Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of 60-Day Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Treatment Indicates Relief of Persistent Postoperative Pain, and Improved Function After Knee Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective surgery for end-stage knee osteoarthritis, but chronic postoperative pain and reduced function affect up to 20% of patients who undergo such surgery. There are limited treatment options, but percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is a promising nonopioid treatment option for chronic, persistent postoperative pain. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of a 60-day percutaneous PNS treatment in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial for treating persistent postoperative pain after TKA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with postoperative pain after knee replacement were screened for this postmarket, institutional review board-approved, prospectively registered (NCT04341948) trial. Subjects were randomized to receive either active PNS or placebo (sham) stimulation. Subjects and a designated evaluator were blinded to group assignments. Subjects in both groups underwent ultrasound-guided placement of percutaneous fine-wire coiled leads targeting the femoral and sciatic nerves on the leg with postoperative pain. Leads were indwelling for eight weeks, and the primary efficacy outcome compared the proportion of subjects in each group reporting ≥50% reduction in average pain relative to baseline during weeks five to eight. Functional outcomes (6-minute walk test; 6MWT and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) and quality of life (Patient Global Impression of Change) also were evaluated at end of treatment (EOT). RESULTS: A greater proportion of subjects in the PNS groups (60%; 12/20) than in the placebo (sham) group (24%; 5/21) responded with ≥50% pain relief relative to baseline (p = 0.028) during the primary endpoint (weeks 5-8). Subjects in the PNS group also walked a significantly greater distance at EOT than did those in the placebo (sham) group (6MWT; +47% vs -9% change from baseline; p = 0.048, n = 18 vs n = 20 completed the test, respectively). Prospective follow-up to 12 months is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that percutaneous PNS decreases persistent pain, which leads to improved functional outcomes after TKA at EOT.

Maximal Analgesic Effect Attained by the Use of Objective Neurophysiological Measurements With Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been challenged by the lack of neurophysiologic data to guide therapy optimization. Current SCS programming by trial-and-error results in suboptimal and variable therapeutic effects. A novel system with a physiologic closed-loop feedback mechanism using evoked-compound action potentials enables the optimization of physiologic neural dose by consistently and accurately activating spinal cord fibers. We aimed to identify neurophysiologic dose metrics and their ranges that resulted in clinically meaningful treatment responses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects from 3 clinical studies (n = 180) with baseline back and leg pain ≥60 mm visual analog scale and physical function in the severe to crippled category were included. Maximal analgesic effect (MAE) was operationally defined as the greatest percent reduction in pain intensity or as the greatest cumulative responder score (minimal clinically important differences [MCIDs]) obtained within the first 3 months of SCS implant. The physiologic metrics that produced the MAE were analyzed. RESULTS: We showed that a neural dose regimen with a high neural dose accuracy of 2.8µV and dose ratio of 1.4 resulted in a profound clinical benefit to chronic pain patients (MAE of 79 ± 1% for pain reduction and 12.5 ± 0.4 MCIDs). No differences were observed for MAE or neurophysiological dose metrics between the trial phase and post-implant MAE visit. CONCLUSION: For the first time, an evidence-based neural dose regimen is available for a neurostimulation intervention as a starting point to enable optimization of clinical benefit, monitoring of adherence, and management of the therapy.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)®: Recommendations for the Mitigation of Complications of Neurostimulation.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise and international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the mitigation of neuromodulation complications. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)® project intends to update evidence-based guidance and offer expert opinion that will improve efficacy and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors were chosen on the basis of 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 October 2023. Identified studies were graded using the United States 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 mitigation of complications associated with neurostimulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be used as a guide to assist decision-making when clinically appropriate.

