Is the introduction of another variable to the strength-duration curve necessary in neurostimulation?

Current Perspectives on Neurostimulation for the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review

Neurostimulation techniques for the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP) have been rapidly evolving; however, questions remain as to which modalities provide the most efficacious and durable treatment for intractable axial symptoms. Modalities of spinal cord stimulation, such as traditional low-frequency paresthesia based, high-density or high dose (HD), burst, 10-kHz high-frequency therapy, closed-loop, and differential target multiplexed, have been limitedly studied to determine their efficacy for the treatment of axial LBP. In addition, stimulation methods that target regions other than the spinal cord, such as medial branch nerve stimulation of the multifidus muscles and the dorsal root ganglion may also be viable treatment options. Here, current scientific evidence behind neurostimulation techniques have been reviewed with a focus on the management of chronic axial LBP.

Burst and Tonic Spinal Cord Stimulation Both Activate Spinal GABAergic Mechanisms to Attenuate Pain in a Rat Model of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND

Experimental and clinical studies have shown that tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS) releases gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in the spinal dorsal horn. Recently, it was suggested that burst SCS does not act via spinal GABAergic mechanisms. Therefore, we studied spinal GABA release during burst and tonic SCS, both anatomically and pharmacologically, in a well-established chronic neuropathic pain model.

METHODS

Animals underwent partial sciatic nerve ligation (PSNL). Quantitative immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis of intracellular GABA levels in the lumbar L4 to L6 dorsal spinal cord was performed after 60 minutes of burst, tonic, or sham SCS in rats that had undergone PSNL (n = 16). In a second pharmacological experiment, the effects of intrathecal administration of the GABA_A antagonist bicuculline (5 μg) and the GABA_B antagonist phaclofen (5 μg) were assessed. Paw withdrawal thresholds to von Frey filaments of rats that had undergone PSNL (n = 20) were tested during 60 minutes of burst and tonic SCS 30 minutes after intrathecal administration of the drugs.

RESULTS

Quantitative IHC analysis of GABA immunoreactivity in spinal dorsal horn sections of animals that had received burst SCS (n = 5) showed significantly lower intracellular GABA levels when compared to sham SCS sections (n = 4; P = 0.0201) and tonic SCS sections (n = 7; P = 0.0077). Intrathecal application of the GABA_A antagonist bicuculline (5 μg; n = 10) or the GABA_B antagonist phaclofen (5 μg; n = 10) resulted in ablation of the analgesic effect for both burst SCS and tonic SCS.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, our anatomical and pharmacological data demonstrate that, in this well-established chronic neuropathic animal model, the analgesic effects of both burst SCS and tonic SCS are mediated via spinal GABAergic mechanisms.

Spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain: evidence and theory for mechanisms of action

Well-established in the field of bioelectronic medicine, Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) offers an implantable, non-pharmacologic treatment for patients with intractable chronic pain conditions. Chronic pain is a widely heterogenous syndrome with regard to both pathophysiology and the resultant phenotype. Despite advances in our understanding of SCS-mediated antinociception, there still exists limited evidence clarifying the pathways recruited when patterned electric pulses are applied to the epidural space. The rapid clinical implementation of novel SCS methods including burst, high frequency and dorsal root ganglion SCS has provided the clinician with multiple options to treat refractory chronic pain. While compelling evidence for safety and efficacy exists in support of these novel paradigms, our understanding of their mechanisms of action (MOA) dramatically lags behind clinical data. In this review, we reconstruct the available basic science and clinical literature that offers support for mechanisms of both paresthesia spinal cord stimulation (P-SCS) and paresthesia-free spinal cord stimulation (PF-SCS). While P-SCS has been heavily examined since its inception, PF-SCS paradigms have recently been clinically approved with the support of limited preclinical research. Thus, wide knowledge gaps exist between their clinical efficacy and MOA. To close this gap, many rich investigative avenues for both P-SCS and PF-SCS are underway, which will further open the door for paradigm optimization, adjunctive therapies and new indications for SCS. As our understanding of these mechanisms evolves, clinicians will be empowered with the possibility of improving patient care using SCS to selectively target specific pathophysiological processes in chronic pain.

High-Resolution Multi-Scale Computational Model for Non-Invasive Cervical Vagus Nerve Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

To develop the first high-resolution, multi-scale model of cervical non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) and to predict vagus fiber type activation, given clinically relevant rheobase thresholds.

