Clinical Longevity of 106,462 Rechargeable and Primary Cell Spinal Cord Stimulators: Real World Study in the Medicare Population.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are available with either primary cell (PC) or rechargeable cell (RC) batteries. Although RC systems are proposed to have a battery longevity upward of nine years, in comparison with four years for PC systems, there are few studies of longevity of SCS in the real world. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational, nonrandomized, retrospective study of Medicare beneficiaries who received neurostimulator implants in the outpatient hospital. This study used Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 2013 to 2020. The clinical longevity of the implantable pulse generator (IPG), defined as the duration from implant until removal for any reason, was compared between PC and RC devices. Life distribution analysis was used to approximate device lifespan. The secondary analysis separated removals into explant or replacements. The statistics were adjusted for relevant clinical covariates. RESULTS: A total of 25,856 PC and 79,606 RC systems were included in the study. At seven years after implant, 53.8% of PC IPGs and 55.0% of RC IPGs remained in use. The life distribution modeling analysis projected a median lifespan of 8.2 years for PC and 9.0 years for RC devices. The rate of explant was lower for PC devices (19.2%) than for RC devices (22.0%, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96, p = 0.082), whereas the rate of replacements was higher for PC devices (33.7%) than for RC devices (29.5%, HR = 1.31, p < 0.001). An analysis of the battery type used in device replacements showed an increasing adoption of PC devices over time. CONCLUSIONS: This large, retrospective, real-world analysis of Medicare claims data demonstrated that the clinical longevity of neurostimulator devices is similar for PC and RC batteries. In the past, clinicians may have defaulted to RC devices based on the assumption that they provided extended battery life. Considering this longevity data, clinicians should now consider the choice between PC and RC devices based on other individual factors pertinent to the patient experience and not on purported longevity claims.

Early Experience With a Novel Miniaturized Spinal Cord Stimulation System for the Management of Chronic Intractable Pain of the Back and Legs.

INTRODUCTION: A novel, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system with a battery-free miniaturized implantable pulse generator (IPG) was used in this feasibility study. The system uses an external power source that communicates bidirectionally with the IPG (< 1.5 cm3). Human factors, subject comfort, and effects on low back and leg pain were evaluated in this first-in-human study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, open-label clinical trial was initiated to evaluate the safety and performance of a novel miniaturized stimulator in the treatment of chronic, intractable leg and low-back pain. Eligible subjects were recruited for the study and gave consent. Subjects who passed the screening/trial phase (defined as ≥ 50% decrease in pain) continued to the long-term implant phase and were followed up at predefined time points after device activation. Interim clinical and usability outcomes were captured and reported at 90 days. RESULTS: Results of 22 subjects who chose a novel pulsed stimulation pattern therapy using the battery-free IPG (< 1.5 cm3) are described here. At 90-days follow-up, the average pain reduction was 79% in the leg (n = 22; p < 0.0001) and 76% in the low back (n = 21; p < 0.0001) compared with baseline. Responder rates (≥ 50% pain relief) at 90 days were 86% in leg pain (19/22) and 81% in low-back pain (17/21). Subjects rated the level of comfort of the external wearable power source to be 0.41 ± 0.73 at 90 days on an 11-point rating scale (0 = very comfortable, 10 = very uncomfortable). DISCUSSION: These interim results from the ongoing study indicate the favorable efficacy and usability of a novel, externally powered, battery-free SCS IPG (< 1.5 cm3) for leg and low-back pain. Study subjects wore the external power source continuously and found it comfortable, and the system provided significant pain relief. These preliminary findings warrant further investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is ACTRN12618001862235.

