Treatment of nonsurgical refractory back pain with high-frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz: 12-month results of a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized controlled trial

An Evidence-Based Consensus for the Use of Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Non-Surgical Low Back Pain: The NEURON Group

Introduction

The use of electrical neuromodulation has often been limited to those with previous back surgery, peripheral neuropathy, and complex regional pain syndrome. Many patients with severe intractable low back pain were thought to be candidates for spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation, or peripheral nerve stimulation but did not meet the criteria. Recently, additional high-level data has supported the use of SCS in non-surgical low back pain (NSLBP), and United States Food and Drug Administration approval has been granted. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) executive committee realized an unmet need to develop criteria for patient selection for this specific patient population. This is a NEURON project (neuroscience, education, utilization, risk mitigation, optimal outcomes, and neuromodulation), a living guideline for evolving therapies and indications, and is focused on the use of neuraxial stimulation for the treatment of refractory pain.

Methods

After board approval, the society accepted nominees for the project, with an emphasis on experience, publication, research, and diversity. The team created an outline for discussion, chose a grading system based on published guidelines, and created consensus points.

Results

The evidence led to several consensus points to best guide patient selection based on the level of evidence and expert opinion. The results will lead to improved safety and efficacy in implanted patients, and to a new standard for best practices.

Conclusion

The selection of patients for implantation in those who have NSLBP should be based on published literature, best practice, and expert opinion. This NEURON project will allow for regular updates to create a living guideline that will allow for better assimilation of information to improve safety and efficacy going forward.

Rates and Causes of Reoperations Following Spinal Cord Stimulation Within a 2-12 year Period

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord stimulation has been mainly used for the management of postsurgical persistent neuropathic. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the rate and causes for reoperation following spinal cord stimulation, and to identify risk factors for reoperation.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted including patients who underwent surgical implantation of spinal cord stimulators within a 10-year period. The medical records of the included patients were reviewed for reoperations, demographics and certain clinical parameters. Demographics and clinical parameters were compared between patients with and without reoperations, and between patients with and without surgical site infections.

RESULTS

Overall, 1014 index procedures and 175 reoperations were performed within the study period. At least 1 reoperation was performed in 97 (9.5%) cases. The most common cause for revision was lead migration or lead misplacement (n = 31, 3.0%). In 31 (3.1%) cases the stimulator was removed due to no pain relief. Surgical site infection that required reoperation developed in 30 cases (2.9%). Younger age was associated with a need for reoperation (Odds Ratio [OR]: .97,95% Confidence Interval [CI]:0.95-.99, P = .005), while higher Body Mass index and diabetes were associated with development of infection (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00-1.11, P = .036 and OR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.05-5.47, P = .033 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that certain measures could improve the overall reoperation rate after spinal cord stimulation, such as accurate positioning of the spinal cord stimulators and design of smaller generators. Moreover, preoperative optimization of patients could result in lower complication rate, lower reoperations rate, and subsequently better clinical outcomes.

Cylindrical vs Paddle Leads in Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Long-term Treatment of Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review compares the long-term efficacy of cylindrical-lead spinal cord stimulation (CL-SCS) vs paddle-lead spinal cord stimulation (Paddle-SCS) for chronic pain management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included prospective and retrospective studies with at least ten patients reporting on the efficacy of either lead type. Primary outcomes were pain score reduction (measured by the visual analog scale [VAS] and numeric rating scale [NRS]) and 50% pain relief after at least 12 months. Secondary outcomes included functional disability and complications, such as lead migration and infection rates. Meta-analyses compared effect sizes, while meta-regression and subgroup analyses addressed heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 96 studies, comprising 7726 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Paddle-SCS demonstrated superior pain reduction, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of 5.37 (95% CI [5.35, 5.38]) compared with CL-SCS, which had an SMD of 4.09 (95% CI [4.08, 4.10]) on the VAS. However, CL-SCS outperformed Paddle-SCS on the NRS, with SMDs of 4.39 vs 2.35, respectively. For 50% pain relief, Paddle-SCS had a success rate of 41.4%, as opposed to 35.4% for CL-SCS. Paddle-SCS showed a lower migration rate (4.3% vs 7.2% for CL-SCS) but higher infection rates (5.0% vs 3.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Paddle-SCS offers superior pain reduction (as measured by the VAS) and a lower migration rate, but a higher infection risk compared with CL-SCS. CL-SCS showed better outcomes as measured by the NRS. The choice between Paddle-SCS and CL-SCS should be individualized according to patient-specific factors and treatment goals. Further research with rigorous study designs is needed to provide clearer comparisons between these interventions.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and debilitating condition affecting millions worldwide. Among emerging interventions, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has gained attention as a potential alternative for managing chronic LBP, particularly when alternative approaches fail to provide adequate relief.

