Postural Changes in Spinal Cord Stimulation Thresholds: Current and Voltage Sources.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) thresholds are known to change with body position; however, these changes have not been fully characterized for both "constant-voltage" and "constant-current" pulse generators. This study aimed to evaluate and quantify changes in psychophysical thresholds resulting from postural changes that may affect both conventional paresthesia-based SCS and novel paresthesia-free SCS technologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We measured perceptual, usage, and discomfort thresholds in four body positions (prone, supine, sitting, standing) in 149 consecutive patients, with temporary lower thoracic percutaneous epidural electrodes placed for treating persistent low back and leg pain. We trialed 119 patients with constant-voltage stimulators and 30 patients with constant-current stimulators. RESULTS: Moving from supine to the sitting, standing, or prone positions caused all three thresholds (perceptual, usage, and discomfort) to increase by 22% to 34% for constant-voltage stimulators and by 44% to 82% for constant-current stimulators. Changing from a seated to a supine position caused stimulation to exceed discomfort threshold significantly more often for constant-current (87%) than for constant-voltage (63%) stimulators (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Posture-induced changes in SCS thresholds occurred consistently as patients moved from lying (supine or prone) to upright (standing or sitting) positions. These changes were more pronounced for constant-current than for constant-voltage pulse generators and more often led to stimulation-evoked discomfort. These observations are consistent with postural changes in spinal cord position measured in imaging studies, and with computer model predictions of neural recruitment for these different spinal cord positions. These observations have implications for the design, implantation, and clinical application of spinal cord stimulators, not only for conventional paresthesia-based SCS but also for paresthesia-free SCS.

A Definition of Neuromodulation and Classification of Implantable Electrical Modulation for Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Neuromodulation therapies use a variety of treatment modalities (eg, electrical stimulation) to treat chronic pain. These therapies have experienced rapid growth that has coincided with escalating confusion regarding the nomenclature surrounding these neuromodulation technologies. Furthermore, studies are often published without a complete description of the effective stimulation dose, making it impossible to replicate the findings. To improve clinical care and facilitate dissemination among the public, payors, research groups, and regulatory bodies, there is a clear need for a standardization of terms. APPROACH: We formed an international group of authors comprising basic scientists, anesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, and engineers with expertise in neuromodulation. Because the field of neuromodulation is extensive, we chose to focus on creating a taxonomy and standardized definitions for implantable electrical modulation of chronic pain. RESULTS: We first present a consensus definition of neuromodulation. We then describe a classification scheme based on the 1) intended use (the site of modulation and its indications) and 2) physical properties (waveforms and dose) of a neuromodulation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This framework will help guide future high-quality studies of implantable neuromodulatory treatments and improve reporting of their findings. Standardization with this classification scheme and clear definitions will help physicians, researchers, payors, and patients better understand the applications of implantable electrical modulation for pain and guide informed treatment decisions.

Glossary of Neurostimulation Terminology: A Collaborative Neuromodulation Foundation, Institute of Neuromodulation, and International Neuromodulation Society Project.

OBJECTIVE: Consistent terminology is necessary to facilitate communication, but limited efforts have addressed this need in the neurostimulation community. We set out to provide a useful and updated glossary for our colleagues and prospective patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This collaborative effort of the Neuromodulation Foundation (NF), the Institute of Neuromodulation (IoN), and the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) expands a glossary first published in 2007 for spinal cord stimulation. Peripheral nerve, dorsal root ganglion, deep brain, and motor cortex stimulation have been added to our scope. Volunteers from the collaborating entities used a nominal group process, consensus development panels, and the Delphi technique to reach consensus on inclusion and definition of terms. We created a glossary suitable for print and for expansion on the websites of the collaborating entities, which will offer the possibility of explaining definitions for a general audience. We excluded proprietary and brand names but included terms that have attracted proprietary interest without becoming brands or trademarks. We made an effort to be inclusive while also being concise and economical with space. RESULTS: We identified and defined 91 terms for this print edition and created an accompanying list of acronyms. As appropriate, we provided figures to illustrate the definitions. CONCLUSIONS: Although we refer to the glossary presented herein as the print edition, it can of course be viewed and searched electronically. NF, IoN, and INS will continue to collaborate on expanded web editions that can include hyperlinks for internal and external navigation. We believe this glossary will benefit our growing field by facilitating communication and mitigating inappropriate use of neurostimulation terms.

Reporting Guidelines for Clinical Trial Protocols and Reports of Implantable Neurostimulation Devices: Protocol for the SPIRIT-iNeurostim and CONSORT-iNeurostim Extensions.

