The MOTION study: Two-year results of a real-world randomized controlled trial of the mild® procedure for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The MOTION study is designed to measure the impact of percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as a first-line therapy on patients otherwise receiving real-world conventional medical management for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. This prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial uses objective and patient-reported outcome measures to compare the combination of the mild® percutaneous treatment and nonsurgical conventional medical management (CMM) to CMM-Alone. METHODS: Test group patients received the mild procedure after study enrollment. Test and control groups were allowed conventional conservative therapies and low-risk interventional therapies as recommended by their physicians. Subjective outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Objective outcomes included a validated Walking Tolerance Test, the rate of subsequent lumbar spine interventions, and safety data. RESULTS: Two-year follow-up included 64 mild + CMM and 67 CMM-Alone patients. All outcome measures showed significant improvement from baseline for mild + CMM, whereas the majority of CMM-Alone patients had elected to receive mild treatment or other lumbar spine interventions by 2 years, precluding valid 2-year between-group comparisons. Neither group reported any device- or procedure-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The durability of mild + CMM for this patient population was demonstrated for all efficacy outcomes through 2 years. Improvements in walking time from baseline to 2 years for patients treated with mild + CMM were significant and substantial. The lack of reported device or procedure-related adverse events reinforces the strong safety profile of the mild procedure. These results provide support for early interventional treatment of symptomatic LSS with the mild procedure.

Targeted Drug Delivery for Chronic Nonmalignant Pain: Longitudinal Data From the Product Surveillance Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To assist in assessment of therapy risks and benefits of targeted drug delivery (TDD) for chronic nonmalignant pain using registry data on product performance, adverse events, and elective device replacement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Product Surveillance Registry (PSR) (NCT01524276) is an ongoing prospective, long-term, multicenter registry enrolling consented patients implanted with an intrathecal drug delivery system. Patients are followed prospectively with participating investigators providing pump and catheter performance data for events related to the device, procedure, and therapy. Event descriptions include patient symptoms and outcomes. RESULTS: Registry data from the 4646 patients (59.7% female) treated with TDD for chronic, nonmalignant pain at 59 registry sites between August 2003 and October 2019, with over 17,000 patient-years (4646 patients with 44 months average follow-up), were analyzed. Registry discontinuation was largely (46.2% of discontinued patients) due to study site closure and patient death; exit due to an adverse or device event was limited to 10.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Treating chronic pain with escalating doses of strong systemic opioids often leads to inconsistent pain control, impaired function, untenable side effects, and reduced quality of life and this practice has contributed to the current opioid crisis in the United States. TDD has been an available therapy for these patients for greater than 30 years, and data from this real-world registry offer supporting evidence to the long-term safety of this therapy as an alternative to systemic opioids, as well as insights into patient acceptance and satisfaction.

Using Lower Amplitudes to Maintain Effective High Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy (SCS Dosing Pilot Study).

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation is an effective therapy for chronic back and/or leg pain. Amplitude dose-response studies are lacking; therefore, little guidance exists regarding the minimum amplitude requirements with specific high dose parameters. This study characterized the minimum amplitude level that maintained SCS therapy satisfaction and pain relief when stimulating at 1000 Hz and 90 µsec. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Qualified patients had back and leg pain, an implanted neurostimulator programmed to 1000 Hz and 90 µsec, and were very or somewhat satisfied with the therapy, and an average overall VAS pain score ≤ 4 from a daily diary. Patients received four blinded amplitudes (titrated from 80%, 60%, 40%, and 20% of baseline perception threshold), approximately two weeks each, with 1000 Hz and 90 µsec and position-adaptive stimulation enabled. Patients' satisfaction and overall VAS pain scores were collected for each period. All patients continued through the study, even after reporting lack of therapy satisfaction or pain relief. RESULTS: The minimum amplitude, which maintained therapy satisfaction, was 80% of perception threshold for two patients, 60% for one patient, and 20% for 21 patients. Additionally, six patients lost satisfaction changing from their baseline amplitude to 80% perception threshold. The minimum amplitude level, which maintained overall pain relief, was 80% perception threshold for three patients, 60% perception threshold for one patient, 40% perception threshold for two patients, and 20% perception threshold for 19 patients. Five patients required the setting they were programmed to during the baseline period. CONCLUSION: The qualified study patients defined an implanted population reporting good pain relief and satisfaction using HD SCS therapy at baseline. The majority of these patients were able to maintain therapy satisfaction and pain relief (70% and 63.3%, respectively) with 20% perception threshold amplitude. Amplitudes below perception threshold could potentially maintain effective SCS therapy with HD stimulation in a subset of patients.