RECENT FINDINGS

This systematic review focuses on both residual pain levels and ability to perform daily tasks after treatment with SCS. The present investigation includes a systematic search for studies from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane, and Embase. Sources were eligible for inclusion in the review if they were published from 2010 to present (May 1, 2024). 8 studies involving a total of 1,172 patients were evaluated. This systematic review demonstrated that SCS is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for both short and long-term pain relief, functionality, psychological well-being, and opioid dependency. Furthermore, newer SCS approaches, such as high frequency (HF), differential target multiplexed (DTM), and multiphase SCS all demonstrated improved efficacy over traditional SCS for pain relief and functionality scores. Adverse event rates for all trials were low and represent the safety of SCS treatments. The present investigation provides insight into the capabilities of both traditional SCS and HF SCS, DTM SCS, and multiphase SCS as compared to baseline pain and functionality as well as conventional medical management (CMM). This review grants physicians a broader picture of the applicability of SCS, its safety profile, and the opportunities it offers for pain reduction and functionality over CMM.

Two-year outcomes using fast-acting sub-perception therapy for spinal cord stimulation: results of a real-world multicenter study in the United States

BACKGROUND

Fast-acting Sub-perception Therapy (FAST) is a novel spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modality delivering paresthesia-free pain relief. Our study evaluated the longer-term, real-world impact of FAST on chronic pain.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

As part of a multicenter, real-world, consecutive case series, we retrospectively identified patients who used FAST-SCS and analyzed their data. The numerical rating scale (NRS) was used to evaluate the overall pain.

RESULTS

Data from 315 patients were analyzed at baseline and their last available follow-up (median 6.8 months after SCS implantation). At the time of the analysis, 12-, 18-, and 24-month data were available for 112, 86, and 50 patients, respectively. At the last follow-up, NRS pain score was reduced by 5.5 ± 2.5 compared to baseline (from 7.8 ± 1.7 to 2.3 ± 2.0; p < 0.0001). Interim long-term analysis showed that results were sustained for up to 2 years, with 64% of patients reporting a minimal overall pain score (NRS ≤2/10).

CONCLUSION

This ongoing, real-world, multicenter study showed that FAST-SCS achieved significant paresthesia-free pain relief, while long-term interim analysis suggests that outcomes could be sustained for up to 2 years. Our data provide preliminary insights into the potential utility of this low-frequency sub-perception SCS paradigm using a biphasic active recharge pulse shape.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov identifier: NCT01550575).

Reporting guidelines for randomised controlled trial reports of implantable neurostimulation devices: the CONSORT-iNeurostim extension

Background

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement has improved the quality of reporting of randomised trials. Extensions to the CONSORT statement are often needed to address specific issues of trial reporting, including those relevant to particular types of interventions. Methodological and reporting deficiencies in clinical trials of implantable neurostimulation devices are common. The CONSORT-iNeurostim extension is a new reporting guideline for randomised controlled trials evaluating implantable neurostimulation devices.

Methods

CONSORT-iNeurostim was developed using the EQUATOR methodological framework including a literature review and expert consultation to generate an initial list of candidate items. The candidate items were included in a two-round Delphi survey, discussed at an international consensus meeting (42 stakeholders including healthcare professionals, methodologists, journal editors and industry representatives from the United States, United Kingdom, Netherlands and other countries), and refined through a checklist pilot (18 stakeholders).

Findings

The initial extension item list included 49 candidate items relevant to CONSORT-iNeurostim. We received 132 responses in the first round of the Delphi survey and 99 responses in the second round. Participants suggested an additional 20 candidate items for CONSORT-iNeurostim during the first round of the survey, and those achieving initial consensus were discussed at the consensus meeting. The CONSORT-iNeurostim extension includes 7 new checklist items, including one item for reporting the neurostimulation intervention comprising a separate checklist of 14 items.

Interpretation

The CONSORT-iNeurostim extension will promote increased transparency, clarity, and completeness of trial reports of implantable neurostimulation devices. It will assist journal editors, peer-reviewers, and readers to better interpret the appropriateness and generalisability of the methods used and reported outcomes.