OBJECTIVES: SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statements have been shown to improve the quality of reporting of trial protocols and randomized controlled trials. Extensions to the SPIRIT and CONSORT statements specific to certain interventions have the potential to address methodological considerations that would otherwise be overlooked. The aim of this protocol is to describe the methods to develop reporting guidelines for clinical trial protocols and reports of implantable neurostimulation devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SPIRIT-iNeurostim and CONSORT-iNeurostim extensions will be developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation. The initial list of candidate items will be informed by findings from previous systematic reviews and published protocols and clinical trials of implantable neurostimulation devices. The candidate items will be included in a two-round Delphi survey. In the first round, participants will be invited to vote on the importance of each item and to suggest additional relevant items. In the second round, participants will be invited to re-score the items considering feedback received and the suggested additional items. A consensus meeting will then take place to discuss the results of the Delphi survey and reach consensus on the items to include in the extensions. DISCUSSION: Development of the SPIRIT-iNeurostim and CONSORT-iNeurostim extensions has the potential to lead to improvements and increase in transparency of the reporting of clinical trial protocols and reports of implantable neurostimulation devices.

Examining the Need to Standardize Implanted Stimulator Connectors: NANS Survey Results.

INTRODUCTION: Connectors between implanted stimulator electrodes and pulse generators allow revisions, including battery changes or generator upgrades, to proceed without disturbing uninvolved components, such as the electrode. As new devices are introduced, however, connector incompatibility, even with updated hardware from the same manufacturer, can lead to additional procedures, expense, and morbidity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following the example of the cardiac pacemaker/defibrillator industry, the Institute of Neuromodulation (IoN) met to explore the possibility of creating connector standards for implanted neurostimulation devices. At a subsequent meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, which coordinates the development of such standards, industry representatives asked for data defining the need for a new standard. Accordingly, IoN prepared an online survey to be sent to the North American Neuromodulation Society mailing list regarding experience with the connectivity of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) generators and electrodes. RESULTS: The 87 respondents of 9657 surveyed included 77 clinicians, who reported a total of 42,572 SCS implants and revisions. More than a quarter of revisions (2741 of 9935) required the interconnection of devices made by separate manufacturers, in most cases (n = 1528) to take advantage of a new feature (e.g., rechargeability, new waveform) or because an original component could not be replaced (n = 642). Connector adapters provided by manufacturers were used in less than half (n = 1246) of these cases. Nearly all (94%) of the clinicians agreed that standardized connectors should be developed for SCS, and 86% opined that standardized connectors should be developed for other neurostimulation therapies. CONCLUSION: Those who responded to our survey support the development of standard connectors for implanted stimulators, with voluntary compliance by manufacturers, to mitigate the need for adapters and facilitate interchanging components when appropriate. Other advantages to patients and manufacturers might accrue from the adoption of standards, as technology evolves and diversifies.

Cost-Effectiveness Model Shows Superiority of Wireless Spinal Cord Stimulation Implantation Without a Separate Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of wireless spinal cord stimulation (Wireless SCS) with single stage "direct to permanent" implantation vs. screening with temporary electrodes and an external pulse generator followed by implantation of a system for long-term use (IPG SCS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created a cost model that takes a 2019 United States (U.S.) payer perspective and is based on IPG SCS cost models for subjects with chronic back and/or leg pain. Our six-month decision tree includes the screening trial period (success ≥50% relief) and leads to various levels of pain relief with or without complications for IPG SCS and Wireless SCS and without complications for conventional medical management (CMM). Every three months in the follow-on 15-year Markov model (with costs and quality-adjusted life years discounted 3.5% annually), subjects remain stable or transition to deteriorated health or death. Subjects who fail SCS receive CMM. After 60 Markov cycles, a 100,000-sample simulation reveals the impact of maximum willingness-to-pay (WTP) from $10,000 to $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year on net monetary benefit (NMB). Sensitivity analyses considered the impact of the Wireless SCS screening success rate, Wireless SCS device cost, and IPG SCS device longevity. RESULTS: Compared with IPG SCS, Wireless SCS offers higher clinical effectiveness at a lower cost and a higher NMB for our WTP thresholds and is, thus, dominant. Wireless SCS is also cost-effective compared with CMM. Results remain robust with 1) Wireless SCS screening success rates as low as 85% (dominant), 2) the cost of the Wireless SCS devices as high as $55,000 (cost-effective), and 3) IPG SCS devices lasting 12 years (dominant). CONCLUSIONS: In this model, compared with IPG SCS or with CMM, Wireless SCS is a superior strategy.

Randomized Placebo-/Sham-Controlled Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Methodological Appraisal.