High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation at 10 kHz for the Treatment of Nonsurgical Refractory Back Pain: Design of a Pragmatic, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to provide pain relief for chronic back and leg pain due to failed back surgery syndrome. But many patients with chronic back pain have not had major back surgery or are not good candidates for surgery, and conventional medical management (CMM) provides limited relief. We have termed this condition nonsurgical refractory back pain (NSRBP). Level 1 evidence does not yet exist showing the therapeutic benefit of SCS for NSRBP. OBJECTIVE: To compare 10-kHz SCS plus CMM (10-kHz SCS + CMM) to CMM alone for treatment of NSRBP in terms of clinical and cost effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT), with subjects randomized 1:1 to either 10-kHz SCS + CMM or CMM alone. Optional crossover occurs at 6 months if treatment does not achieve ≥50% pain relief. METHODS: Patients with NSRBP as defined above may be enrolled if they are ineligible for surgery based on surgical consultation. Subjects randomized to 10-kHz SCS + CMM will receive a permanent implant if sufficient pain relief is achieved in a temporary trial. Both groups will receive CMM per standard of care and will undergo assessments at baseline and at follow-ups to 12 months. Self-report outcomes include pain, disability, sleep, mental health, satisfaction, healthcare utilization, and quality of life. RESULTS: Enrollment was initiated on September 10, 2018. Prespecified independent interim analysis at 40% of the enrollment target indicated the sample size was sufficient to show superiority of treatment at the primary endpoint; therefore, enrollment was stopped at 211. CONCLUSIONS: This large multicenter RCT will provide valuable evidence to guide clinical decisions in NSRBP.

Twelve-Month results from multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation and traditional spinal cord stimulation in subjects with chronic intractable back pain and leg pain.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment for chronic intractable pain of the trunk and/or limbs; however, low back pain (LBP) is difficult to treat using traditional SCS. Differential Target Multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM SCS) is an advanced approach inspired from animal studies demonstrating improved pain-related behavior and pain-relevant biological processes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of DTM SCS and traditional SCS in treating chronic LBP and leg pain (LP). METHODS: This prospective, postmarket randomized controlled trial compared DTM SCS to traditional SCS in patients with chronic LBP and LP. Primary end point was LBP responder rate (percentage of subjects with ≥ 50% relief) at 3 months. Noninferiority and superiority were assessed. Other outcomes included mean change in back and leg pain, responder rates, disability, global health, satisfaction, and safety profile throughout the 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight subjects were randomized across 12 centers (67 DTM SCS and 61 traditional SCS). Of the 94 patients implanted, 46 subjects in each group completed the 3-month assessment. LBP responder rate of 80.1% with DTM SCS was superior to 51.2% with traditional SCS (p = 0.0010). Mean LBP reduction (5.36 cm) with DTM SCS was greater than reduction (3.37 cm) with traditional SCS (p < 0.0001). These results were sustained at 6 months and 12 months. Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Superiority of DTM SCS compared with traditional SCS for chronic LBP was demonstrated. Clinical improvements provided by DTM SCS were sustained over 12 months and are expected to significantly impact the management of chronic LBP.

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.

Prospective, Multicenter Feasibility Study to Evaluate Differential Target Multiplexed Spinal Cord Stimulation Programming in Subjects With Chronic Intractable Back Pain With or Without Leg Pain.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective, open-label, multicenter study evaluated the feasibility of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy programming for chronic low back pain that uses multiple electrical pulsed signals (Differential Target Multiplexed). METHODS: Twenty-five SCS candidates with low back pain equal to or greater than lower limb pain were enrolled at 7 sites in the United States. The subjects evaluated standard and Differential Target Multiplexed programs, each for 4 ± 1 days. A commercially available SCS trial system was used for standard SCS therapy programming. During the trialing of the multiplexed programs, implanted temporary leads were connected to an investigational external trial stimulator system. RESULTS: Twenty subjects concluded the study. The mean baseline numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) score for low back pain was 7.4, with a mean age of 62.4 years and mean pain duration of 18.0 years. Significant relief in back pain was observed for both treatments, with significantly better response with multiplexed programming. At the end of the trial period, subjects reported a reduction in their mean NPRS score from baseline to 4.2 after standard programming and to 2.4 after Differential Target Multiplexed programming. The difference between standard and multiplexed programming was significant. The responder rate for low back pain relief was 50% for standard programming and 80% for Differential Target Multiplexed programming. Eighty-five percent of subjects who evaluated both programming approaches preferred Differential Target Multiplexed SCS. CONCLUSION: In this difficult-to-treat patient population, subjects reported significant reduction in chronic back pain when using multiplexed programming. A randomized clinical trial is needed to confirm the results from this feasibility study.