Funding

Abbott, Boston Scientific Corp., Mainstay Medical, Medtronic Ltd, Nevro Corp. and Saluda Medical.

Minimally invasive treatments for chronic low back pain

ABSTRACT

This article describes minimally invasive treatments for managing chronic low back pain (LBP) related to lumbar spinal stenosis, facetogenic LBP, vertebrogenic LBP, or discogenic LBP. We also propose a clinical decision-making tool to guide clinicians in appropriate patient selection for various treatments.

Functional outcomes and healthcare utilization trends in postsurgical and nonsurgical patients following high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation therapy

Introduction

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the leading cause of disability in the United States and is associated with a steadily increasing burden of healthcare expenditures. Given this trend, it is essential to evaluate interventions aimed at reducing disability and optimizing healthcare utilization (HCU) in affected populations. This study investigates the impact of prior spinal surgery on functional outcomes and HCU patterns following high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy.

Methods

This retrospective observational study included 160 subjects who underwent implantation of a 10 kHz SCS device. Participants were divided into surgical and non-surgical cohorts for comparative analysis. Pain relief was assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), while disability levels were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). HCU was examined through the frequency of emergency department (ED) visits, outpatient visits for interventional pain procedures, and opioid consumption measured in morphine milliequivalents (MME).

Results

No statistically significant differences were observed between the surgical and non-surgical groups regarding pain relief and disability outcomes. Additionally, ED visits and outpatient visits for interventional pain procedures did not show significant differences between the two cohorts.

Discussion

This study represents the first comparative analysis of pain, disability, and HCU trends between surgical and non-surgical populations following 10 kHz SCS therapy. The results suggest that prior spinal surgery may not substantially affect the efficacy of 10 kHz SCS therapy in terms of pain relief, disability reduction, or HCU patterns.

Spinal Cord Stimulation vs Medical Management for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Importance

Chronic back and lower extremity pain is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) aims to improve symptoms and quality of life.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of SCS therapies compared with conventional medical management (CMM).

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to September 2, 2022.

Study Selection

Selected studies were randomized clinical trials comparing SCS therapies with sham (placebo) and/or CMM or standard treatments for adults with chronic back or leg pain who had not previously used SCS.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Evidence synthesis estimated odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) and their associated credible intervals (CrI) through bayesian network meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline for network meta-analyses was followed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were pain-related end points, including pain intensity (measured by visual analog scale) and proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain relief (responder rate) in the back or leg. Quality of life (measured by EQ-5D index score) and functional disability (measured by the Oswestry Disability Index score) were also considered.

Results

A total of 13 studies of 1561 patients were included in the network meta-analysis comparing conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM across the 6 outcomes of interest at the 6-month follow-up. Both conventional and novel SCS therapies were associated with superior efficacy compared with CMM in responder rates in back (conventional SCS: OR, 3.00; 95% CrI, 1.49 to 6.72; novel SCS: OR, 8.76; 95% CrI, 3.84 to 22.31), pain intensity in back (conventional SCS: MD, -1.17; 95% CrI, -1.64 to -0.70; novel SCS: MD, -2.34; 95% CrI, -2.96 to -1.73), pain intensity in leg (conventional SCS: MD, -2.89; 95% CrI, -4.03 to -1.81; novel SCS: MD, -4.01; 95% CrI, -5.31 to -2.75), and EQ-5D index score (conventional SCS: MD, 0.15; 95% CrI, 0.09 to 0.21; novel SCS: MD, 0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13 to 0.21). For functional disability, conventional SCS was superior to CMM (MD, -7.10; 95% CrI, -10.91 to -3.36). No statistically significant differences were observed for other comparisons.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and network meta-analysis found that SCS therapies for treatment of chronic pain in back and/or lower extremities were associated with greater improvements in pain compared with CMM. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management.