OBJECTIVES: The recent availability of paraesthesia/sensation free spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities allow the design of clinical trials of SCS using placebo/sham controls and blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers. The aims of this study were to: 1) systematically review the current evidence base of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS placebo/sham trials and 2) to undertake a methodological critique of their methods. Based on this critique, we developed a checklist for the design and reporting of future RCTs of SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic data bases were searched from inception until January 2019 for RCTs of SCS using a placebo/sham control. RCTs with only an active comparator arm were excluded. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Searches identified 12 eligible RCTs. SCS modalities included paraesthesia stimulation, subthreshold, burst, and high-frequency SCS and were mainly conducted in patients with failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, and refractory angina. The quality and transparency of reporting of the methods of placebo stimulation, blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers varied markedly across studies. CONCLUSIONS: To date the methods of placebo/sham control and blinding in RCTs have been poorly reported, leading to concerns about the validity and replicability of the findings. Important aspects that need to be clearly reported in the design of placebo-/sham-controlled RCTs of SCS include the transparent reporting of stimulation programming parameters, patient position during perception threshold measurement, management of the patient handheld programmer, frequency of recharging, and assessment of the fidelity of blinding.

Redefining Spinal Cord Stimulation "Trials": A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Single-Stage Wireless Permanent Implantable Devices.

BACKGROUND: "Traditional" spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trials with percutaneous electrodes externalized to a pulse generator (PG) are typically limited in duration due to risk of infection. Newer miniaturized wireless SCS technology eliminates the percutaneous extension (as well as PGs implanted for chronic use), thus facilitating a single-stage implantation after which the device can remain indefinitely. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate fully implanted wireless SCS devices during a 30-day screening trial in subjects with chronic low back pain and leg pain and a history of lumbosacral spine surgery. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial of single-stage wireless SCS using a wireless percutaneous system, 99 subjects received either 10 kHz high frequency stimulation (HFS) or lower frequency stimulation (LFS) below 1500 Hz (Bolash R, Creamer M, Rauck R, et al. Wireless high frequency spinal cord stimulation (10 kHz) compared to multi-waveform low frequency spinal cord stimulation in the management of chronic pain in failed back surgery syndrome subjects: preliminary results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. Pain Med 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnz019). In this report, we assess the 30-day trial success rate (≥50% pain relief from baseline) and complications. RESULTS: The overall trial success rate was 88% (87/99): 92% (46/50) for HFS and 84% (41/49) for LFS (NS). The trial success rate in the 64 subjects with predominant low back pain was 92% (59/64) vs. 80% (28/35) in those with leg pain ≥ low back pain (NS). During the screening trial, one infection occurred (1%) and one subject withdrew and was explanted (1%). Electrode migrations were seen on routine follow-up x-rays in 10 cases (10%). CONCLUSION: Using wireless SCS devices that allow for an extended trial period and evaluation of various waveforms, we observed a high rate trial success rate with both HFS and LFS waveforms, with minimal incidence of infection. Long-term follow-up will address the cost-effectiveness and morbidity associated with this technology, which facilitates single-stage treatment.

WIKISTIM.org: An On-Line Database of Published Neurostimulation Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Primary data reported in scientific publications provide guidance for improving patient care, expanding indications, identifying research gaps, educating patients, justifying reimbursement, and gaining regulatory approval. Finding and analyzing pertinent publications among the huge volume noted in databases such as PUBMED, however, costs time and effort. This situation demands innovative ways to locate citations of (and the possibility of abstracting data from) papers reporting primary findings. METHODS: We created WIKISTIM.org, a searchable easily navigated website, to meet this challenge in our field and devised a taxonomy of data categories specific for various stimulation targets for extracting and posting primary data. We included a discussion section unlimited by time or space to overcome limits posed by traditional letters to the editor. RESULTS: Registrants can download single or multiple citations from search results or from the list of papers (sortable by author, title, publication, and year) into a single table. The downloadable data category lists are used to submit completed data entry sheets for upload and for evidence-based comparison across studies as well as for study design, manuscript preparation, and peer review. Registration for WIKISTIM access continues to grow as do the curated citation lists, which are updated monthly and are comprehensive for deep brain stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation, gastric electric stimulation, spinal cord stimulation, and sacral nerve stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Most WIKISTIM entries are limited to citation information and links to published abstracts. As the number of completed datasheets and of stimulation target sections increase, the value of WIKISTIM will increase.

Success Using Neuromodulation With BURST (SUNBURST) Study: Results From a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial Using a Novel Burst Waveform.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the multicenter, randomized, unblinded, crossover Success Using Neuromodulation with BURST (SUNBURST) study was to determine the safety and efficacy of a device delivering both traditional tonic stimulation and burst stimulation to patients with chronic pain of the trunk and/or limbs. METHODS: Following a successful tonic trial, 100 subjects were randomized to receive one stimulation mode for the first 12 weeks, and then the other stimulation mode for the next 12 weeks. The primary endpoint assessed the noninferiority of the within-subject difference between tonic and burst for the mean daily overall VAS score. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted using data at the 12- and 24-week visits. Subjects then used the stimulation mode of their choice and were followed for one year. Descriptive statistics were used analyze additional endpoints and to characterize the safety profile of the device. RESULTS: The SUNBURST study demonstrated that burst stimulation is noninferior to tonic stimulation (p < 0.001). Superiority of burst was also achieved (p < 0.017). Significantly more subjects (70.8%) preferred burst stimulation over tonic stimulation (p < 0.001). Preference was sustained through one year: 68.2% of subjects preferred burst stimulation, 23.9% of subjects preferred tonic, and 8.0% of subjects had no preference. No unanticipated adverse events were reported and the safety profile was similar to other spinal cord stimulation studies. CONCLUSIONS: The SUNBURST study demonstrated that burst spinal cord stimulation is safe and effective. Burst stimulation was not only noninferior but also superior to tonic stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain. A multimodal stimulation device has advantages.