Holistic Treatment Response: An International Expert Panel Definition and Criteria for a New Paradigm in the Assessment of Clinical Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment response to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is focused on the magnitude of effects on pain intensity. However, chronic pain is a multidimensional condition that may affect individuals in different ways and as such it seems reductionist to evaluate treatment response based solely on a unidimensional measure such as pain intensity. AIM: The aim of this article is to add to a framework started by IMMPACT for assessing the wider health impact of treatment with SCS for people with chronic pain, a "holistic treatment response". DISCUSSION: Several aspects need consideration in the assessment of a holistic treatment response. SCS device data and how it relates to patient outcomes, is essential to improve the understanding of the different types of SCS, improve patient selection, long-term clinical outcomes, and reproducibility of findings. The outcomes to include in the evaluation of a holistic treatment response need to consider clinical relevance for patients and clinicians. Assessment of the holistic response combines two key concepts of patient assessment: (1) patients level of baseline (pre-treatment) unmet need across a range of health domains; (2) demonstration of patient-relevant improvements in these health domains with treatment. The minimal clinical important difference (MCID) is an established approach to reflect changes after a clinical intervention that are meaningful for the patient and can be used to identify treatment response to each individual domain. A holistic treatment response needs to account for MCIDs in all domains of importance for which the patient presents dysfunctional scores pre-treatment. The number of domains included in a holistic treatment response may vary and should be considered on an individual basis. Physiologic confirmation of therapy delivery and utilisation should be included as part of the evaluation of a holistic treatment response and is essential to advance the field of SCS and increase transparency and reproducibility of the findings.

A Novel Pulsed Stimulation Pattern in Spinal Cord Stimulation: Clinical Results and Postulated Mechanisms of Action in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back and Leg Pain.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to discuss the possible mechanisms of action (MOAs) and results of a pilot study of a novel, anatomically placed, and paresthesia-independent, neurostimulation waveform for the management of chronic intractable pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A novel, multilayered pulsed stimulation pattern (PSP) that comprises three temporal layers, a Pulse Pattern layer, Train layer, and Dosage layer, was developed for the treatment of chronic intractable pain. During preliminary development, the utility was evaluated of anatomical PSP (aPSP) in human subjects with chronic intractable pain of the leg(s) and/or low back, compared with that of traditional spinal cord stimulation (T-SCS) and physiological PSP. The scientific theory and testing presented in this article provide the preliminary justification for the potential MOAs by which PSP may operate. RESULTS: During the pilot study, aPSP (n = 31) yielded a greater decrease in both back and leg pain than did T-SCS (back: -60% vs -46%; legs: -63% vs -43%). In addition, aPSP yielded higher responder rates for both back and leg pain than did T-SCS (61% vs 48% and 78% vs 50%, respectively). DISCUSSION: The novel, multilayered approach of PSP may provide multimechanistic therapeutic relief through preferential fiber activation in the dorsal column, optimization of the neural onset response, and use of both the medial and lateral pathway through the thalamic nuclei. The results of the pilot study presented here suggest a robust responder rate, with several subjects (five subjects with back pain and three subjects with leg pain) achieving complete relief from PSP during the acute follow-up period. These clinical findings suggest PSP may provide a multimechanistic, anatomical, and clinically effective management for intractable chronic pain. Because of the limited sample size of clinical data, further testing and long-term clinical assessments are warranted to confirm these preliminary findings.