Hidden influence? Unmasking conflicts of interest from randomized clinical trials on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of healthcare interventions. However, conflicts of interest (COIs) can compromise the scientific integrity in these trials. This study characterized COIs in RCTs on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain, focusing on the prevalence, disclosure, and monetary value of COIs.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed RCTs published from January 1, 2013 to July 27, 2023. Primary outcomes included the presence, disclosure, and monetary value of COIs, while secondary outcomes assessed the presence of direct/indirect COIs, sponsor access to data, and associations between COIs and select variables, including journal impact factor, publication year, and study outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 38 RCTs, 30 (78.9%) reported COIs. On average, 35.6% of authors per RCT had at least one COI, with a mean of 0.7 COIs per author. The mean annual monetary value of COIs was US$41,157.83 per author per RCT. 29 RCTs (76.3%) had undisclosed COIs, with an average of 24.2% of authors per RCT having undisclosed COIs. Sponsor access to data was reported in 67.6% of RCTs. No associations were observed between the mean percentage of authors with COIs and the monetary value of COIs and select dependent variables (impact factor, publication year, and study outcomes).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial majority of RCTs reported COIs with many authors having undisclosed conflicts, highlighting the need for stringent COI disclosure guidelines to maintain research integrity. Expanding COI registry systems globally and increasing non-industry funding are crucial steps toward enhancing transparency and reducing biases in medical research.

Spine Pain

OBJECTIVE

Spine pain is one of the most common presenting concerns in health care settings. This article reviews clinical strategies for evaluating and managing patients with spine pain.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

Minimally invasive interventional procedures, virtual reality, predictive analytics, neuromodulation, and other evolving technologies are significantly impacting the management of spine pain. Advances in modern pain science have also led to effective skills and treatment strategies, including patient interviews and queries for insight regarding pain, education, and cognitive restructuring, and adjusting the timing of examination (after reeducation) and examination techniques to encourage the experience of movement in the absence of assumed tissue damage. An evolving understanding of the influence of patient-centric thoughts, framing, emotional status, and cognitive restructuring's influence on the brain's response to perceived threat are important aspects of spine pain management.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

The correlation of clinical presentations with structural abnormalities is necessary but insufficient to evaluate and manage spine pain. Modern pain science acknowledges pain as a subjective experience but recognizes a critical distinction between tissue damage, nociception, and the experience of pain. What and how we communicate with patients, as well as evolving neuromodulation technologies, augment conventional approaches.

Surgical treatment of refractory low back pain using implanted BurstDR spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in a cohort of patients without options for corrective surgery: Findings and results from the DISTINCT study, a prospective randomized multi-center-controlled trial

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent, disabling condition affecting millions of people. Patients with an identifiable anatomic pain generator and resulting neuropathic lower extremity symptoms often undergo spine surgery, but many patients lack identifiable and/or surgically corrective pathology. Nonoperative treatment options often fail to provide sustained relief. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is sometimes used to treat these patients, but the lack of level 1 evidence limits its widespread use and insurance coverage. The DISTINCT RCT study evaluates the efficacy of passive recharge burst SCS compared to conventional medical treatment (CMM) in alleviating chronic, refractory axial low back pain.

Methods

This prospective, multicenter, randomized, study with an optional 6-month crossover involved patients who were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery. The primary and secondary endpoints evaluated improvements in low back pain intensity (NRS), back pain-related disability (ODI), pain catastrophizing (PCS), and healthcare utilization. Patients were randomized to SCS therapy or CMM at 30 US study sites.

Results

The SCS arm reported an 85.3% NRS responder rate (≥ 50% reduction) compared to 6.2% (5/81) in the CMM arm. After the 6M primary endpoint, SCS patients elected to remain on assigned therapy and 66.2% (49/74) of CMM patients chose to trial SCS (crossover). At the 12M follow-up, SCS and crossover patients reported 78.6% and 71.4% NRS responder rates. Secondary outcomes indicated significant improvements in ODI, PCS, and reduced healthcare utilization. Six serious adverse events were reported and resolved without sequelae.

Conclusion

DISTINCT chronic low back pain patients with no indication for corrective surgery experienced a significant and sustained response to burst SCS therapy for up to 12 months. CMM patients who crossed over to the SCS arm reported profound improvements after 6 months. This data advocates for a timely consideration of SCS therapy in patients unresponsive to conservative therapy.

Twelve-month results from a randomized controlled trial comparing differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation and conventional spinal cord stimulation in subjects with chronic refractory axial low back pain not eligible for spine surgery

Background

Successful treatments for intractable chronic low back pain (CLBP) in patients who are not eligible for surgical interventions are scarce. The superior efficacy of differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM SCS) to conventional SCS (Conv-SCS) on the treatment of CLBP in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) who have failed surgical interventions (PSPS-T2) motivated the evaluation of DTM SCS versus Conv-SCS on PSPS patients who are non-surgical candidates (PSPS-T1).

