Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Chronic Back Pain: Therapy Outcome Predictive Factors

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.

A Retrospective Comparison of Long-Term Treatment Results of Subcutaneous Stimulation and Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Neuralgia

OBJECTIVES

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is known to be an effective long-term treatment option for chronic neuropathic pain. Subcutaneous stimulation (SubQ) is increasingly used to treat chronic back and neck pain, but long-term outcomes are unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with neurostimulation devices implanted during the past 16 years were evaluated. Their continuation or termination of the treatment was taken as a measure of long-term treatment success. Age, sex, underlying pain condition, stimulation modality (SCS, SubQ, or hybrid), occurrence, and reasons for treatment termination were documented. Patients were classified as long-term responders and long-term nonresponders and analyzed with their clinical data and stimulation modality. The sample consisted of 98 patients. Of these, 66 were treated with SCS, 21 with SubQ, and 11 with a hybrid system.

RESULTS

Approximately 61.3% of patients receiving SubQ terminated the treatment within two years because of ineffectiveness, whereas only 28.8% of patients receiving SCS terminated their stimulation. Back and neck pain were associated with treatment termination (p = 0.011). SubQ was also significantly associated with treatment termination.

CONCLUSIONS

SubQ seems not to provide substantial long-term pain relief for back and neck pain because most patients abandoned their stimulation therapy.

Subcutaneous Stimulation as Add-on Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Significantly Increases the Total Electrical Charge per Second: Aspects on Stimulation Parameters and Energy Requirements of the Implanted Neurostimulators

OBJECTIVE

In our previous multicenter randomized controlled trial, we demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) as add-on therapy to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of chronic back pain in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) or failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). To our knowledge, no previous study has investigated the effect of PNFS as an add-on to SCS on the energy consumption of the implanted neurostimulators. Therefore, in this study, we compared the specific stimulation parameters and energy requirements of a previously unreported group of patients with only SCS with those of a group of patients with SCS and add-on PNFS. We also investigated differences that might explain the need for PNFS in the treatment of chronic low back pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed 75 patients with complete sets of stimulation parameters, with 21 patients in the SCS-only group and 54 patients in the SCS + PNFS group. Outcome measures were average visual analog scale score, SCS parameters (voltage, frequency, and pulse width), SCS charge per second, and total charge per second. We analyzed baseline characteristics and differences between and within groups over time.

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable patient characteristics at baseline and showed a significant decrease in back and leg pain. SCS charge per second did not significantly differ between the groups at baseline or at 12 months. The total charge per second was significantly higher in the active SCS + PNFS group than in the SCS-only group at baseline; in the SCS + PNFS group, this persisted for up to 12 months, and the SCS charge per second and total charge per second increased significantly over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that add-on PNFS increases the total charge per second compared with SCS alone, as expected. However, further research is needed because our results do not directly explain why some patients require add-on PNFS to treat low back pain.

The Added Value of Subcutaneous Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation Combined with SCS, as Salvage Therapy, for Refractory Low Back Pain Component in Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Implanted Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study (CUMPNS Study) Based on 3D-Mapping Composite Pain Assessment

While Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) provides satisfaction to almost 2/3 of Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome-Type 2 (PSPS-T2) patients implanted for refractory chronic back and/or leg pain, when not adequately addressed the back pain component, leaves patients in a therapeutic cul-de-sac. Peripheral Nerve field Stimulation (PNfS) has shown interesting results addressing back pain in the same population. Far from placing these two techniques in opposition, we suggest that these approaches could be combined to better treat PSPS-T2 patients. We designed a RCT (CUMPNS), with a 12-month follow-up, to assess the potential added value of PNfS, as a salvage therapy, in PSPS-T2 patients experiencing a "Failed SCS Syndrome" in the back pain component. Fourteen patients were included in this study and randomized into 2 groups ("SCS + PNfS" group/n = 6 vs. "SCS only" group/n = 8). The primary objective of the study was to compare the percentage of back pain surface decrease after 3 months, using a computerized interface to obtain quantitative pain mappings, combined with multi-dimensional SCS outcomes. Back pain surface decreased significantly greater for the "SCS + PNfS" group (80.2% ± 21.3%) compared to the "SCS only" group (13.2% ± 94.8%) (p = 0.012), highlighting the clinical interest of SCS + PNfS, in cases where SCS fails to address back pain.