Pulse Dosing of 10-kHz Paresthesia-Independent Spinal Cord Stimulation Provides the Same Efficacy with Substantial Reduction of Device Recharge Time.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to assess whether using pulse dosing (PD) (regularly cycled intermittent stimulation) of high-frequency 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation (10-kHz SCS) can reduce device recharge time while maintaining efficacy in patients with chronic intractable back pain with or without leg pain. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, observational study. METHODS: Patients successfully using 10-kHz SCS at 100%ON (i.e., continuously with no PD) for >3 months were consecutively enrolled. After a 1-week baseline period of documenting their pain twice daily on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) using 100%ON of their "favorite" program, all subjects were reprogrammed to 14%PD for 10-14 days. If subjects preferred 14%PD to 100%ON, they were programmed to 3%PD; otherwise, they were programmed to 50%PD. Subjects used this next program for another 10-14 days. Subjects then entered a 3-month observational period during which they were requested to use but not limited to their most preferred %PD program. Toward the end of 3 months, subjects completed a 7-day NRS diary and indicated a final %PD program preference. Study endpoints included %PD preference, mean diary NRS by %PD, and daily minutes and patterns of charging. RESULTS: Of 31 subjects completing the study, 81% preferred less than 100%ON. Among the subjects, 39% preferred 3%PD, 32% preferred 14%PD, 10% preferred 50%PD, and 19% preferred 100%ON. Average daily charge durations were 8.3 ± 3.1 minutes for 3%PD, 13.9 ± 4.9 minutes for 14%PD, 26.2 ± 7.4 minutes for 50%PD, and 43.8 ± 10.9 minutes for 100%ON. Regression modeling suggested that pain relief was weighted as more than twice as influential as charging in preference for reduced %PD. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study suggests that 10-kHz SCS therapy with PD may be successfully used in a large majority of 10-kHz SCS responders, maintaining efficacy while reducing device charging time by nearly two thirds.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC): Recommendations on Best Practices for Cervical Neurostimulation.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise with international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the use of neurostimulation in the cervical region to improve outcomes. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) project intends to provide evidence-based guidance for an often-overlooked area of neurostimulation practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors were chosen based upon their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when NACC last published guidelines) to the present. Identified studies were graded using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence was scant. RESULTS: The NACC examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC recommends best practices regarding the use of cervical neuromodulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be utilized as a guide to assist decision making when clinically appropriate.

A Systematic Literature Review of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for PNS. METHODS: An international interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for PNS. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meaningful clinical outcomes that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, had less than two months of follow-up, or existed only as abstracts. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: Peripheral nerve stimulation was studied in 14 RCTs for a variety of painful conditions (headache, shoulder, pelvic, back, extremity, and trunk pain). Moderate to strong evidence supported the use of PNS to treat pain. CONCLUSION: Peripheral nerve stimulation has moderate/strong evidence. Additional prospective trials could further refine appropriate populations and pain diagnoses.

A Systematic Literature Review of Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for DRG stimulation. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for DRG stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, too small, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: DRG stimulation has Level II evidence (moderate) based upon one high-quality pivotal randomized controlled trial and two lower-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-level evidence supports DRG stimulation for treating chronic focal neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome.

10 kHz spinal cord stimulation for chronic upper limb and neck pain: Australian experience.

PURPOSE: Intractable upper limb and neck pain has traditionally been a challenging pain condition to treat, with conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) often inducing positional variation in paraesthesia and/or inadequate coverage of axial neck pain. The purpose of this Australian multi-centre prospective, clinical trial was to assess the safety and effectiveness of paraesthesia-independent 10 kHz SCS for the treatment of upper limb and neck pain. METHODS: Subjects with chronic, intractable neck and/or upper limb pain of ≥ 5 cm (on a 0-10-cm visual analogue scale) were enrolled (ACTRN12614000153617) following human research ethics committee approval. Subjects were implanted with two epidural leads spanning C2-C6 vertebral bodies. Subjects with successful trial stimulation were implanted with a Senza® system (Nevro Corp., Redwood City, CA, USA) and included in the safety and effectiveness evaluation at 3 months post-implant (primary endpoint assessment, PEA) and followed to 12 months. RESULTS: Overall, 31/38 (82.6%) subjects reported a successful 10 kHz SCS trial and proceeded to a permanent implant. Twenty-three of 30 subjects (76.7%) met the PEA. Subjects reported a reduction in neck pain and upper limb pain from baseline at the PEA (8.1 ± 0.2 cm vs. 2.9 ± 0.5 cm, 7.3 ± 0.3 cm vs. 2.5 ± 0.5 cm, respectively, p ≤ 0.0001). Disability, as measured by pain disability index score, decreased from 42.6 ± 2.6 at baseline to 22.7 ± 3.2 at PEA. Results were maintained 12 months post-implant. No neurological deficits, nor reports of paraesthesia, were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Stable, long-term results demonstrated that 10 kHz SCS is a promising therapy option for intractable chronic upper limb and neck pain.