Treatment of Refractory Low Back Pain Using Passive Recharge Burst in Patients Without Options for Corrective Surgery: Findings and Results From the DISTINCT Study, a Prospective Randomized Multicenter Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective for relieving chronic intractable pain conditions. The Dorsal spInal cord STImulatioN vs mediCal management for the Treatment of low back pain study evaluates the effectiveness of SCS compared with conventional medical management (CMM) in the treatment of chronic low back pain in patients who had not undergone and were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were randomized to passive recharge burst therapy (n = 162) or CMM (n = 107). They reported severe pain and disability for more than a decade and had failed a multitude of therapies. Common diagnoses included degenerative disc disease, spondylosis, stenosis, and scoliosis-yet not to a degree amenable to surgery. The six-month primary end point compared responder rates, defined by a 50% reduction in pain. Hierarchical analyses of seven secondary end points were performed in the following order: composite responder rate (numerical rating scale [NRS] or Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), NRS, ODI, Pain Catastrophizing Scale responder rate, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) responder rate, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System-29 in pain interference and physical function. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis showed a significant difference in pain responders on NRS between SCS (72.6%) and CMM (7.1%) arms (p < 0.0001). Of note, 85.2% of those who received six months of therapy responded on NRS compared with 6.2% of those with CMM (p < 0.0001). All secondary end points indicated the superiority of burst therapy over CMM. A composite measure on function or pain relief showed 91% of subjects with SCS improved, compared with 16% of subjects with CMM. A substantial improvement of 30 points was observed on ODI compared with a

Cortical dynamics of movement-evoked pain in chronic low back pain.

KEY POINTS: Cortical activity underlying movement-evoked pain is not well understood, despite being a key symptom of chronic musculoskeletal pain. We combined high-density electroencephalography with a full-body reaching protocol in a virtual reality environment to assess cortical activity during movement-evoked pain in chronic low back pain. Movement-evoked pain in individuals with chronic low back pain was associated with longer reaction times, delayed peak velocity and greater movement variability. Movement-evoked pain was associated with attenuated disinhibition in prefrontal motor areas, as evidenced by an attenuated reduction in beta power in the premotor cortex and supplementary motor area. ABSTRACT: Although experimental pain alters neural activity in the cortex, evidence of changes in neural activity in individuals with chronic low back pain (cLBP) remains scarce and results are inconsistent. One of the challenges in studying cLBP is that the clinical pain fluctuates over time and often changes during movement. The goal of the present study was to address this challenge by recording high-density electroencephalography (HD-EEG) data during a full-body reaching task to understand neural activity during movement-evoked pain. HD-EEG data were analysed using independent component analyses, source localization and measure projection analyses to compare neural oscillations between individuals with cLBP who experienced movement-evoked pain and pain-free controls. We report two novel findings. First, movement-evoked pain in individuals with cLBP was associated with longer reaction times, delayed peak velocity and greater movement variability. Second, movement-evoked pain was associated with an attenuated reduction in beta power in the premotor cortex and supplementary motor area. Our observations move the field forward by revealing attenuated disinhibition in prefrontal motor areas during movement-evoked pain in cLBP.

A paramedian approach for dorsal root ganglion stimulation placement developed to limit lead migration and fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), has demonstrated superiority in the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia. Lead migration and fracture impact DRG-S therapeutic stability. Lead anchoring reduces DRG-S lead migration without increasing lead fracture. Lead fracture may be related to lead entrapment in the superficial fascial plane. A novel medialized approach for lead placement and anchoring is presented to address these issues. METHODS: We suggest an alternative technique for implanting percutaneous DRG-S leads at the T10-L5 levels. RESULTS: A novel medialized ipsilateral technique for lead placement and anchoring for single, bilateral, and adjacent segment placement is presented. The Tuohy needle puncture site is medial to the pedicle and adjacent to the spinous process, two vertebral levels caudad to the target foramen. Trajectory is maintained in the sagittal plane, to access the caudad interlaminar space near the midline. This technique allows for ipsilateral or contralateral lead placement. After epidural access, the introducer sheath is rotated toward the targeted foramen and advanced. The guidewire followed by the lead is passed, and once lead position is confirmed, tension "S" loops are created, followed by anchoring to the deep fascia. CONCLUSION: We describe a new paramedian technique for DRG-S lead placement. We propose it will decrease DRG-S complication rates through anchoring to reduce migration and by avoiding the fascial planes thought to be responsible for fracture. Long-term outcomes applying our proposed techniques are required for determining the true impact, however, early anecdotal results suggest that these new techniques are favorable.