Methods

This is a prospective, open label, crossover, post-market randomized controlled trial in 20 centers across the United States. Eligible patients were randomized to either DTM SCS or Conv-SCS in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was CLBP responder rate (percentage of subjects with ≥50% CLBP relief) at 3-month in randomized subjects who completed trialing (modified intention-to-treat population). Patients were followed up to 12 months. Secondary endpoints included change of CLBP and leg pain, responder rates, changes in disability, quality of life, patient satisfaction and global impression of change, and safety profile. An optional crossover was available at 6-month to all patients.

Results

About 121 PSPS-T1 subjects with CLBP and leg pain mostly associated with degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy and who were not eligible for spine surgery were randomized. CLBP responder rate with DTM SCS (93.5%) was superior to Conv-SCS (36.4%) at the primary endpoint. Superior CLBP responder rates (88.1%-90.5%) were obtained with DTM SCS at all other timepoints. Mean CLBP reduction with DTM SCS (6.52 cm) was superior to that with Conv-SCS (3.01 cm) at the primary endpoint. Similar CLBP reductions (6.23-6.43 cm) were obtained with DTM SCS at other timepoints. DTM SCS provided significantly better leg pain reduction and responder rate, improvement of disability and quality of life, and better patient satisfaction and global impression of change. 90.9% of Conv-SCS subjects who crossed over were CLBP responders at completion of the study. Similar safety profiles were observed between the two groups.

Conclusion

DTM SCS for chronic CLBP in nonsurgical candidates is superior to Conv-SCS. Improvements were sustained and provided significant benefits on the management of these patients.

Does industry funding and study location impact findings from randomized controlled trials of spinal cord stimulation? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE

Concerns have been raised that effects observed in studies of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) funded by industry have not been replicated in non-industry-funded studies and that findings may differ based on geographical location where the study was conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of industry funding and geographical location on pain intensity, function, health-related quality of life and adverse events reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Systematic review conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and WikiStim databases until September 2022. Parallel-group RCTs evaluating SCS for patients with neuropathic pain were included. Results of studies were combined in random-effects meta-analysis using the generic-inverse variance method. Subgroup meta-analyses were conducted according to funding source and study location. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool.

FINDINGS

Twenty-nine reports of 17 RCTs (1823 participants) were included. For the comparison of SCS with usual care, test for subgroup differences indicate no significant differences (p=0.48, moderate certainty evidence) in pain intensity score at 6 months for studies with no funding or funding not disclosed (pooled mean difference (MD) -1.96 (95% CI -3.23 to -0.69; 95% prediction interval (PI) not estimable, I2=0%, τ2=0)), industry funding (pooled MD -2.70 (95% CI -4.29 to -1.11; 95% PI -8.75 to 3.35, I2=97%, τ2=2.96) or non-industry funding (MD -3.09 (95% CI -4.47 to -1.72); 95% PI, I2 and τ2 not applicable). Studies with industry funding for the comparison of high-frequency SCS (HF-SCS) with low-frequency SCS (LF-SCS) showed statistically significant advantages for HF-SCS compared to LF-SCS while studies with no funding showed no differences between HF-SCS and LF-SCS (low certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION

All outcomes of SCS versus usual care were not significantly different between studies funded by industry and those independent from industry. Pain intensity score and change in pain intensity from baseline for comparisons of HF-SCS to LF-SCS seem to be impacted by industry funding.

Pocket pain following spinal cord stimulator generator implantation: A narrative review of this under-reported risk

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment option for chronic pain. Pain over the implantable pulse generator, or pocket pain, is an incompletely understood risk of SCS implantation which may limit the efficacy of treatment and patient quality of life. The goal of this narrative review is to analyze the literature to gain a more thorough understanding of the incidence and risk factors for the development of pocket pain to help guide treatment options and minimize its occurrence in the future.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted investigating the development of pocket pain in patients with SCS for the management of a variety of pain conditions.

RESULTS

In total, 305 articles were included in the original database search and 50 met the criteria for inclusion. The highest level of evidence for papers that specifically investigated pocket pain was level III. Four retrospective, observational analyses included pocket pain as a primary outcome. The remainder of the included studies listed pocket pain as an adverse event of SCS implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a relative dearth of primary literature that examines the incidence, characteristics, and health economic implications of pocket pain in patients with SCS. This highlights the need for large-scale, high-quality prospective or randomized controlled trials examining pocket pain. This may ultimately help prevent and reduce pocket pain leading to improved efficacy of treatment and greater patient quality of life.

