a Cox regression analysis and an ordered logit regression model, respectively.

Results

We found the accumulated risk of explantation due to loss of analgesia to be 10% and 21% at two and ten years follow up, respectively. The use of 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (compared with Tonic waveform; p = 0.003), and being 60 years or older (reference 18-40 years; p = 0.003) were associated with an increased risk of explantation.At a mean follow up at 1 year, 48% of patients reported a pain intensity reduction from baseline of at least 30%. Secondary (p = 0.030) and post-secondary (p = 0.001) education (compared with primary education) was associated with an increased probability of successful patient reported outcomes.

Conclusion

This study suggests that a higher educational level and being employed are associated with successful treatment outcome in patients with chronic pain treated with SCS in Sweden.

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

INTRODUCTION

Persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) or failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) refers to new or persistent pain following spinal surgery for back or leg pain in a subset of patients. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a neuromodulation technique that can be considered in patients with predominant leg pain refractory to conservative treatment. Patients with predominant low back pain benefit less from SCS. Another neuromodulation technique for treatment of chronic low back pain is subcutaneous stimulation or peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS). We investigated the effect of SCS with additional PNFS on pain and quality of life of patients with PSPS compared with that of SCS alone after 12 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a comparative study of patients with PSPS who responded to treatment with either SCS + PNFS or SCS only following a multicenter randomized clinical trial protocol. In total, 75 patients completed the 12-month follow-up: 21 in the SCS-only group and 54 in the SCS + PNFS group. Outcome measures were pain (visual analog scale), quality of life (36-Item Short Form Survey [SF-36]), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), overall health (EuroQol Five-Dimension [EQ-5D]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and pain assessed by the McGill questionnaire.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Both groups showed a significant reduction in back and leg pain at 12 months compared with baseline measurements. No significant differences were found between the groups in effect on both primary (pain) and secondary parameters (SF-36, HADS, EQ-5D, ODI, and McGill pain).

CONCLUSION

In a subgroup of patients with chronic back and leg pain, SCS alone provided similar long-term pain relief and quality-of-life improvement as PNFS in addition to SCS. In patients with refractory low back pain not responding to SCS alone, adding PNFS should be recommended.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT01776749.

Heterogeneous Cortical Effects of Spinal Cord Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

The understanding of the cortical effects of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remains limited. Multiple studies have investigated the effects of SCS in resting-state electroencephalography. However, owing to the large variation in reported outcomes, we aimed to describe the differential cortical responses between two types of SCS and between responders and nonresponders using magnetoencephalography (MEG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted 5-minute resting-state MEG recordings in 25 patients with chronic pain with active SCS in three sessions, each after a one-week exposure to tonic, burst, or sham SCS. We extracted six spectral features from the measured neurophysiological signals: the alpha peak frequency; alpha power ratio (power 7-9 Hz/power 9-11 Hz); and average power in the theta (4-7.5 Hz), alpha (8-12.5 Hz), beta (13-30 Hz), and low-gamma (30.5-60 Hz) frequency bands. We compared these features (using nonparametric permutation t-tests) for MEG sensor and cortical map effects across stimulation paradigms, between participants who reported low (< 5, responders) vs high (≥ 5, nonresponders) pain scores, and in three representative participants.

RESULTS

We found statistically significant (p < 0.05, false discovery rate corrected) increased MEG sensor signal power below 3 Hz in response to burst SCS compared with tonic and sham SCS. We did not find statistically significant differences (all p > 0.05) between the power spectra of responders and nonresponders. Our data did not show statistically significant differences in the spectral features of interest among the three stimulation paradigms or between responders and nonresponders. These results were confirmed by the MEG cortical maps. However, we did identify certain trends in the MEG source maps for all comparisons and several features, with substantial variation across participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The considerable variation in cortical responses to the various SCS treatment options necessitates studies with sample sizes larger than commonly reported in the field and more personalized treatment plans. Studies with a finer stratification between responders and nonresponders are required to advance the knowledge on SCS treatment effects.