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 Spine Neurostimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for SCS. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year's duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, 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: SCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT). CONCLUSIONS: High-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

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.

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation as a Potentially Effective Treatment for Painful Hereditary and Idiopathic Axonal Polyneuropathy: A Retrospective Case Series.

OBJECTIVES: Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation has been demonstrated to be effective in treating painful diabetic polyneuropathy in a small case series. However, diabetic polyneuropathy only accounts for 41% of all polyneuropathies and the efficacy of DRG on other types of polyneuropathy is unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of DRG stimulation in treating painful hereditary and idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a monocentric retrospective case series. Two subjects with painful hereditary axonal polyneuropathy and two subjects with painful chronic idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy who underwent DRG stimulation trials were included in this study. All subjects were evaluated independently by neuromuscular neurologists with eletrophysiological studies and genetic testing. Permanent DRG stimulator was implanted if significant pain relief (>50%) was achieved over the trial period. Pain level were evaluated at baseline, during the trial, after the permanent implantation and at one, three, and six months. RESULTS: Pain was significantly reduced after the DRG stimulator trial with an average VAS reduction of 6.00 ± 2.83, or 65 ± 26.77% (p = 0.024). Three subjects subsequently underwent permanent DRG stimulator implantation. Pain remained significantly reduced after the permanent implantation. The average VAS reduction was 6.33 ± 2.31, or 67.5 ± 20.46% after permanent DRG implantation (p = 0.042), 7.67 ± 2.31, or 80.83 ± 15.88% at one month (p = 0.029), and 7.00 ± 2.00 or 74.17 ± 14.21% at three and six months (p = 0.026). No complications were observed. CONCLUSION: This small retrospective study suggests that DRG stimulation may be a safe and effective treatment for painful hereditary and idiopathic axonal polyneuropathy.

The Evolution of Neuromodulation in the Treatment of Chronic Pain: Forward-Looking Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The field of neuromodulation is continually evolving, with the past decade showing significant advancement in the therapeutic efficacy of neuromodulation procedures. The continued evolution of neuromodulation technology brings with it the promise of addressing the needs of both patients and physicians, as current technology improves and clinical applications expand. DESIGN: This review highlights the current state of the art of neuromodulation for treating chronic pain, describes key areas of development including stimulation patterns and neural targets, expanding indications and applications, feedback-controlled systems, noninvasive approaches, and biomarkers for neuromodulation and technology miniaturization. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The field of neuromodulation is undergoing a renaissance of technology development with potential for profoundly improving the care of chronic pain patients. New and emerging targets like the dorsal root ganglion, as well as high-frequency and patterned stimulation methodologies such as burst stimulation, are paving the way for better clinical outcomes. As we look forward to the future, neural sensing, novel target-specific stimulation patterns, and approaches combining neuromodulation therapies are likely to significantly impact how neuromodulation is used. Moreover, select biomarkers may influence and guide the use of neuromodulation and help objectively demonstrate efficacy and outcomes.

Neuromodulation of the Dorsal Root Ganglion for Chronic Postsurgical Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to review the available evidence for dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome type II (CRPS II; peripheral causalgia) associated with chronic neuropathic postsurgical pain (NPP). DESIGN: Available literature was identified through a search of the US National Library of Medicine's Medline database, PubMed.gov. References from published articles also were reviewed for relevant citations. RESULTS: The data published to date support the use of DRG stimulation to treat chronic NPP of the groin, knee, and foot. NPP following procedures such as thoracotomy, hernia surgery, and knee replacement surgery were identified as some of the conditions for which DRG stimulation is likely to be effective. CONCLUSION: DRG stimulation is known to be an effective treatment for focal neuropathic pain. Currently, NPP of the foot, groin, and knee all appear to be the conditions with the most clinical experience, backed by a limited but growing body of evidence. However, prospective studies lag behind real-world clinical experience and are needed to confirm these findings.

Postoperative surgical trainee opioid prescribing practices (POST OPP): an institutional study.