Variables associated with nonresponders to high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation

INTRODUCTION

The use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy to treat chronic pain continues to rise. Optimal patient selection remains one of the most important factors for SCS success. However, despite increased utilization and the existence of general indications, predicting which patients will benefit from neuromodulation remains one of the main challenges for this therapy. Therefore, this study aims to identify the variables that may correlate with nonresponders to high-frequency (10 kHz) SCS to distinguish the subset of patients less likely to benefit from this intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center observational study of patients who underwent 10 kHz SCS implant. Patients were divided into nonresponders and responders groups. Demographic data and clinical outcomes were collected at baseline and statistical analysis was performed for all continuous and categorical variables between the two groups to calculate statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

The study population comprised of 237 patients, of which 67.51% were responders and 32.49% were nonresponders. There was a statistically significant difference of high levels of kinesiophobia, high self-perceived disability, greater pain intensity, and clinically relevant pain catastrophizing at baseline in the nonresponders compared to the responders. A few variables deemed potentially relevant, such as age, gender, history of spinal surgery, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use, psychiatric illness, and opioid utilization at baseline were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Our study is the first in the neuromodulation literature to raise awareness to the association of high levels of kinesiophobia preoperatively in nonresponders to 10 kHz SCS therapy. We also found statistically significant differences with greater pain intensity, higher self-perceived disability, and clinically relevant pain catastrophizing at baseline in the nonresponders relative to responders. It may be appropriate to screen for these factors preoperatively to identify patients who are less likely to respond to SCS. If these modifiable risk factors are present, it might be prudent to consider a pre-rehabilitation program with pain neuroscience education to address these factors prior to SCS therapy, to enhance successful outcomes in neuromodulation.

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

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

Healthcare Utilization (HCU) Reduction with High-Frequency (10 kHz) Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) Therapy

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment for patients with chronic pain. With increasing healthcare costs, it is important to determine the benefits of SCS in healthcare utilization (HCU). This retrospective, single-center observational study involved 160 subjects who underwent implantation of a high-frequency (10 kHz) SCS device. We focused on assessing trends in HCU by measuring opioid consumption in morphine milligram equivalents (MME), as well as monitoring emergency department (ED) and office visits for interventional pain procedures during the 12-month period preceding and following the SCS implant. Our results revealed a statistically significant reduction in HCU in all domains assessed. The mean MME was 51.05 and 26.52 pre- and post-implant, respectively. There was a 24.53 MME overall decrease and a mean of 78.2% statistically significant dose reduction (p < 0.0001). Of these, 91.5% reached a minimally clinically important difference (MCID) in opioid reduction. Similarly, we found a statistically significant (p < 0.01) decrease in ED visits, with a mean of 0.12 pre- and 0.03 post-implant, and a decrease in office visits for interventional pain procedures from a 1.39 pre- to 0.28 post-10 kHz SCS implant, representing a 1.11 statistically significant (p < 0.0001) mean reduction. Our study reports the largest cohort of real-world data published to date analyzing HCU trends with 10 kHz SCS for multiple pain etiologies. Furthermore, this is the first and only study evaluating HCU trends with 10 kHz SCS by assessing opioid use, ED visits, and outpatient visits for interventional pain procedures collectively. Preceding studies have individually investigated these outcomes, consistently yielding positive results comparable to our findings.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Intractable Visceral Pain Originating from the Pelvic and Abdominal Region: A Narrative Review on a Possible New Indication for Patients with Therapy-Resistant Pain

Aim

Visceral pain, characterized by pain that is diffuse and challenging to localize, occurs frequently and is difficult to treat. In cases where the pain becomes intractable despite optimal medical management, it can affect patients' Quality of Life (QoL). Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a potential solution for intractable visceral pain.

Purpose

In this narrative review, we collected all evidence regarding the efficacy of SCS for visceral pain across various underlying conditions.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science in which articles published from October 1st, 1963 up to March 7th, 2023 were identified.

Results

Seventy articles were included in this review of which most were retrospective cohort studies, case series and case reports. The studies, often with a small number of participants, reported on SCS for chronic pancreatitis, anorectal pain and bowel disorders, gynaecological diagnoses, visceral pelvic pain, urological disorders and finally general visceral pain. They found positive effects on pain and/or symptom relief, opioid consumption, anxiety and depression and QoL. Complications occurred frequently but were often minor and reversible.