The Association Between Bodily Functions and Cognitive/Emotional Factors in Patients With Chronic Pain Treated With Neuromodulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

OBJECTIVES

To date, pain relief in general continues to be the most prominent outcome measurement in daily routine care and clinical research. Nevertheless, the awareness of a shift toward more functional outcomes and/or emotional and cognitive outcomes has been raised. The interplay between bodily functions (such as pain intensity) and emotional or cognitive factors, however, has not yet been fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence for associations between bodily functions and cognitive and emotional factors in patients with chronic pain who are treated with neuromodulation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four data bases were consulted for this systematic literature review: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase. The Downs and Black Checklist (modified) was used to assess the risk of bias. The study protocol was prospectively registered at the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42021226803). If two or more studies reported correlation coefficients for a specific association, a meta-analysis based on correlation coefficients was performed for that specific association.

RESULTS

The initial data base search identified a total of 1432 studies, of which 19 studies were eventually included in the systematic review. Evidence was found for two associations: 1) a positive correlation between pain intensity and anxiety (r = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.50) and 2) a positive correlation between pain intensity and depression (r = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.51). The association between pain intensity and catastrophizing was not statistically significant (r = 0.23; 95% CI, -0.36 to 0.69).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the associations between pain intensity and anxiety/depression, a biopsychosocial approach might be the most suitable in clinical practice to properly address all aspects of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework in patients who are treated with neuromodulation.

Gradation of Clinical Holistic Response as New Composite Outcome to Evaluate Success in Spinal Cord Stimulation Studies for Pain

INTRODUCTION

The most prominent outcome measurement in the field of neuromodulation is pain relief. Nevertheless, the number of studies that rely on composite outcomes has increased. The aims of this study are twofold: (1) to evaluate which measures are important to include in a composite outcome and (2) to develop this new composite outcome to evaluate the degree of being a clinical holistic responder with a corresponding minimal clinical important difference (MCID).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 treated with High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation (HD-SCS) were used. Pain intensity for low back and leg pain, disability, health-related quality of life, medication use, and patient satisfaction were measured at baseline and after 12 months of HD-SCS. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses were used to evaluate which measures should be included in the composite outcome. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were applied to determine the MCID of the newly developed outcome measurement.

RESULTS

A three-factor model was the most appropriate for this data set, in which leg pain intensity, EQ5D VAS, and disability had the largest loading on these factors. A clinical holistic outcome was created with a total score ranging from 0 (=better [no pain, no disability, and perfect health status]) to 300 (=worse [maximal pain, maximal disability, and worst health status]). The MCID value based on an absolute change score from baseline up to 12 months of HD-SCS was 87.97. When calculating with percentage changes, a MCID value of 48.4% was revealed.

CONCLUSIONS

This new composite outcome evaluating the degree of deviation from being a holistic responder is a step toward a meaningful, overall outcome assessment for patients who are treated with SCS. Further studies to evaluate the psychometric properties and the generalizability toward other patient populations still need to be performed.

Study protocol: Effects of active versus passive recharge burst spinal cord stimulation on pain experience in persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2: a multicentre randomized trial (BURST-RAP study)

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown to be an effective treatment for patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS Type 2). The method used to deliver electrical charge in SCS is important. One such method is burst stimulation. Within burst stimulation, a recharge pattern is used to prevent buildup of charge in stimulated tissues. Two variations of burst waveforms are currently in use: one that employs active recharge and one that uses passive recharge. It has been suggested that differences exist between active and passive recharge paradigms related to both efficacy of pain relief and their underlying mechanism of action. Active recharge has been shown to activate both the medial spinal pathway, engaging cortical sensorimotor areas involved in location and intensity of pain, and lateral pathway, reaching brain areas involved with cognitive-emotional aspects of pain. Passive recharge has been suggested to act via modulation of thalamic neurons, which fire in a similar electrical pattern, and thereby modulate activity in various cortical areas including those related to motivational and emotional aspects of pain. The objective of this randomized clinical trial is to assess and compare the effect of active versus passive recharge Burst SCS on a wide spectrum of pain in PSPS Type 2 patients.