BACKGROUND: Increasing mortality from opioid overdoses has prompted increased focus on prescribing practices of physicians. Unfortunately, resident physicians rarely receive formal education in effective opioid prescribing practices or postoperative pain management. Data to inform surgical training programs regarding the utility and feasibility of formal training are lacking. METHODS: Following Institutional Review Board approval, a single institution's resident physicians who had completed at least one surgical rotation were surveyed to assess knowledge of pain management and evaluate opioid prescribing practices. RESULTS: Fifty-three respondents (68% males and 32% females) completed the survey. Most respondents denied receiving formal instruction in opioid pain medication prescribing practices during either medical school (62.3%) or residency (56.6%); however, nearly all respondents stated they were aware of the side effects of opioid pain medications, and a majority felt confident in their knowledge of opioid pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Of the respondents, 47% either "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that they prescribed more opioid medications than necessary to patients being discharged following a surgical procedure. Individual case scenario responses demonstrated variability in the number of morphine milligram equivalents prescribed across scenarios (P < 0.001). Male and nonsurgical specialty respondents reported prescribing significantly fewer overall morphine milligram equivalents in these scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study shows wide variability in opioid prescribing practices and attitudes toward pain management among surgical trainees, illustrating the potential utility of formal education in pain management and effective prescribing of these medications. A broader assessment of surgical trainees' knowledge and perception of opioid prescribing practices is warranted to facilitate the development of such a program.

Comparing Conventional Medical Management to Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Low Back Pain in a Cohort of DISTINCT RCT Patients.

Aim: Low Back Pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a more effective, long-term treatment compared to conventional medical management (CMM). The DISTINCT study enrolled and randomized chronic LBP patients with no indication of traditional spine surgery. This analysis focuses comparing study outcomes on patients initially randomized to receive CMM treatment and subsequently crossed over to SCS after 6 months. Purpose: To compare the therapeutic effectiveness and cost-efficiency of passive recharge burst SCS to CMM. Patients and Methods: A total of 269 patients were enrolled with 162 randomly assigned to SCS and 107 to CMM. The DISTINCT study design allowed a crossover to the alternative treatment arm after 6 months. Patients underwent a trial and received a permanent implant if they reported ≥50% pain reduction. Outcome analysis included pain (NRS), disability (ODI), catastrophizing (PCS), quality of life (PROMIS-29) and health care utilization. Results: Seventy out of eighty-one patients opted to cross over to trial SCS at 6M with 94% (66/70) undergoing a trial. Among those, 88% (58/66) reported a ≥50% or more pain relief and 55 received a permanent implant. At 12M visit, 71.4% reported a ≥50% pain improvement sustained at the 18M visit, with 24.5% (12/49) indicating a ≥80% improvement. Disability reductions (79% meeting the minimally important difference of a 13-point decrease), decreased catastrophizing, and significant improvements in all PROMIS-29 domains were noted. Furthermore, 42% of the patients reported decreased or discontinued opioid usage. Clinical benefits at the 12M visit were sustained through the 18M visit accompanied by a significant reduction in healthcare utilization and a $1214 cost savings. Conclusion: SCS demonstrates superior, long-term performance and safety outcomes compared to CMM therapy in LBP patients who received both CMM and SCS therapy. Additionally, SCS patients experienced reduced healthcare resource utilization and lower costs compared to those receiving CMM.

Safety, Efficacy, and Durability of Outcomes: Results from SECURE: A Single Arm, Multicenter, Prospective, Clinical Study on a Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Fusion Allograft Implant.