A Novel Composite Metric for Predicting Patient Satisfaction With Spinal Cord Stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: To identify relationships between clinical assessments of chronic pain to enable the generation of a multivariate model to predict patient satisfaction with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from an exploratory clinical trial of sub-perception SCS (SPSCS) were reviewed. Forty-seven subjects tested multiple SPSCS programs for three to four days each. At the end of each program period, subjects recorded pain intensity, patient satisfaction with treatment (PSWT), modified patient global impression of change, and physical activity tolerance times. Twelve outcome variables were evaluated. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess pair-wise correlations. Multigenerational mixed effects modeling was performed to create a model to best explain relationships between those variables. RESULTS: A final model was generated that predicted PSWT using evening pain intensity (EPI) and the interaction between EPI and walking tolerance time. The mixed effects model allows for visualization of the interactions between EPI, walking tolerance time, and patient satisfaction with SCS. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered outcomes are desirable when evaluating complex multidimensional health impairments but accurately predicting patient satisfaction with treatment remains a challenge. Understanding the variables that predict (either by causation or association) satisfaction would be useful for clinicians. The results of this study suggest that a composite measure of activity tolerance (i.e., walking tolerance) and pain intensity can predict patient satisfaction with SCS therapy. This study highlights the utility of composite outcomes metrics in evaluating the benefits of SCS for chronic low back and leg pain.

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation Is Paresthesia-Independent: A Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Neuromodulation is an important tool for achieving pain relief in otherwise-intractable neuropathic pain conditions. Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation, in which primary sensory neurons are stimulated prior to their entry into the spinal canal, provides treatment with high levels of dermatomal specificity and can provide advantages compared to conventional spinal cord stimulation. Although DRG stimulation can produce perceptible paresthesias, many patients operate their systems at subthreshold amplitudes that do not elicit this sensation. Pain relief both with and without paresthesia was investigated in this retrospective analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of all qualifying permanent DRG stimulation systems at a single center over more than a three-year period was completed. Pain (0-10 numeric rating scale) was assessed at baseline, at the end of the trial, and after three, six, and twelve months of treatment. Patients were categorized based on their usage of the stimulator at amplitudes that either did or did not produce paresthesias. RESULTS: Of the 39 patients, 34 (87%) reported having no-paresthesias at any of the follow-up visits. Average pain relief was 73.9% after the trial period and 63.1% after 12 months of treatment. The responder rate (50% or better pain relief) after three months of treatment was more than 80%. Exploratory subgroup analyses showed that similar degrees of pain relief were achieved in numerous body regions and with various pain etiologies. The five patients who reported paresthesias during treatment had pain relief similar to those of the group that did not experience paresthesias. DISCUSSION: Clinically significant and sustained pain relief over more than a period of 12 months was achieved with DRG stimulation programmed at amplitudes below the perceptual level. Thus, the reported analgesia was paresthesia-independent. That good clinical outcomes were observed independent of the generation of paresthesia in DRG stimulation suggests several mechanisms of action, including the inhibition of supraspinal regions involved in somatic paresthesia sensation. The retrospective results presented here posit that future prospective study of DRG stimulation delivered at below the threshold of perceptible paresthesias is warranted.

The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee on Best Practices for Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation.

INTRODUCTION: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) is dedicated to improving the safety and efficacy of neuromodulation and thus improving the lives of patients undergoing neuromodulation therapies. With continued innovations in neuromodulation comes the need for evolving reviews of best practices. Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation has significantly improved the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), among other conditions. Through funding and organizational leadership by the International Neuromodulation Society (INS), the NACC reconvened to develop the best practices consensus document for the selection, implantation and use of DRG stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes. METHODS: The NACC performed a comprehensive literature search of articles about DRG published from 1995 through June, 2017. A total of 2538 article abstracts were then reviewed, and selected articles graded for strength of evidence based on scoring criteria established by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Graded evidence was considered along with clinical experience to create the best practices consensus and recommendations. RESULTS: The NACC achieved consensus based on peer-reviewed literature and experience to create consensus points to improve patient selection, guide surgical methods, improve post-operative care, and make recommendations for management of patients treated with DRG stimulation. CONCLUSION: The NACC recommendations are intended to improve patient care in the use of this evolving therapy for chronic pain. Clinicians who choose to follow these recommendations may improve outcomes.

Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation Therapy for Patients With Thoracic Pain: A Prospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: Relative to the number of patients suffering chronic lumbar and cervical pain, fewer patients suffer persistent thoracic pain. Consequently there is less literature, with smaller sample sizes, reporting treatment of this cohort. Here, we assess peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNfS) as a potential treatment for chronic thoracic pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 20 consecutive chronic thoracic pain sufferers that responded successfully to PNfS trial. The patients were subsequently implanted with permanent eight-contact electrode linear percutaneous leads within their major area of pain. Patients were followed up at 12 months for outcome reporting. All 20 patients were considered in the statistical analysis, despite removal of three devices prior to follow up. RESULTS: The average baseline pre-treatment Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score was 7.75 ± 1.4. Following PNfS, the mean NPRS score was 2.25 ±2.14, reflecting a significant average improvement of 5.5 ± 3.31. Three patients were explanted prior to follow up: the first gained excellent thoracic pain relief but pain at the Implantable Pulse Generator (IPG) site could not be overcome, the second achieved excellent pain relief but the PNfS was removed due to recurrent infection and in the final instance, the intervention offered only poor relief and the device removed. CONCLUSION: PNfS is an effective intervention for intractable disabling thoracic pain, offering sustained and worthwhile pain relief, for the overwhelming majority of the cohort. This may be especially true when considering a combined treatment approach of PNfS and analgesic use to manage remnant pain.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Discogenic Pain in Tertiary Practice: 223 Consecutive Cases Utilizing Lumbar Discography.

BACKGROUND: Between 26% and 42% of chronic low back pain is attributed to internal disc disruption of lumbar intervertebral discs. These prevalence estimates and data characterizing discogenic pain originate largely from research at elite practices, conducted 20 years ago. With few studies since, their concordance with rates in community practice has rarely been addressed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and key features of discogenic pain within community-based tertiary practice, and to evaluate the accuracy and clinical utility of discography. DESIGN: This prospective, three-year study of 223 consecutive cases of chronic low back pain used image-guided lumbar discography to identify symptomatic and flanking asymptomatic discs. A subset of patients (n = 195) had previously undergone posterior column blocks to investigate spinal facet and/or sacroiliac joints as contributing pain sources. RESULTS: A total of 644 discs were tested without infection or complication. Positive discograms were recorded in 74% of patients, with 22.9% negative and 3.1% assessed as indeterminate. Among patients receiving both discography and diagnostic blocks, 63% had proven discogenic pain, 18% had pain of mixed etiology and 14% remained undiagnosed. Taking into account all low back pain cases during this study (n = 756), discogenic pain prevalence was 21.8% (95% CI: 17-26%). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of discogenic pain in this community practice is below the range, but within confidence intervals, previously reported. Prevalence is considerably elevated, however, among well-selected patients and discography enabled a firm diagnosis in most such cases. These findings are broadly in keeping with those reached in key publications and support the clinical utility of discography.

Improved Pain Relief With Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation for Two Weeks in Patients Using Tonic Stimulation: Results From a Small Clinical Study.