Methods

This multicentre randomized clinical trial will take place in 6 Dutch hospitals. PSPS Type 2 patients (n=94) will be randomized into a group receiving either active or passive recharge burst. Following a successful trial period, patients are permanently implanted. Patients complete the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) (primary outcome at 6 months), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS), Patient Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (PVAQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Quality of Life (EQ-5D), Oswestery Disability Index (ODI), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and painDETECT questionnaires (secondary outcomes) at baseline, after trial, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months following implantation.

Discussion

The BURST-RAP trial protocol will shed light on possible clinical differences and effectivity of pain relief, including emotional-motivational aspects between active and passive burst SCS in PSPS Type 2 patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05421273. Registered on 16 June 2022. Netherlands Trial Register NL9194. Registered on 23 January 2021.

Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation: The importance of an integrated assessment of clinical and psychosocial factors

BACKGROUND

A previously developed educational e-health tool considers both clinical and psychosocial factors when selecting patients with chronic pain for spinal cord stimulation (SCS). The validity of the composite recommendations was evaluated in a retrospective study, demonstrating a strong relationship with patient outcomes after SCS.

METHODS

An additional retrospective analysis was performed to determine the added value of a psychosocial evaluation as part of the decision-making process on SCS. Data concerned 482 patients who were considered for SCS in 2018-2019. Analysis focused on the relationship between the different layers of the tool recommendations (clinical, psychosocial, composite) with trial results and patient outcomes at 6 months after SCS. Of the initial study population, 381 patients underwent SCS and had follow-up data on at least one of three pain-related outcome measures.

RESULTS

Pain improvement was observed in 76% of the patients for whom SCS was strongly recommended based on merely the clinical aspects. This percentage varied by the level of psychosocial problems and ranged from 86% in patients without any compromising psychosocial factors to 60% in those with severe problems. Similarly, the severity of psychosocial problems affected trial results in patients for whom SCS was either recommended or strongly recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The strong relationship between psychosocial factors embedded in the SCS e-health tool and patient outcomes supports an integrated and multidisciplinary approach in the selection of patients for SCS. The educational e-health tool, combining both clinical and psychosocial aspects, is believed to be helpful for further education and implementation of this approach.

Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Management of Chronic Pain: Current Perspectives

Over the last several decades, opioid diversion, misuse, and over-prescription have run rampant in the United States. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been FDA approved for treatment for a primary indication of neuropathic limb pain that is resistant to more conservative medical therapy. The disorders qualified for treatment include neuropathic, post-surgical, post-amputation, osteodegenerative, and pain related to vascular disease. Some of the most frequently cited conditions for treatment of SCS include failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) Type I and Type II, and post-herpetic neuralgias. Developments in SCS systems have led to the differentiation between the delivered electromechanical waveform patterns, including tonic, burst, and high-frequency. Burst SCS mitigates traditional paresthesia due to expedited action potential and offers improved pain relief. Burst SCS has been shown in available studies to be non-inferior to the traditional SCS, which can cause pain paresthesia in patients who already have chronic pain. Burst SCS does not seem to cause or need the paresthesia seen in traditional SCS, making SCS not tolerable to patients.

Moreover, some studies suggest that burst SCS may decrease opioid consumption in patients with chronic pain. This can make burst SCS an extremely useful tool in the battle against chronic pain and the raging opioid epidemic. As of now, more research needs to be performed to further delineate the effectiveness and long-term safety of this device.

Passive Recharge Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation Provides Sustainable Improvements in Pain and Psychosocial Function: 2-year Results From the TRIUMPH Study

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, international, multicenter, single-arm, post-market study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess long-term safety and effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation using a passive recharge burst stimulation design for chronic intractable pain in the trunk and/or limbs. Herein we present 24-month outcomes from the TRIUMPH study (NCT03082261).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Passive recharge burst spinal cord stimulation (B-SCS) uniquely mimics neuronal burst firing patterns in the nervous system and has been shown to modulate the affective and attentional components of pain processing.