Conclusion

Better screening and selection criteria need to be established to optimally evaluate eligible patients who might benefit from SCS. A positive outcome of a sympathetic nerve block appears to be a potential indicator of SCS effectiveness. Additionally, women receiving SCS for endometriosis had a better outcome compared to other indications. Finally, SCS could also relief functional symptoms such as voiding problems and gastroparesis. Complications could often be resolved with revision surgery. Since SCS is expensive and not always covered by standard health insurance, the incorporation of cost-analyses is recommended. In order to establish a comprehensive treatment plan, including selection criteria for SCS, rigorous prospective, possibly randomized and controlled studies that are diagnosis-oriented, with substantial follow-up and adequate sample sizes, are needed.

Factors Predicting Clinically Relevant Pain Relief After Spinal Cord Stimulation for Patients With Chronic Low Back and/or Leg Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

RATIONALE

To optimize results with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic low back pain (CLBP) and/or leg pain, including persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS), careful patient selection based on proved predictive factors is essential. Unfortunately, the necessary selection process required to optimize outcomes of SCS remains challenging.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to evaluate predictive factors of clinically relevant pain relief after SCS for patients with CLBP and/or radicular leg pain, including PSPS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In August 2023, PubMed, Cinahl, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched to identify studies published between January 2010 and August 2023. Studies reporting the percentage of patients with ≥50% pain relief after SCS in patients with CLBP and leg pain, including PSPS at 12 or 24 months, were included. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool results for back, leg, and general pain relief. Predictive factors for pain relief after 12 months were examined using univariable and multivariable meta-regression.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies (2220 patients) were included for further analysis. The mean percentages of patients with substantial pain relief were 68% for leg pain, 63% for back pain, and 73% for general pain at 12 months follow-up, and 63% for leg pain, 59% for back pain, and 71% for general pain at 24 months follow-up assessment. The implantation method and baseline Oswestry Disability Index made the multivariable meta-regression model for ≥50% back pain relief. Sex and pain duration made the final model for ≥50% leg pain relief. Variable stimulation and implantation method made the final model for general pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

This review supports SCS as an effective pain-relieving treatment for CLBP and/or leg pain, and models were developed to predict substantial back and leg pain relief. To provide high-grade evidence for predictive factors, SCS studies of high quality are needed in which standardized factors predictive of SCS success, based on in-patient improvements, are monitored and reported.

Neurostimulation for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review of High-Quality Randomized Controlled Trials With Long-Term Follow-Up

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to review the best evidence on the long-term efficacy of neurostimulation for chronic pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically reviewed PubMed, CENTRAL, and WikiStim for studies published between the inception of the data bases and July 21, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimum of one-year follow-up that were of high methodologic quality as ascertained using the Delphi list criteria were included in the evidence synthesis. The primary outcome was long-term reduction in pain intensity, and the secondary outcomes were all other reported outcomes. Level of recommendation was graded from I to III, with level I being the highest level of recommendation.

RESULTS

Of the 7119 records screened, 24 RCTs were included in the evidence synthesis. Therapies with recommendations for their usage include pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) for postherpetic neuralgia, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for trigeminal neuralgia, motor cortex stimulation for neuropathic pain and poststroke pain, deep brain stimulation for cluster headache, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation for cluster headache, occipital nerve stimulation for migraine, peripheral nerve field stimulation for back pain, and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for back and leg pain, nonsurgical back pain, persistent spinal pain syndrome, and painful diabetic neuropathy. Closed-loop SCS is recommended over open-loop SCS for back and leg pain. SCS is recommended over PRF for postherpetic neuralgia. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation is recommended over SCS for complex regional pain syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurostimulation is generally effective in the long term as an adjunctive treatment for chronic pain. Future studies should evaluate whether the multidisciplinary management of the physical perception of pain, affect, and social stressors is superior to their management alone.

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

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

Spinal Cord Stimulation Efficacy and Erroneous Conclusions of the Cochrane Library Review of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Low Back Pain by Traeger et al

Neuromodulation, through the use of spinal cord stimulation, is an evolving therapeutic alternative for the management of chronic and refractory pain [...].

Evidence-based consensus guidelines on patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.