METHODS

An MRI-derived Finite Element Method (FEM) model was developed to accurately simulate key macroscopic (e.g., skin, soft tissue, muscle) and mesoscopic (cervical enlargement, vertebral arch and foramen, cerebral spinal fluid [CSF], nerve sheath) tissue components to predict extracellular potential, electric field (E-Field), and activating function along the vagus nerve. Microscopic scale biophysical models of axons were developed to compare axons of varying size (Aα-, Aβ- and Aδ-, B-, and C-fibers). Rheobase threshold estimates were based on a step function waveform.

RESULTS

Macro-scale accuracy was found to determine E-Field magnitudes around the vagus nerve, while meso-scale precision determined E-field changes (activating function). Mesoscopic anatomical details that capture vagus nerve passage through a changing tissue environment (e.g., bone to soft tissue) profoundly enhanced predicted axon sensitivity while encapsulation in homogenous tissue (e.g., nerve sheath) dulled axon sensitivity to nVNS.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that realistic and precise modeling at both macroscopic and mesoscopic scales are needed for quantitative predictions of vagus nerve activation. Based on this approach, we predict conventional cervical nVNS protocols can activate A- and B- but not C-fibers. Our state-of-the-art implementation across scales is equally valuable for models of spinal cord stimulation, cortex/deep brain stimulation, and other peripheral/cranial nerve models.

Evidence Gaps in the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Treating Chronic Spine Conditions

STUDY DESIGN

A review of literature.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to define and explore the current evidence gaps in the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treating chronic spine conditions.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although over the last 40 years SCS therapy has undergone significant technological advancements, evidence gaps still exist.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to define current evidence gaps for the use of SCS. Areas of focus included 1) treatment of cervical spine conditions, 2) treatment of lumbar spine conditions, 3) technological advancement and device selection, 4) appropriate patient selection, 5) the ability to curb pharmacological treatment, and 6) methods to prolong efficacy over time. New SCS strategies using advanced waveforms are explored.

RESULTS

The efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of traditional SCS for chronic pain conditions are well-established. Evidence gaps do exist. Recently, advancement in waveforms and programming parameters have allowed for paresthesia-reduced/free stimulation that in specific clinical areas may improve clinical outcomes. New waveforms such as 10-kHz high-frequency have resulted in an improvement in back coverage. To date, clinical efficacy data are more prevalent for the treatment of painful conditions originating from the lumbar spine in comparison to the cervical spine.

CONCLUSION

Evidence gaps still exist that require appropriate study designs with long-term follow-up to better define and improve the use of this therapy for the treatment of chronic spine pain in both the cervical and lumbar regions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Intensity Modulation: A Novel Approach to Percept Control in Spinal Cord Stimulation

OBJECTIVE

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can be effective for neuropathic pain, but clinical benefit is sometimes inadequate or is offset by stimulation-induced side-effects, and response can be inconsistent among patients. Intensity-modulated stimulation (IMS) is an alternative to tonic stimulation (TS) that involves continuous variation of stimulation intensity in a sinusoidal pattern between two different values, sequentially activating distinct axonal populations to produce an effect that resembles natural physiological signals. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of IMS on the clinical effect of SCS.

METHODS

Seven patients undergoing a percutaneous SCS trial for postlaminectomy syndrome were enrolled. Thresholds for perception, pain relief, and discomfort were measured and used to create patient-specific models of axonal activation and charge delivery for both TS and IMS. All participants underwent three two-min periods of blinded stimulation using TS, IMS, and placebo, and were asked to describe the effect on quality of the sensory percept and pain relief.

RESULTS

All participants perceived IMS differently from placebo, and five noted significant differences from TS that resulted in a more comfortable sensation. TS was described as electric and tingling, whereas IMS was described as producing a focal area of deep pressure with a sense of motion away from that focus. The anatomic location of coverage was similar between the two forms of stimulation, although one participant reported better lower back coverage with IMS. Computer modeling revealed that, compared with TS, IMS involved 36.4% less charge delivery and produced 78.7% less suprathreshold axonal activation.

CONCLUSIONS

IMS for SCS is feasible, produces a more comfortable percept than conventional TS, and appears to provide a similar degree of pain relief with significantly lower energy requirements. Further studies are necessary to determine whether this represents an effective alternative to tonic SCS for treatment of neuropathic pain.