METHODS

After a successful trial period, subjects received a permanent SCS implant and returned for follow-up at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in physical, mental, and emotional functioning observed after 6 months of treatment were maintained at 2 years. Pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) scores dropped below the population norm. Health-related quality of life on EQ-5D improved across all domains and the mean index score was within one standard deviation of norm. Pain reduction (on NRS) was statistically significant (P < 0.001) at all timepoints. Patient reported pain relief, a stated percentage of improvement in pain, was consistent at all timepoints at 60%. Patients reported significant improvements across all measures including activity levels and impact of pain on daily life. At 24 months, 84% of subjects were satisfied and 90% would recommend the procedure. Subjects decreased their chronic pain medication intake for all categories; 38% reduced psychotropic and muscle relaxants, 46% reduced analgesic, anti-convulsant and NSAIDs, and 48% reduced opioid medication. Adverse events occurred at low rates without unanticipated events.

CONCLUSION

Early positive results with B-SCS were maintained long term. Evidence across multiple assessment tools show that B-SCS can alleviate pain intensity, psychological distress, and improve physical function and health-related quality of life.Level of Evidence: 3.

The Role of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Reducing Opioid Use in the Setting of Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to examine research on the impact of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) on the reduction of preimplantation opioid dose and what preimplantation opioid dose is associated with a reduction or discontinuation of opioid use postimplantation.

METHODS

Systematic review of literature from PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid Medline search of "opioid" and "pain" and "spinal cord stimulator." Inclusion criteria included original research providing data on SCS preimplantation opioid dosing and 12 months postimplantation opioid dosing or that correlated specific preimplantation opioid dose or opioid dose cutoff with significantly increased likelihood of opioid use discontinuation at 12 months postimplantation.

RESULTS

Systematic review of the literature yielded 17 studies providing data on pre-SCS and post-SCS implantation dose and 4 providing data on the preimplantation opioid dose that significantly increased likelihood of opioid use discontinuation at 12 months postimplantation. Data from included studies indicated that SCS is an effective tool in reducing opioid dose from preimplantation levels at 12 months postimplantation. Data preliminarily supports the assertion that initiation of SCS at a preimplantation opioid dose of ≤20 to ≤42.5 morphine milligram equivalents increases the likelihood of postimplantation elimination of opioid use.

DISCUSSION

SCS is an effective treatment for many types of chronic pain and can reduce or eliminate chronic opioid use. Preimplantation opioid dose may impact discontinuation of opioid use postimplantation and the effectiveness of SCS in the relief of chronic pain. More research is needed to support and strengthen clinical recommendations for initiation of SCS use at lower daily opioid dose.

Procedure-Related Outcomes Including Readmission Following Spinal Cord Stimulator Implant Procedures: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to reduce opioid consumption, reduce pain, improve quality of life compared to conventional therapy, and be more effective than spine reoperation in carefully selected patients. In this study, we evaluate readmissions after SCS implantation procedures, costs, predictors, and etiologies for readmission following implantation procedures.

METHODS

The study was a retrospective cohort using the National Readmissions Database from 2013 to 2017. Administrative billing codes were used to identify patients undergoing SCS implantation procedures. The primary outcome of our study was 30-day readmission following the SCS implantation procedure. Continuous outcomes were compared between groups using the Student t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test. In addition, multivariable predictors of 30-day readmission were assessed by hierarchical logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 3737 (26.7% open surgical SCS implants [OS-SCS]) individuals admitted to the hospital for SCS implantation were included in the final cohort analysis. The cohort consisted of predominantly female patients (58.71%) and in the 50- to 64-year age group (35.46%). Patients who underwent open surgical SCS implantation had a longer length of stay during the initial admission and a higher 30-day readmission rate (9.4% vs 7% P = .01). OS-SCS, older age, lower socioeconomic status, patients with specific comorbidities (ie, hypertension or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]), and home discharge are associated with readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Readmission rates after SCS implantation are around 7.7% in the United States. Infection and postoperative complications remain the top etiologies for readmission. Open surgical SCS implantation is associated with more extended initial hospitalization and a higher rate of readmission when compared to percutaneous SCS implantation procedures.

