Defining the Boundaries of Patient Perception in Spinal Cord Stimulation Programming.

OBJECTIVES: Recent developments in spinal cord stimulation (SCS) programming have initiated new modalities of imperceptible stimulation. However, the boundaries of sensory perception are not well defined. The BEnchtop NEuromodulation Following endIng of Trial study aimed to create a map of perceptual threshold responses across a broad range of SCS parameters and programming to inform subperception therapy design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter study was conducted at seven US sites. A total of 43 patients with low back and/or leg pain who completed a percutaneous commercial SCS trial were enrolled. Test stimulation was delivered through trial leads for approximately 90 minutes before removal. SCS parameters, including amplitude, frequency, pulse width (PW), electrode configuration, cycling, and multifrequency stimulation were varied during testing. Paresthesia threshold (PT), comfort level (CL), perceptual coverage area, and paresthesia quality (through patient selection of keywords) were collected. Differences were evaluated with analysis of variance followed by post hoc multiple comparisons using t-tests with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: PT was primarily determined by PW and was insensitive to frequency for constant frequency stimulation (range: 20 Hz-10 kHz; F(1284) = 69.58, p < 0.0001). For all tests, CL was approximately 25% higher than PT. The dominant variable that influenced paresthesia quality was frequency. Sensations described as comfortable and tingling were most common for frequencies between 60 Hz and 2.4 kHz; unpleasant sensations were generally more common outside this range. Increasing distance between active electrodes from 7 mm to 14 mm, or cycling the SCS waveform at 1 Hz, decreased PT (p < 0.0001). Finally, PT for a low-frequency stimulus (ie, 60 Hz) was unaffected by mixing with a sub-PT high-frequency stimulus. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous work investigating narrower ranges, PW primarily influenced PT, independently of frequency. Paresthesia quality was primarily influenced by pulse frequency. These findings advance our understanding of SCS therapy and may be used to improve future novel neuromodulation paradigms.

The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group Guidelines for Minimally Invasive Spine Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options. METHODS: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment (MIST) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers. RESULTS: The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available. CONCLUSIONS: MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS, based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer-reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence-based decision algorithm.

Durability of Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the Evoke Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic pain is debilitating and profoundly affects health-related quality of life. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy for chronic pain; however, SCS has been limited by the inability to directly measure the elicited neural response, precluding confirmation of neural activation and continuous therapy. A novel SCS system measures the evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) to produce a real-time physiological closed-loop control system. Objective: To determine whether ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS is associated with better outcomes compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS at 24 months following implant. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Evoke study was a double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel arm clinical trial with 36 months of follow-up. Participants were enrolled from February 2017 to 2018, and the study was conducted at 13 US investigation sites. SCS candidates with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy, who consented, were screened. Key eligibility criteria included overall, back, and leg pain visual analog scale score of 60 mm or more; Oswestry Disability Index score of 41 to 80; stable pain medications; and no previous SCS. Analysis took place from October 2020 to April 2021. Interventions: ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS was compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reported here are the 24-month outcomes of the trial, which include all randomized patients in the primary and safety analyses. The primary outcome was a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain assessed at 3 and 12 months (previously published). Results: Of 134 randomized patients, 65 (48.5%) were female and the mean (SD) age was 55.2 (10.6) years. At 24 months, significantly more closed-loop than open-loop patients were responders (≥50% reduction) in overall pain (53 of 67 [79.1%] in the closed-loop group; 36 of 67 [53.7%] in the open-loop group; difference, 25.4% [95% CI, 10.0%-40.8%]; P = .001). There was no difference in safety profiles between groups (difference in rate of study-related adverse events: 6.0 [95% CI, -7.8 to 19.7]). Improvements were also observed in health-related quality of life, physical and emotional functioning, and sleep, in parallel with opioid reduction or elimination. Objective neurophysiological measurements substantiated the clinical outcomes and provided evidence of activation of inhibitory pain mechanisms. Conclusions and Relevance: ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS, which elicited a more consistent neural response, was associated with sustained superior pain relief at 24 months, consistent with the 3- and 12-month outcomes.