OBJECTIVES: Conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) delivers a tonic waveform with consistent stream of pulses; burst delivers groups of pulses separated by short pulse-free periods. The current study compared the short-term safety and efficacy of burst with tonic stimulation in subjects already receiving SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At 4 IRB-approved sites, 22 subjects previously implanted with an SCS device for intractable, chronic pain gave informed consent and received burst stimulation for 14 days. Subjects reported average daily Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for overall, trunk, and limb pain using tonic stimulation and after 7 and 14 days of burst stimulation. Thoughts about pain were assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. Areas of paresthesia were assessed during tonic and burst stimulation using body maps. Assessment of patient satisfaction and preferred stimulation occurred after 14 days of burst. RESULTS: Average daily overall VAS reduced 46% from a mean of 53.5 (±20.2) mm during tonic SCS to 28.5 (±18.1) mm during burst (p < 0.001); trunk and limb VAS scores were also reduced by 33% and 51%, respectively. During burst, 16 subjects (73%) reported no paresthesia, 5 (23%) reported a reduction, and 1 (4%) reported increased paresthesia. After 14 days, 21 subjects (95%) reported being very satisfied or satisfied with burst. Burst was preferred by 20 subjects (91%), tonic by 1 (5%), and 1 (5%) reported no preference. Better pain relief was the most common reason cited for preference. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of subjects reported improved pain relief using burst compared with tonic stimulation. Most subjects experienced less paresthesia during burst and preferred burst citing better pain relief.

One-year outcomes of spinal cord stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG-SCS) is a new therapy for treating chronic neuropathic pain. Previous work has demonstrated the effectiveness of DRG-SCS for pain associated with failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, chronic postsurgical pain, and other etiologies through 6 months of treatment; this report describes the maintenance of pain relief, improvement in mood, and quality of life through 12 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects with intractable pain in the back and/or lower limbs were implanted with an active neurostimulator device. Up to four percutaneous leads were placed epidurally near DRGs. Subjects were tracked prospectively for 12 months. RESULTS: Overall, pain was reduced by 56% at 12 months post-implantation, and 60% of subjects reported greater than 50% improvement in their pain. Pain localized to the back, legs, and feet was reduced by 42%, 62%, and 80%, respectively. Measures of quality of life and mood were also improved over the course of the study, and subjects reported high levels of satisfaction. Importantly, excellent pain-paresthesia overlap was reported, remaining stable through 12 months. DISCUSSION: Despite methodological differences in the literature, DRG-SCS appears to be comparable to traditional SCS in terms of pain relief and associated benefits in mood and quality of life. Its benefits may include the ability to achieve precise pain-paresthesia concordance, including in regions that are typically difficult to target with SCS, and to consistently maintain that coverage over time.

Peripheral nerve field stimulation for chronic headache: 60 cases and long-term follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) for the treatment of chronic headache conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For more than a four-year period, 83 patients underwent a trial of a PNFS system targeting the nerve regions including occipital and supraorbital and infraorbital nerves, which best corresponded with their area of head pain. Sixty patients reported a successful trial and underwent a subsequent implant of the PNFS system. Questionnaires, along with patients' charts, were used to assess outcomes as follows: pain (11-point numerical pain rating scale), analgesic use, depression (Zung Depression Scale), disability (Neck Disability Index), patient satisfaction, and surgical complications. Patients were followed up for an average of 12.9 ± 9.4 months (range 3-42 months). RESULTS: An average pain reduction of 4.8 ± 2.3 pain scale points was observed (preimplant 7.4 ± 1.6; follow-up 2.6 ± 2.1 [p ≤ 0.001]). Of the 60 patients implanted, 41 reported >50% pain relief. Medication use was reduced in 83% of patients who were previously taking analgesics or prophylactic medications. Similarly, reductions in degree of disability and depression also were observed. Of the 60 cases, ten surgical revisions were required; however, no long-term complications were reported. CONCLUSIONS: PNFS for chronic headache is an evolving therapy. This study demonstrates that this reversible and effective treatment can be a promising pain relief strategy for this often intractable condition.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation of the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system for the treatment of chronic pain and ischemic diseases: the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) evaluated evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of neurostimulation to treat chronic pain, chronic critical limb ischemia, and refractory angina and recommended appropriate clinical applications. METHODS: The NACC used literature reviews, expert opinion, clinical experience, and individual research. Authors consulted the Practice Parameters for the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain (2006), systematic reviews (1984 to 2013), and prospective and randomized controlled trials (2005 to 2013) identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Neurostimulation is relatively safe because of its minimally invasive and reversible characteristics. Comparison with medical management is difficult, as patients considered for neurostimulation have failed conservative management. Unlike alternative therapies, neurostimulation is not associated with medication-related side effects and has enduring effect. Device-related complications are not uncommon; however, the incidence is becoming less frequent as technology progresses and surgical skills improve. Randomized controlled studies support the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in treating failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. Similar studies of neurostimulation for peripheral neuropathic pain, postamputation pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and other causes of nerve injury are needed. International guidelines recommend spinal cord stimulation to treat refractory angina; other indications, such as congestive heart failure, are being investigated. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate neurostimulation is safe and effective in some chronic pain conditions. Technological refinements and clinical evidence will continue to expand its use. The NACC seeks to facilitate the efficacy and safety of neurostimulation.