A review of economic factors related to the delivery of health care for chronic low back pain.

INTRODUCTION AND METHODS: We describe tools used to evaluate the economic impact of health care interventions, discuss the economic burden of chronic low back pain, and review evidence on the cost-effectiveness of treating failed back surgery syndrome with spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal drug delivery, acupuncture, epidural injections, disc prosthesis, lumbar fusion, and noninvasive therapies. We also mention the lack of cost studies for emerging therapies, such as vibrotherapy and peripheral nerve field stimulation. Topics include types of cost studies; the economic perspectives taken by such studies; direct and indirect costs; measures of success; definitions of cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-utility ratios, and quality-adjusted life years; the concept of maximum willingness to pay; and the use of cost-effectiveness models. CONCLUSION: The fact that chronic low back pain arises from a variety of causes makes choosing appropriate treatment difficult. Determining the cost-effectiveness of various treatments for chronic low back pain depends on well-designed and well-executed randomized controlled trials with parallel economic evaluations. Researchers can use economic models to extrapolate costs and outcomes over the long term.

Prevention of percutaneous spinal cord stimulation electrode migration: a 15-year experience.

OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous spinal cord stimulation electrodes have a propensity to migrate longitudinally, which is a costly complication that often compromises therapeutic effect. After implementing simple changes to our percutaneous electrode anchoring technique, we no longer encounter this migration. The current retrospective study updates previously reported results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined data in a consecutive series of patients in whom we had secured a new percutaneous electrode by injecting < 0.1 cm(3) of adhesive into the silicone elastomer lead anchor. From 1998 through 2006, we used whichever anchor was supplied with each lead until we observed one case of migration through a short anchor; thereafter, we used a long, tapered anchor exclusively. From 2007 through 2013, we further modified our technique by adding a fascial incision to accommodate the tip of the anchor and by increasing the strength of our suture material. RESULTS: In the first series of 291 patients, followed through July 2007 (mean 4.75 years, range 1.1-9.0 years), 4 (1.37%) experienced electrode migration requiring surgical revision. Only one lead had moved with respect to its anchor; the other three anchors remained securely bonded to their leads. No migration (0.00%) occurred in the second series of 142 patients, followed through 2013 (mean follow-up 2.86 years, range 0.10-5.45 years). CONCLUSION: Improvements to our simple, inexpensive technique apparently have eliminated the most common complication of spinal cord stimulation.

Disease applications of spinal cord stimulation: Chronic nonmalignant pain.

Neuropathic pain is a chronic condition representing a significant burden for society. It is estimated 1 out of 10 people over the age of 30 that in the US have been diagnosed with neuropathic pain. Most of the available treatments for neuropathic pain have moderate efficacy over time which limit their use; therefore, other therapeutic approaches are needed for patients. Spinal cord stimulation is an established and cost-effective modality for treating severe chronic pain. In this article we will review the current approved indications for the use of spinal cord stimulation in the US and the novel therapeutic options which are now available using this therapy.

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain in England-A budget impact analysis.

Screening trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) prior to full implantation of a device are recommended by expert guidelines and international regulators. The current study sought to estimate the budget impact of a screening trial of SCS and the costs or savings of discontinuing the use of a screening trial. A budget impact analysis was performed considering a study population that reflects the size and characteristics of a patient population with neuropathic pain in England eligible for SCS. The perspective adopted was that of the NHS with a 5-year time horizon. The base case analysis indicate that a no screening trial strategy would result in cost-savings to the NHS England of £400,000-£500,000 per year. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate different scenarios. If ≥5% of the eligible neuropathic pain population received a SCS device, cost-savings would be >£2.5 million/year. In contrast, at the lowest assumed cost of a screening trial (£1,950/patient), a screening trial prior to SCS implantation would be cost-saving. The proportion of patients having an unsuccessful screening trial would have to be ≥14.4% for current practice of a screening trial to be cost-saving. The findings from this budget impact analysis support the results of a recent UK multicenter randomized controlled trial (TRIAL-STIM) of a policy for the discontinuation of compulsory SCS screening trials, namely that such a policy would result in considerable cost-savings to healthcare systems.