Introduction: Research suggests that sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction is responsible for 15% to 30% of reported low back pain cases. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in SIJ fusion using minimally invasive surgery (MIS) due to safety. Initially, devices designed for MIS were intended for lateral approaches. A minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion implant for use with a posterior approach has been developed and is regulated for clinical use under the regulatory framework required for human cells, tissues, or cellular or tissue-based products (HCT/Ps). Methods: A multi-center, prospective, single-arm study was launched after initial studies provided preliminary data to support safety, efficacy, and durability of this minimally invasive sacroiliac posterior fusion LinQ allograft implant (NCT04423120). Preliminary results were reported previously. Final results for the full participant cohort are presented here. Results: One-hundred and fifty-nine (159) participants were enrolled across 16 investigational sites in the US between January 2020 and March 2022. One-hundred and twenty-two (122) participants were implanted. At the 1-month follow-up, 82 participants satisfied all criteria for the composite responder endpoint, representing 73.2% of the study cohort. These results stayed consistent across the remaining study timepoints with 66.0%, 74.4%, and 73.5% of participants classified as responders at the 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up visits, respectively. VAS scores were significantly reduced (p < 0.0001) and ODI scores were significantly improved (p < 0.0001). All domains of the PROMIS-29 were also significantly improved (all p's <0.0001). Only one procedure-related serious AE was reported in the study. Conclusion: These results suggest that the posterior approach LinQ Implant System is a safe and effective treatment for sacroiliac joint dysfunction at 12 months, with results that are favorable compared to outcomes reported for an FDA-cleared lateral approach.

Durable multimodal and holistic response for physiologic closed-loop spinal cord stimulation supported by objective evidence from the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain patients may experience impairments in multiple health-related domains. The design and interpretation of clinical trials of chronic pain interventions, however, remains primarily focused on treatment effects on pain intensity. This study investigates a novel, multidimensional holistic treatment response to evoked compound action potential-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop spinal cord stimulation as well as the degree of neural activation that produced that treatment response. METHODS: Outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality and emotional function were derived from individual patient level data from the EVOKE multicenter, participant, investigator, and outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial with 24 month follow-up. Evaluation of holistic treatment response considered whether the baseline score was worse than normative values and whether minimal clinical important differences were reached in each of the domains that were impaired at baseline. A cumulative responder score was calculated to reflect the total minimal clinical important differences accumulated across all domains. Objective neurophysiological data, including spinal cord activation were measured. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to closed-loop (n=67) or open-loop (n=67). A greater proportion of patients with closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (49.3% vs 26.9%) were holistic responders at 24-month follow-up, with at least one minimal clinical important difference in all impaired domains (absolute risk difference: 22.4%, 95% CI 6.4% to 38.4%, p=0.012). The cumulative responder score was significantly greater for closed-loop patients at all time points and resulted in the achievement of more than three additional minimal clinical important differences at 24-month follow-up (mean difference 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.5, p=0.002). Neural activation was three times more accurate in closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (p<0.001 at all time points). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that closed-loop spinal cord stimulation can provide sustained clinically meaningful improvements in multiple domains and provide holistic improvement in the long-term for patients with chronic refractory pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

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.

Identifying SCS Trial Responders Immediately After Postoperative Programming with ECAP Dose-Controlled Closed-Loop Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Drawbacks of fixed-output spinal cord stimulation (SCS) screening trials may lead to compromised trial outcomes and poor predictability of long-term success. Evoked compound action potential (ECAP) dose-controlled closed-loop (CL) SCS allows objective confirmation of therapeutic neural activation and pulse-to-pulse stimulation adjustment. We report on the immediate patient-reported and neurophysiologic treatment response post-physiologic CL-SCS and feasibility of early SCS trial responder prediction. METHODS: Patient-reported pain relief, functional improvement, and willingness to proceed to permanent implant were compared between the day of the trial procedure (Day 0) and end of trial (EOT) for 132 participants in the ECAP Study undergoing a trial stimulation period. ECAP-based neurophysiologic measurements from Day 0 and EOT were compared between responder groups. RESULTS: A high positive predictive value (PPV) was achieved with 98.4% (60/61) of patients successful on the Day 0 evaluation also responding at EOT. The false-positive rate (FPR) was 5.6% (1/18). ECAP-based neurophysiologic measures were not different between patients who passed all Day 0 success criteria ("Day 0 successes") and those who did not ("needed longer to evaluate the therapy"). However, at EOT, responders had higher therapeutic usage and dose levels compared to non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: The high PPV and low FPR of the Day 0 evaluation provide confidence in predicting trial outcomes as early as the day of the procedure. Day 0 trials may be beneficial for reducing patient burden and complication rates associated with extended trials. ECAP dose-controlled CL-SCS therapy may provide objective data and rapid-onset pain relief to improve prognostic ability of SCS trials in predicting outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ECAP Study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04319887).