A Review of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis with Intermittent Neurogenic Claudication: Disease and Diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a degenerative spinal condition affecting nearly 50% of patients presenting with lower back pain. The goal of this review is to present and summarize the current data on how LSS presents in various populations, how it is diagnosed, and current therapeutic strategies. Properly understanding the prevalence, presentation, and treatment options for individuals suffering from LSS is critical to providing patients the best possible care. RESULTS: The occurrence of LSS is associated with advanced age. In elderly patients, LSS can be challenging to identify due to the wide variety of presentation subtleties and common comorbidities such as degenerative disc disease. Recent developments in imaging techniques can be useful in accurately identifying the precise location of the spinal compression. Treatment options can range from conservative to surgical, with the latter being reserved for when patients have neurological compromise or conservative measures have failed. Once warranted, there are several surgical techniques at the physician's disposal to best treat each individual case.

Wireless High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation (10 kHz) Compared with Multiwaveform 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.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the wireless Freedom Spinal Cord Stimulator (WSCS) System for the treatment of chronic back and/or leg pain associated with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) refractory to standard medical treatment utilizing 10-kHz stimulation (high-frequency [HF]) in comparison with 10-1,500-Hz stimulation (low-frequency [LF]) waveforms. METHODS: Ninety-nine subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either HF or LF stimulation waveforms utilizing the same Freedom WSCS System. All subjects were implanted with two 8-electrode arrays in the exact same anatomical positions within the dorsal epidural spinal column, with the top electrode positioned at the T8 and T9 vertebrae levels, respectively, and the wireless receiver placed under the skin in a subcutaneous pocket. RESULTS: Seventy-two (HF: N = 38; LF: N = 34) subjects had completed the six-month follow-up after an initial 30-day trial period at the time of this report. For both the HF and LF arms, mean visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain decreased significantly: 77% and 76%, respectively, for the HF arm and 64% and 64%, respectively, for the LF arm. In addition, most subjects experienced significant improvements in VAS, Oswestry Disability Index, European Quality of Life 5 Dimension questionnaire, Patient Global Impression of Change, and sleep duration. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results demonstrate that WSCS devices can reduce FBSS chronic pain substantially with both LF and HF stimulation waveforms over a seven-month period (30-day trial period and six-month post-trial evaluation).

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

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

Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS)-The Implantable Systems Performance Registry (ISPR).

OBJECTIVES: The Implantable Systems Performance Registry (ISPR) was created to monitor the product performance of Medtronic Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) and implanted intrathecal drug infusion systems available in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected on 2605 patients from 44 centers from various geographic regions across the United States implanting and following patients with SCS systems between June 25, 2004 and January 31, 2014. Actuarial life table methods are used to estimate device performance over time. Of the 2605 patients, 1490 (57.2%) were female, 1098 (42.1%) were male and 17 (0.7%) did not provide gender data. The average age at enrollment was 56.3 years (range: 4-97, SD = 14.3) and average follow-up time was 20.1 months (SD = 22.5). RESULTS: Currently the estimates of device survival from neurostimulator-related events exceed 97% for all neurostimulator models across the applicable follow-up time points and all applicable extension models had greater than 95% survival from extension events. The majority of product performance events were lead-related. At 5 years of follow-up, all applicable lead families, with the exception of the Pisces-Quad LZ family, had greater than 75% survival from lead events. CONCLUSIONS: The ISPR is designed to serve as an ongoing source of system and device-related information with a focus on "real-world" safety and product performance. ISPR data continue to be used to guide future product development efforts aimed at improving product reliability and quality.