The Influence of Missing Data on Disabilities in Patients Treated with High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Tipping Point Sensitivity Analysis

New waveforms have changed the field of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) to optimize therapy outcomes, among which is High-Dose SCS (HD-SCS). Missing observations are often encountered when conducting clinical trials in this field. In this study, different approaches with varying assumptions were constructed to evaluate how conclusions may be influenced by these assumptions. The aim is to perform a tipping point sensitivity analysis to evaluate the influence of missing data on the overall conclusion regarding the effectiveness of HD-SCS on disability. Data from the Discover study were used, in which 185 patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome were included. Disability was evaluated before SCS and after 1, 3 and 12 months of HD-SCS. During the second, third and fourth visit, data from 130, 114 and 90 patients were available, respectively. HD-SCS resulted in a significant decrease in disability scores based on the analysis of observed data and with multiple imputations. The tipping point sensitivity analysis revealed that the shift parameter was 17. Thus, the conclusion concerning the time effect under a "missing at random" mechanism is robust when the shift parameter for the disability score is 17. From a clinical point of view, a shift of 17 points on disability is not very plausible. Therefore we tend to consider the conclusions drawn under "missing at random" as being robust.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

Multicentre, clinical trial of burst spinal cord stimulation for neck and upper limb pain NU-BURST: a trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established therapy for chronic neuropathic pain and most frequently utilised for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS). BurstDR™ also known as DeRidder Burst-SCS, a novel waveform, has demonstrated superiority to conventional tonic stimulation of the thoracic spine in FBSS. There are case reports of an improvement in multidimensional pain outcomes using DeRidder Burst-SCS in the cervical spine for chronic neck and cervical radicular pain. The safety and efficacy of cervical DeRidder Burst-SCS stimulation still however remain undetermined.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a prospective, multicentre feasibility trial evaluating the safety and therapeutic efficacy of DeRidder Burst-SCS stimulation for the treatment of chronic intractable neck pain with or without radiation to the arm, shoulder, and upper back. After baseline evaluation, subjects will undergo an SCS trial using the Abbott Invisible Trial system according to standard clinical procedures. During the trial phase, SCS leads will be implanted in the cervical epidural space. At the end of the SCS trial, subjects experiencing at least 50% pain relief will be considered for permanent implant. Pain intensity, medication usage, and other multidimensional pain outcomes will be collected. The timing of these will be at baseline, end of the SCS trial and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits. Incidence of adverse events will be collected throughout the study duration.

DISCUSSION

The results of this feasibility study will validate the efficacy and safety of DeRidder Burst-SCS stimulation in the cervical spine. The results obtained in this study will potentially be used to generate a level 1 evidence-based study with formal statistical hypotheses testing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03159169.

Higher Preimplantation Opioid Doses Associated With Long-Term Spinal Cord Stimulation Failure in 211 Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

Objective

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). We studied the effect of preimplantation opioid use on SCS outcome and the effect of SCS on opioid use during a two‐year follow‐up period.

Materials and methods

The study cohort included 211 consecutive FBSS patients who underwent an SCS trial from January 1997 to March 2014. Participants were divided into groups, which were as follows: 1) SCS trial only (n = 47), 2) successful SCS (implanted and in use throughout the two‐year follow‐up period, n = 131), and 3) unsuccessful SCS (implanted but later explanted or revised due to inadequate pain relief, n = 29). Patients who underwent explantation for other reasons (n = 4) were excluded. Opioid purchase data from January 1995 to March 2016 were retrieved from national registries.

Results

Higher preimplantation opioid doses associated with unsuccessful SCS (ROC: AUC = 0.66, p = 0.009), with 35 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day as the optimal cutoff value. All opioids were discontinued in 23% of patients with successful SCS, but in none of the patients with unsuccessful SCS (p = 0.004). Strong opioids were discontinued in 39% of patients with successful SCS, but in none of the patients with unsuccessful SCS (p = 0.04). Mean opioid dose escalated from 18 ± 4 MME/day to 36 ± 6 MME/day with successful SCS and from 22 ± 8 MME/day to 82 ± 21 MME/day with unsuccessful SCS (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Higher preimplantation opioid doses were associated with SCS failure, suggesting the need for opioid tapering before implantation. With continuous SCS therapy and no explantation or revision due to inadequate pain relief, 39% of FBSS patients discontinued strong opioids, and 23% discontinued all opioids. This indicates that SCS should be considered before detrimental dose escalation.