Trends in spinal cord stimulation utilization: change, growth and implications for the future

Chronic pain impacts more than 100 million Americans and has a significant impact on the economy and quality of life. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated efficacy in managing a growing number of chronic pain conditions. This in combination with an increasing number of physicians trained in SCS placement has produced significant changes in utilization, expense and sites of service related to SCS. In particular, there has been a large increase in SCS placement by non-surgeons, use of percutaneous leads and performance in ambulatory surgery centers instead of inpatient settings. There are also notable differences in SCS use related to age, race, insurance coverage and geography. There is a large potential market and use of these therapies is predicted to grow from $2.41 billion in 2020 to $4.12 billion US dollars globally by 2027. At the same time, there is increasing scrutiny around utilization of this therapy related to cost, complications, long-term efficacy and explant rates that has the potential to impact access to this therapy in the future. We must examine our indications, technique and management to optimize outcomes and utilization of SCS going forward.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation therapy compared with conventional medical management over the first 12 months of therapy for patients with nonsurgical back pain: randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This analysis evaluated if spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at 10 kHz plus conventional medical management (CMM) is cost-effective compared with CMM alone for the treatment of nonsurgical refractory back pain (NSRBP).

METHODS

NSRBP subjects were randomized 1:1 into the 10-kHz SCS (n = 83) or CMM (n = 76) group. Outcomes assessed at 6 months included EQ-5D 5-level (EQ-5D-5L), medication usage, and healthcare utilization (HCU). There was an optional crossover at 6 months and follow-up to 12 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with cost including all HCU and medications except for the initial device and implant procedure, and cost-effectiveness was analyzed based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of < $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

RESULTS

Treatment with 10-kHz SCS resulted in a significant improvement in quality of life (QOL) over CMM (EQ-5D-5L index score change of 0.201 vs -0.042, p < 0.001) at a lower cost, based on reduced frequency of HCU resulting in an ICER of -$4964 at 12 months. The ICER was -$8620 comparing the 6 months on CMM with postcrossover on 10-kHz SCS.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with 10-kHz SCS provides higher QOL at a lower average cost per patient compared with CMM. Assuming an average reimbursement for device and procedure, 10-kHz SCS therapy is predicted to be cost-effective for the treatment of NSRBP compared with CMM within 2.1 years.

Indirect Comparison of 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) versus Traditional Low-Frequency SCS for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is increasingly used to treat painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). At the time of a recent meta-analysis in this field, data were only available from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional low-frequency SCS (LF-SCS). However, outcomes from high-frequency 10 kHz SCS treatment are now available. Our study aimed to systematically review the contemporary evidence for SCS in patients with lower limb pain due to PDN and include an indirect comparison of the high- and low-frequency modalities. We searched the PubMed/CENTRAL databases up to 18 August 2022, for peer-reviewed RCTs of SCS that enrolled PDN patients with lower limb pain symptoms. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Using SCS treatment arm data from the RCTs, we indirectly compared the absolute treatment effect of 10 kHz SCS and LF-SCS. Results are presented in tables and forest plots. This systematic review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Three RCTs met our eligibility criteria, including the recent 10 kHz SCS RCT (N = 216, 90 implanted) and 2 others that examined LF-SCS (N = 36, 17 implanted; N = 60, 37 implanted). Our analysis of 6-month data found clinically meaningful pain relief with each SCS modality. However, significantly greater pain reduction was identified for 10 kHz SCS over LF-SCS: average pain reduction in the 10 kHz SCS cohort was 73.7% compared with 47.5% in the pooled LF-SCS group (p < 0.0001). In the permanent implant subset, the 50% pain reduction responder rate was 83.3% in the 10 kHz SCS cohort versus 63.0% in the pooled LF-SCS group (p = 0.0072). The overall risk of bias of each included RCT was deemed high, mainly due to the absence of patient blinding. Our analysis indicates that paresthesia-free 10 kHz SCS can provide superior pain relief and responder rate over LF-SCS for managing PDN patients refractory to conventional medical management.

Neuromodulation Therapy for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a debilitating and painful condition in patients who have received chemotherapy. The role of neuromodulation therapy in treating pain and improving neurological function in CIPN remains unclear and warrants evidence appraisal. In compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed a systematic review to assess change in pain intensity and neurological function after implementation of any neuromodulation intervention for CIPN. Neuromodulation interventions consisted of dorsal column spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), or peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). In total, 15 studies utilized SCS (16 participants), 7 studies utilized DRG-S (7 participants), and 1 study utilized PNS (50 participants). Per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria, there was very low-quality GRADE evidence supporting that dorsal column SCS, DRG-S, and PNS are associated with a reduction in pain severity from CIPN. Results on changes in neurological function remained equivocal due to mixed study findings on thermal sensory thresholds and touch sensation or discrimination. Future prospective, well-powered, and comparative studies assessing neuromodulation for CIPN are warranted.