The Safety and Effectiveness of Orthobiologic Injections for Discogenic Chronic Low Back Pain: A Multicenter Prospective, Crossover, Randomized Controlled Trial with 12 Months Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is one of the most common causes of disability, affecting more than 600 million people worldwide with major social and economic costs. Current treatment options include conservative, surgical, and minimally invasive interventional treatment approaches. Novel therapeutic treatment options continue to develop, targeting the biological cascades involved in the degenerative processes to prevent invasive spinal surgical procedures. Both intradiscal platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow concentrate (BMC) applications have been introduced as promising regenerative treatment procedures. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study is to assess the safety and effectiveness of an orthobiologic intradiscal injection, PRP or BMC, when compared to control patients. The secondary objectives are to measure: patient satisfaction and incidence of hospitalization, emergency room visit and spine surgery at predetermined follow-up intervals. STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter, prospective, crossover, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Comprehensive Spine and Sports Center and participating centers. METHODS: Forty patients were randomized into saline trigger point injection, intradiscal PRP, or BMC. Follow-up was 1, 3, 6, and 12 months posttreatment. Placebo patients were randomized to PRP and BMC injection if < 50% decrease in numeric rating scale (NRS) scores in 3 months, while PRP and BMC patients to the other active group if < 50% decrease in NRS scores in 6 months. RESULTS: Both PRP and BMC demonstrated statistically significant improvement in pain and function. All the placebo patients reported < 50% pain relief and crossed to the active arm. None of the patients had any adverse effects, hospitalization, or surgery up to 12 months posttreatment. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of our study were the small number of patients and open-label nature of the study. CONCLUSION: This is the only human lumbar disc study that evaluates both PRP and BMC in the same study and compares it to placebo. PRP and BMC were found to be superior to placebo in improving pain and function; however, larger randomized clinical trials are needed to answer further questions on the comparative effectiveness of various biologics as well as to identify outcome differences specific to disc pathology.

Demographics and PainDETECT as Predictors of 24-Month Outcomes for 10 kHz SCS in Nonsurgical Refractory Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Nonsurgical refractory back pain (NSRBP) is broadly defined as chronic refractory back pain in patients who have not had previous spine surgery and, because they are deemed inappropriate candidates for surgery, are reliant on conventional medical management (CMM), which often provides poor long-term outcomes. High-frequency spinal cord stimulation (10kHz SCS) has demonstrated high rates of pain relief and improvements in functioning in patients with NSRBP. However, despite the use of temporary trial stimulation to select patients who will respond to therapy, some patients fail to achieve long-term therapy response with permanent implants. Prediction analysis founded on patients' baseline characteristics may enrich the appropriate selection of patients for permanent implantation. OBJECTIVES: To examine baseline patient characteristics to predict long-term pain and functional responses to treatment with 10 kHz SCS for NSRBP. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of baseline patient characteristics as predictors of 24-month pain and functional outcomes from a previous multicenter randomized controlled trial of 10 kHz SCS in patients with NSRBP. PATIENTS: Patients diagnosed with chronic, neuropathic, axial, low back pain refractory to CMM who had had no previous spine surgery, were deemed unsuitable candidates for it according to a spine surgeon, were implanted with 10kHz SCS and continued with CMM for up to 24 months. METHODS: The baseline characteristics of and 24-month outcomes in the 125 implanted patients who participated in the NSRBP randomized controlled trial (RCT) were included in this analysis. The baseline characteristics included demographics, baseline pain on the visual analog scale (VAS), baseline function based on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), mental health according to the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), neuropathic pain as measured by PainDETECT, and each patient's temporary trial response. Patient response at 24 months was defined as absolute change from the baseline on the VAS and ODI, and each patient was also classified as a pain responder (achieving at least a 50% decrease in VAS pain score from the baseline) and a function responder (at least a 10-point decrease in ODI or a 24-month score of no more than 20 points). Multivariate prediction models based on regression and classification and regression tree (CART) techniques were developed using the response variables discussed above as the dependent variables and the baseline characteristics as the independent variables. RESULTS: Different factors contributed to pain and functional outcomes. Patients presenting with neuropathic pain (PainDETECT >= 19) and female gender had higher odds of being pain responders to 10 kHz SCS therapy than did males and those without neuropathic pain. Both higher age and depression score (PHQ-9) independently reduced the odds that a patient would be an ODI responder. Years since diagnosis, the reason the patient was deemed unsuitable for spine surgery, and pain etiology were not predictive of pain or functional outcomes. LIMITATIONS: A retrospective sub-analysis of a single pragmatic randomized controlled trial. CONCLUSIONS: There may be an opportunity to increase pain relief and functional improvement if additional patient screening accompanies the temporary lead trial. The presence of neuropathic pain, female gender, age, and depression had some predictive value, but this analysis demonstrates the treatment efficacy of 10 kHz SCS across a wide range of patients with NSRBP.