First evidence of a biomarker-based dose-response relationship in chronic pain using physiological closed-loop spinal cord stimulation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy, electricity is the medication delivered to the spinal cord for pain relief. In contrast to conventional medication where dose is determined by desired therapeutic plasma concentration, there is lack of equivalent means of determining dose delivery in SCS. In open-loop (OL) SCS, due to the dynamic nature of the epidural space, the activating electric field delivered is inconsistent at the level of the dorsal columns. Recent Food and Drug Administration guidance suggests accurate and consistent therapy delivered using physiologic closed-loop control (PCLC) devices can minimize underdosage or overdosage and enhance medical care. PCLC-based evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled technology provides the ability to prescribe a precise stimulation dose unique to each patient, continuously measure neural activation, and objectively inform SCS therapy optimization. METHODS: Neurophysiological indicator metrics of therapy dose, usage above neural activation threshold, and accuracy of SCS therapy were assessed for relationship with pain reduction in over 600 SCS patients. RESULTS: Significant relationships between objective metrics and pain relief across the patient population are shown, including first evidence for a dose-response relationship in SCS. CONCLUSIONS: Higher dose, more time over ECAP threshold, and higher accuracy are associated with better outcomes across patients. There is potential to optimize individual patient outcomes based on unique objective measurable electrophysiological inputs.

Treating Chronic, Intractable Pain with a Miniaturized Spinal Cord Stimulation System: 1-Year Outcomes from the AUS-nPower Study During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Purpose: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a highly effective treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. Despite recent advances in technology, treatment gaps remain. A small SCS system with a miniaturized implantable pulse generator (micro-IPG; <1.5 cm3 in volume) and an externally worn power source may be preferred by patients who do not want a large, implanted battery. We report here the long-term outcomes from the first-in-human study evaluating the safety and performance of a new neurostimulation system. Patients and Methods: This was a prospective, multi-center, open-label, single-arm study to evaluate this SCS system, in the treatment of chronic, intractable leg and low-back pain. Consented subjects who passed screening continued on to the long-term phase of the study. One-year, patient-reported outcomes (PRO's) such as pain (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), functional disability, quality of life, and mood were captured. Results: Twenty-six (26) evaluable subjects with permanent implants were included in this analysis. The average leg pain NRS score decreased from 6.8 ± 1.2 at baseline to 1.1 ± 1.2 at the end of the study (p < 0.001), while the average low-back pain NRS score decreased from 6.8 ± 1.2 to 1.5 ± 1.2 (p < 0.001). The responder rate (proportion with ≥50% pain relief) was 91% in the leg(s) and 82% in the low back. There were significant improvements in functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and in mood (Beck Depression Inventory), demonstrating a 46% and 62% improvement, respectively (p < 0.001). Eleven-point Likert scales demonstrated the wearable to be very comfortable and very easy to use. Conclusion: There were considerable challenges conducting a clinical study during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as missed study programming visits. Nevertheless, subjects had significant PRO improvements through 1-year. The small size of the implanted device, along with a proprietary waveform, may allow for improved SCS outcomes and a drop in incidence of IPG-pocket pain.