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 responses at 24 months with high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for nonsurgical refractory back pain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the 24-month durability of pain relief, function, quality of life, and safety outcomes for patients with nonsurgical refractory back pain (NSRBP) treated with high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) within a large, national, multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Following the completion of an RCT comparing high-frequency SCS plus CMM with CMM alone for the treatment of NSRBP, patients gave additional consent for a follow-up extension to 24 months. Presented is the cohort analysis of all patients treated with high-frequency SCS following the optional crossover at 6 months. The outcomes assessed to 24 months included responder rate of ≥ 50% pain relief measured according to the visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), quality of life (EQ-5D 5-level [EQ-5D-5L]), opioid reduction. RESULTS: Of the 125 patients who received a permanent implant, 121 completed the 12-month follow-up, 101 gave additional consent for extended follow-up, and 98 completed the 24-month follow-up. At 24 months after implantation, the mean back pain VAS score was reduced by 73% and the responder rate was 82%. ODI and EQ-5D-5L both improved by at least double the minimal clinically important difference for each measure. No unexpected adverse events were observed, and the rates of serious adverse events (3.4%) and device explantations (4.8%) were low. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of high-frequency SCS to CMM in patients with NSRBP offers profound improvements at 24 months in pain, function, quality of life, and reduced opioid use. This study provides much-needed evidence to inform current clinical practice for managing patients with NSRBP.

Defining the Patient with Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Real-World Implications for Diagnosis and Effective Clinical Management.

There is an enormous body of literature that has identified the intervertebral disc as a potent pain generator. However, with regard to lumbar degenerative disc disease, the specific diagnostic criteria lack clarity and fail to capture the primary components which include axial midline low back pain with or without non-radicular/non-sciatic referred leg pain in a sclerotomal distribution. In fact, there is no specific ICD-10-CM diagnostic code to classify and define discogenic pain as a unique source of pain distinct from other recognized sources of chronic low back pain including facetogenic, neurocompressive including herniation and/or stenosis, sacroiliac, vertebrogenic, and psychogenic. All of these other sources have well-defined ICD-10-CM codes. Corresponding codes for discogenic pain remain absent from the diagnostic coding vernacular. The International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) has proposed a modernization of ICD-10-CM codes to specifically define pain associated with lumbar and lumbosacral degenerative disc disease. The proposed codes would also allow the pain to be characterized by location: lumbar region only, leg only, or both. Successful implementation of these codes would benefit both physicians and payers in distinguishing, tracking, and improving algorithms and treatments for discogenic pain associated with intervertebral disc degeneration.

Results From a Prospective, Clinical Study (US-nPower) Evaluating a Miniature Spinal Cord Stimulator for the Management of Chronic, Intractable Pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic, intractable, neuropathic pain is readily treatable with spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Technological advancements, including device miniaturization, are advancing the field of neuromodulation. OBJECTIVES: We report here the results of an SCS clinical trial to treat chronic, low back and leg pain, with a micro-implantable pulse generator (micro-IPG). STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-arm, prospective, multicenter, postmarket, observational study. SETTING: Patients were recruited from 15 US-based comprehensive pain centers. METHODS: This open-label clinical trial was designed to evaluate the performance of the Nalu™ Neurostimulation System (Nalu Medical, Inc., Carlsbad, CA) in the treatment of low back and leg pain. Patients, who provided informed consent and were successfully screened for study entry, were implanted with temporary trial leads. Patients went on to receive a permanent implant of the leads and micro-IPG if they demonstrated a >= 50% reduction in pain during the temporary trial period. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as pain scores, functional disability, mood, patient impression of change, comfort, therapy use profile, and device ease of use, were captured. RESULTS: At baseline, the average pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score was 72.1 ± 17.9 in the leg and 78.0 ± 15.4 in the low back. At 90 days following permanent implant (end of study), pain scores improved by 76% (VAS 18.5 ± 18.8) in the leg and 75% (VAS 19.7 ± 20.8) in the low back. Eighty-six percent  of both leg pain and low back pain patients demonstrated a >= 50% reduction in pain at 90 days following implant. The comfort of the external wearable (Therapy Disc and Adhesive Clip) was rated 1.16 ± 1.53, on average, at 90 days on an 11-point rating scale (0 = very comfortable, 10 = very uncomfortable). All PROs demonstrated statistically significant symptomatic improvement at 90 days following implant of the micro-IPG. LIMITATIONS:   Limitations of this study include the lack of long-term results (beyond 90 days) and a relatively small sample size of 35 patients who were part of the analysis; additionally, there was no control arm or randomization as this was a single-arm study, without a comparator, designed to document the efficacy and safety of the device. Therefore, no direct comparisons to other SCS systems were possible. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical study demonstrated profound leg and low back pain relief in terms of overall pain reduction, as well as the proportion of therapy responders. The study patients reported the wearable aspects of the system to be very comfortable.

Combination therapy with simultaneous delivery of spinal cord stimulation modalities: COMBO randomized controlled trial.

Aim: The Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of various spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities for chronic pain. Specifically, combination therapy (simultaneous use of customized sub-perception field and paresthesia-based SCS) versus monotherapy (paresthesia-based SCS) was evaluated. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled (key inclusion criterion: chronic pain for ≥6 months). Primary end point was the proportion with ≥50% pain reduction without increased opioids at the 3 month follow-up. Patients were followed for 2 years. Results: The primary end point was met (n = 89; p < 0.0001) in 88% of patients in the combination-therapy arm (n = 36/41) and 71% in the monotherapy arm (n = 34/48). Responder rates at 1 and 2 years (with available SCS modalities) were 84% and 85%, respectively. Sustained functional outcomes improvement was observed out to 2 years. Conclusion: SCS-based combination therapy can improve outcomes in patients with chronic pain. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03689920 (ClinicalTrials.gov), Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes (COMBO).

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a device-based therapy for chronic pain that delivers electrical impulses to the spinal cord, disrupting pain signals to the brain. Pain relief can be achieved using different SCS techniques that use or do not use paresthesia (stimulation that produces a tingling sensation). These approaches affect patients in different ways, suggesting that different biological processes are involved in enabling pain relief. Research also suggests that better long-term results occur when patients can choose the therapy that is best for their own needs. This clinical study compared pain relief and other functional activities in those receiving combination therapy (simultaneous use of SCS that does and does not produce tingling sensation) against those receiving monotherapy (only SCS therapy producing tingling sensation) for 3 months. In the study, 88% of those receiving combination therapy and 71% with monotherapy alone reported a 50% (or greater) decrease in overall pain (the 'responder rate') without an increased dose of opioid drugs at 3 months after the start of therapy. This responder rate was found to be 84% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years (with all SCS therapy options available). Analysis of functional activities or disability showed that patients improved from 'severely disabled' at study start to 'moderately disabled' after 2 years, indicating that effective long-term (2 year) improvement can be achieved using SCS-based combination therapy for chronic pain.

Comprehensive, Evidence-Based, Consensus Guidelines for Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. OBJECTIVES: In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. METHODS: The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed. The multidisciplinary panel finalized 20 guideline recommendations for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Summary of the results showed over 90% agreement for the final 20 recommendations with strong consensus. The consensus guidelines included 4 sections specific to opioid therapy with 1) ten recommendations particular to initial steps of opioid therapy; 2) five recommendations for assessment of effectiveness of opioid therapy; 3) three recommendations regarding monitoring adherence and side effects; and 4) two general, final phase recommendations. LIMITATIONS: There is a continued paucity of literature of long-term opioid therapy addressing chronic non-cancer pain. Further, significant biases exist in the preparation of guidelines, which has led to highly variable rules and regulations across various states. CONCLUSION: These guidelines were developed based upon a comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among expert panelists, and in alignment with patient preferences, and shared decision-making so as to improve the long-term pain relief and function in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Consequently, it was concluded - and herein recommended - that chronic opioid therapy should be provided in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events only to those patients with a proven medical necessity, and who exhibit stable improvement in both pain relief and activities of daily function, either independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments.