Quantitative Sensory Testing in Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Narrative Review.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitative sensory testing (QST) has been used for decades to study sensory abnormalities in multiple conditions in which the somatosensory system is compromised, including pain. It is commonly used in pharmacologic studies on chronic pain but less so in conjunction with neuromodulation. This review aims to assess the utility of QST in spinal cord stimulation (SCS) protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this narrative review, we searched PubMed for records of studies in which sensory testing has been performed as part of a clinical study on SCS from 1975 onward until October 2023. We focused on studies in which QST has been used to explore the effect of SCS on neuropathic, neuropathic-like, or mixed pain. RESULTS: Our search identified 22 useful studies, all small and exploratory, using heterogeneous methods. Four studies used the full battery of validated German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain QST. There is emerging evidence that assessment dynamic mechanical allodynia (eight studies), and mechanical/thermal temporal summation of pain (eight studies) may have a role in quantifying the response to various SCS waveforms. There also were sporadic reports of improvement of sensory deficits in a proportion of patients with neuropathic pain that warrant further study. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the adoption of QST into future clinical research protocols, using either the full QST protocol or a less time-demanding short-form QST.

The Effect of Various Spinal Neurostimulation Paradigms on the Supraspinal Somatosensory Evoked Response: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal neurostimulation is a therapy for otherwise intractable chronic pain. Spinal neurostimulation includes stimulation of the spinal cord (SCS), dorsal root ganglion (DRGS), and dorsal root entry zone (DREZS). New paresthesia-free neurostimulation paradigms may rely on different mechanisms of action from those of conventional tonic neurostimulation. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the existing knowledge on the effect of spinal neurostimulation on somatosensory processing in patients with chronic pain. We therefore reviewed the existing literature on the effect of various spinal neurostimulation paradigms on the supraspinal somatosensory evoked response (SER). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple scientific data bases were searched for studies that assessed the effect of spinal neurostimulation on the supraspinal SER, evoked by painful or nonpainful peripheral stimuli in patients with chronic pain. We found 205 studies, of which 24 were included. Demographic data, study design, and study outcome were extracted. RESULTS: Of the 24 included studies, 23 used electroencephalography to assess the SER; one study used magnetoencephalography. Fifteen studies evaluated tonic SCS; six studies (also) evaluated paresthesia-free paradigms; three studies evaluated the effect of tonic DRGS or DREZS. Sixteen studies used nonpainful stimuli to elicit the SER, 14 observed a decreased SER amplitude. Ten studies used painful stimuli to elicit the SER, yielding mixed results. DISCUSSION: The included studies suggest that both paresthesia-based and paresthesia-free spinal neurostimulation paradigms can decrease (part of) the SER elicited by a nonpainful peripheral stimulus. The observed SER amplitude reduction likely is the effect of various spinal and supraspinal mechanisms of spinal neurostimulation that also contribute to pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal neurostimulation modulates the processing of a peripherally applied nonpainful stimulus. For painful stimuli, the results are not conclusive. It is not yet clear whether paresthesia-free neurostimulation affects the SER differently from paresthesia-based neurostimulation.

Five-Year Longitudinal Follow-Up of Restorative Neurostimulation Shows Durability of Effectiveness in Patients With Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain Associated With Multifidus Muscle Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Adults with refractory, mechanical chronic low back pain associated with impaired neuromuscular control of the lumbar multifidus muscle have few treatment options that provide long-term clinical benefit. This study hypothesized that restorative neurostimulation, a rehabilitative treatment that activates the lumbar multifidus muscles to overcome underlying dysfunction, is safe and provides relevant and durable clinical benefit to patients with this specific etiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective five-year longitudinal follow-up of the ReActiv8-B pivotal trial, participants (N = 204) had activity-limiting, moderate-to-severe, refractory, mechanical chronic low back pain, a positive prone instability test result indicating impaired multifidus muscle control, and no indications for spine surgery. Low back pain intensity (10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and quality of life (EuroQol's "EQ-5D-5L" index) were compared with baseline and following the intent-to-treat principle, with a supporting mixed-effects model for repeated measures that accounted for missing data. RESULTS: At five years (n = 126), low back pain VAS had improved from 7.3 to 2.4 cm (-4.9; 95% CI, -5.3 to -4.5 cm; p < 0.0001), and 71.8% of participants had a reduction of ≥50%. The Oswestry Disability Index improved from 39.1 to 16.5 (-22.7; 95% CI, -25.4 to -20.8; p < 0.0001), and 61.1% of participants had reduction of ≥20 points. The EQ-5D-5L index improved from 0.585 to 0.807 (0.231; 95% CI, 0.195-0.267; p < 0.0001). Although the mixed-effects model attenuated completed-case results, conclusions and statistical significance were maintained. Of 52 subjects who were on opioids at baseline and had a five-year visit, 46% discontinued, and 23% decreased intake. The safety profile compared favorably with neurostimulator treatments for other types of back pain. No lead migrations were observed. CONCLUSION: Over a five-year period, restorative neurostimulation provided clinically substantial and durable benefits with a favorable safety profile in patients with refractory chronic low back pain associated with multifidus muscle dysfunction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02577354; registration date: October 15, 2016; principal investigator: Christopher Gilligan, MD, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. The study was conducted in Australia (Broadmeadow, New South Wales; Noosa Heads, Queensland; Welland, South Australia; Clayton, Victoria), Belgium (Sint-Niklaas; Wilrijk), The Netherlands (Rotterdam), UK (Leeds, London, Middlesbrough), and USA (La Jolla, CA; Santa Monica, CA; Aurora, CO; Carmel, IN; Indianapolis, IN; Kansas City, KS; Boston, MA; Royal Oak, MI; Durham, NC; Winston-Salem, NC; Cleveland, OH; Providence, RI; Spartanburg, SC; Spokane, WA; Charleston, WV).

The efficacy of oral corticoids in treating complex regional pain syndrome: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing evidence supporting the role of inflammatory mechanisms in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Corticoids, as most effective anti-inflammatory drugs, are widely used in treating inflammation. The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess the efficacy of oral corticoid treatment in CRPS patients. METHODS: Patients treated at the center of pain medicine in the Erasmus University Medical Centre between January 2015 and January 2020 were approached to partake in this study. Medical records were screened for age, gender, medical history, duration of CRPS, and CRPS severity score. Also, treatment effect, dose and duration, pain scores (NRS), and side effects were extracted from medical records. In addition, global perceived effect was completed in patients treated with corticoids. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and January 2020, twenty-nine CRPS patients received corticoids and met the inclusion criteria. One extreme outlier was excluded and treatment effect was unknown for one patient. Average daily dose was 28.9 mg (range 10-30 mg) and the mean treatment duration was 10.5 days (7-21 days). Fourteen patients (51.9%) responded positively to treatment and thirteen (48.1%) did not respond. Side effects were reported in five patients (17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Corticoid treatment was effective in more than half of the patients. With only mild side effects reported the treatment also appears to be relatively safe. Further research is needed to investigate the efficacy of corticoids in treating (early) CRPS, preferably in an intervention study.

4. Painful diabetic polyneuropathy.

INTRODUCTION: Pain as a symptom of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) significantly lowers quality of life, increases mortality and is the main reason for patients with diabetes to seek medical attention. The number of people suffering from painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN) has increased significantly over the past decades. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: The etiology of PDPN is complex, with primary damage to peripheral nociceptors and altered spinal and supra-spinal modulation. To achieve better patient outcomes, the mode of diagnosis and treatment of PDPN evolves toward more precise pain-phenotyping and genotyping based on patient-specific characteristics, new diagnostic tools, and prior response to pharmacological treatments. According to the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group, a presumptive diagnosis of "probable PDPN" is sufficient to initiate treatment. Proper control of plasma glucose levels, and prevention of risk factors are essential in the treatment of PDPN. Mechanism-based pharmacological treatment should be initiated as early as possible. If symptomatic pharmacologic treatment fails, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) should be considered. In isolated cases, where symptomatic pharmacologic treatment and SCS are unsuccessful or cannot be used, sympathetic lumbar chain neurolysis and/or radiofrequency ablation (SLCN/SLCRF), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGs) or posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) may be considered. However, it is recommended that these treatments be applied only in a study setting in a center of expertise. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of PDPN evolves toward pheno-and genotyping and treatment should be mechanism-based.

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain.

INTRODUCTION: Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.

Radiofrequency for chronic lumbosacral and cervical pain: Results of a consensus study using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

BACKGROUND: Despite the routine use of radiofrequency (RF) for the treatment of chronic pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region, there remains uncertainty on the most appropriate patient selection criteria. This study aimed to develop appropriateness criteria for RF in relation to relevant patient characteristics, considering RF ablation (RFA) for the treatment of chronic axial pain and pulsed RF (PRF) for the treatment of chronic radicular pain. METHODS: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) was used to explore the opinions of a multidisciplinary European panel on the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a variety of clinical scenarios. Depending on the type of pain (axial or radicular), the expert panel rated the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a total of 219 clinical scenarios. RESULTS: For axial pain in the lumbosacral or cervical region, appropriateness of RFA was determined by the dominant pain trigger and location of tenderness on palpation with higher appropriateness scores if these variables were suggestive of the diagnosis of facet or sacroiliac joint pain. Although the opinions on the appropriateness of PRF for lumbosacral and cervical radicular pain were fairly dispersed, there was agreement that PRF is an appropriate option for well-selected patients with radicular pain due to herniated disc or foraminal stenosis, particularly in the absence of motor deficits. The panel outcomes were embedded in an educational e-health tool that also covers the psychosocial aspects of chronic pain, providing integrated recommendations on the appropriate use of (P)RF interventions for the treatment of chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary European expert panel established patient-specific recommendations that may support the (pre)selection of patients with chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region for either RFA or PRF (accessible via https://rftool.org). Future studies should validate these recommendations by determining their predictive value for the outcomes of (P)RF interventions.

Intra- and interindividual attack frequency variability of chronic cluster headache.

BACKGROUND: The lack of knowledge about the intra- and interindividual attack frequency variability in chronic cluster headache complicates power and sample size calculations for baseline periods of trials, and consensus on their most optimal duration. METHODS: We analyzed the 12-week baseline of the ICON trial (occipital nerve stimulation in medically intractable chronic cluster headache) for: (i) weekly vs. instantaneous recording of attack frequency; (ii) intra-individual and seasonal variability of attack frequency; and (iii) the smallest number of weeks to obtain a reliable estimate of baseline attack frequency. RESULTS: Weekly median (14.4 [8.2-24.0]) and instantaneous (14.2 [8.0-24.5]) attack frequency recordings were similar (p = 0.20; Bland-Altman plot). Median weekly attack frequency was 15.3 (range 4.2-140) and highest during spring (p = 0.001) compared to the other seasons. Relative attack frequency variability decreased with increasing attack frequency (p = 0.010). We tabulated the weekly attack frequency estimation accuracies compared to, and the associated deviations from, the 12-week gold standard for different lengths of the observation period. CONCLUSION: Weekly retrospective attack frequency recording is as good as instantaneous recording and more convenient. Attack frequency is highest in spring. Participants with ≥3 daily attacks show less attack frequency variability than those with <3 daily attacks. An optimal balance between 90% accuracy and feasibility is achieved at a baseline period of seven weeks.The ICON trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under number NCT01151631.

Mapping Oswestry Disability Index Responses to EQ-5D-3L Utility Values: Are Cost-Utility Results Valid?

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate approaches for mapping Oswestry Disability Index responses to 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values and to evaluate the impact of using mapped utility values on cost-utility results compared with published regression models. METHODS: Three response mapping approaches were developed in a random sample of 70% of 18 692 patients with low back pain: nonparametric approach (Non-p), nonparametric approach excluding logical inconsistencies (Non-peLI), and ordinal logistic regression (OLR). Performance was assessed in the remaining 30% using R-square (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). To evaluate whether MAEs and their 95% limits of agreement (LA) were clinically relevant, a minimally clinically important difference of 0.074 was used. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness estimated using observed and mapped utility values were compared in 2 economic evaluations. RESULTS: The Non-p performed the best (R2 = 0.43; RMSE = 0.22; MAE = 0.03; 95% LA = -0.40 to 0.47) compared with the Non-peLI (R2 = 0.07; RMSE = 0.29; MAE = -0.15; 95% LA = -0.63 to 0.34) and OLR (R2 = 0.22; RMSE = 0.26; MAE = 0.02; 95% LA = -0.49 to 0.53). MAEs were lower than the minimally clinically important difference for the Non-p and OLR but not for the Non-peLI. Differences in probabilities of cost-effectiveness ranged from 1% to 4% (Non-p), 0.1% to 9% (Non-peLI), and 0.1% to 20% (OLR). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the developed response mapping approaches are not valid for estimating individual patients' 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values, and-depending on the approach-may considerably affect cost-utility results. The developed approaches did not perform better than previously published regression-based models and are therefore not recommended for use in economic evaluations.

Core patient-reported outcome measures for chronic pain patients treated with spinal cord stimulation or dorsal root ganglia stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Neurostimulation is a highly effective therapy for the treatment of chronic Intractable pain, however, due to the complexity of pain, measuring a subject's long-term response to the therapy remains difficult. Frequent measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to reflect multiple aspects of subjects' pain is a crucial step in determining therapy outcomes. However, collecting full-length PROs is burdensome for both patients and clinicians. The objective of this work is to identify the reduced set of questions from multiple validated PROs that can accurately characterize chronic pain patients' responses to neurostimulation therapies. METHODS: Validated PROs were used to capture pain, physical function and disability, as well as psychometric, satisfaction, and global health metrics. PROs were collected from 509 patients implanted with Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) or Dorsal Root Ganglia (DRG) neurostimulators enrolled in the prospective, international, post-market REALITY study (NCT03876054, Registration Date: March 15, 2019). A combination of linear regression, Pearson's correlation, and factor analysis were used to eliminate highly correlated questions and find the minimal meaningful set of questions within the predefined domains of each scale. RESULTS: The shortened versions of the questionnaires presented almost identical accuracy for classifying the therapy outcomes as compared to the validated full-length versions. In addition, principal component analysis was performed on all the PROs and showed a robust clustering of pain intensity, psychological factors, physical function, and sleep across multiple PROs. A selected set of questions captured from multiple PROs can provide adequate information for measuring neurostimulation therapy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PROs are important subjective measures to evaluate the physiological and psychological aspects of pain. However, these measures are cumbersome to collect. These shorter and more targeted PROs could result in better patient engagement, and enhanced and more frequent data collection processes for digital health platforms that minimize patient burden while increasing therapeutic benefits for chronic pain patients.

Is there an association between serum soluble interleukin-2 receptor levels and syndrome severity in persistent Complex Regional Pain Syndrome?

OBJECTIVE: A potentially useful biomarker for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is the serum soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R) level, which is a marker for T-cell activation. Elevated serum sIL-2R levels have been described in CRPS patients compared to healthy controls. In T-cell mediated inflammatory diseases such as sarcoidosis and rheumatoid arthritis, the serum sIL-2R levels correlate with disease severity. In this study, we investigate whether an association exists between serum sIL-2R levels in CRPS patients and CRPS severity. METHODS: A cross-sectional cohort study was conducted in a tertiary pain referral center in the Netherlands. Adult CRPS patients diagnosed by the IASP criteria were included between October 2018 until October 2022. The main study parameters were serum sIL-2R levels and the CRPS severity score. RESULTS: Fifty-three CRPS patients were included with a mean syndrome duration of 84 months (Q3 - Q1:180 - 48). The majority had persistent CRPS with a syndrome duration >1 year (n = 52, 98%). The median pain Numerical Rating Score (NRS) was 7 (Q3 - Q1: 8 - 5) and the mean CRPS severity score was 11 (SD ± 2.3). The median serum sIL-2R level was 330 U/mL (Q3 - Q1:451 - 256). No statistically significant correlation was observed between serum sIL-2R levels and the CRPS severity score (rs = 0.15, P = .28). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that serum sIL-2R levels cannot be used as a biomarker for syndrome severity in persistent CRPS (syndrome duration >1 year). Serial measurements of serum sIL-2R from early CRPS to persistent CRPS are needed to investigate whether serum sIL-2R levels can be used to monitor T-cell mediated inflammatory syndrome activity.

Intermittent versus continuous esketamine infusions for long-term pain modulation in complex regional pain syndrome: protocol of a randomized controlled non-inferiority study (KetCRPS-2).

BACKGROUND: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition of an extremity. While achieving pain relief in CRPS is challenging, esketamine infusions can accomplish pain relief for several weeks post-infusion in a subgroup of CRPS patients. Unfortunately, CRPS esketamine protocols are very heterogeneous in advice on dosage, administration and treatment setting. Currently, no trials are available that study differences between intermittent and continuous esketamine infusions for CRPS. With the current situation of bed shortages, it is difficult to admit patients for several consecutive days for inpatient esketamine treatments. In this study, we investigate whether 6 intermittent outpatient esketamine treatments are not inferior to a continuous 6-day inpatient esketamine treatment in establishing pain relief. In addition, several secondary study parameters will be assessed in order to investigate mechanisms responsible for pain relief by esketamine infusions. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness will be analyzed. METHODS: In this RCT, the primary objective is to demonstrate that an intermittent esketamine dosing regimen is non-inferior to a continuous esketamine dosing regimen at 3 months follow-up. We will include 60 adult CRPS patients. The inpatient treatment group receives a continuous intravenous esketamine infusion for 6 consecutive days. The outpatient treatment group receives a 6-hour intravenous esketamine infusion every 2 weeks for 3 months. Esketamine dose will be individually tailored and is started at 0.05 mg/kg/h and can be increased to a maximum of 0.2 mg/kg/h. Each patient will be followed for 6 months. The primary study parameter is perceived pain intensity, measured by an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary study parameters are conditioned pain modulation, quantitative sensory testing, adverse events, thermography, blood inflammatory parameter, questionnaires about functionality, quality of life and mood and costs per patient. DISCUSSION: If our study reveals non-inferiority between intermittent and continuous esketamine infusions, these findings can be beneficial to increase the availability and flexibility of esketamine infusions through outpatient treatments. Furthermore, the costs of outpatient esketamine infusions could be lower than inpatient esketamine infusions. In addition, secondary parameters may predict response to esketamine treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05212571 , date of registration 01-28-2022. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 3, February 2022.

A Review of Effects of Spinal Cord Stimulation on Spectral Features in Resting-State Electroencephalography.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for patients with refractory chronic pain syndromes. Although studies have shown that SCS has both spinal and supraspinal effects, the current understanding of cortical effects is still limited. Neuroimaging techniques, such as magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG), combined here as M/EEG, can reveal modulations in ongoing resting-state cortical activity. We aim to provide an overview of available literature on resting-state M/EEG in patients with chronic pain who have been treated with SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched multiple online data bases for studies on SCS, chronic pain, and resting-state M/EEG. Primary outcome measures were changes in spectral features, combined with brain regions in which these changes occurred. RESULTS: We included eight studies reporting various SCS paradigms (tonic, burst, high-dose, and high-frequency stimulation) and revealing heterogeneity in outcome parameters. We summarized changes in cortical activity in various frequency bands: theta (4-7 Hz), alpha (7-12 Hz), beta (13-30 Hz), and gamma (30-44 Hz). In multiple studies, the somatosensory cortex showed modulation of cortical activity under tonic, burst, and high-frequency stimulation. Changes in connectivity were found in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and parahippocampus. CONCLUSIONS: The large heterogeneity observed in outcome measures is probably caused by the large variety in study designs, stimulation paradigms, and spectral features studied. Paresthesia-free paradigms have been compared with tonic stimulation in multiple studies. These studies suggest modulation of medial, lateral, and descending pathways for paresthesia-free stimulation, whereas tonic stimulation predominantly modulates lateral and descending pathways. Moreover, multiple studies have reported an increased alpha peak frequency, increased alpha power, and/or decreased theta power when SCS was compared with baseline, indicating modulation of thalamocortical pathways. Further studies with well-defined groups of responders and nonresponders to SCS are recommended to independently study the cortical effects of pain relief and SCS.

Heterogeneous Cortical Effects of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: The understanding of the cortical effects of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remains limited. Multiple studies have investigated the effects of SCS in resting-state electroencephalography. However, owing to the large variation in reported outcomes, we aimed to describe the differential cortical responses between two types of SCS and between responders and nonresponders using magnetoencephalography (MEG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted 5-minute resting-state MEG recordings in 25 patients with chronic pain with active SCS in three sessions, each after a one-week exposure to tonic, burst, or sham SCS. We extracted six spectral features from the measured neurophysiological signals: the alpha peak frequency; alpha power ratio (power 7-9 Hz/power 9-11 Hz); and average power in the theta (4-7.5 Hz), alpha (8-12.5 Hz), beta (13-30 Hz), and low-gamma (30.5-60 Hz) frequency bands. We compared these features (using nonparametric permutation t-tests) for MEG sensor and cortical map effects across stimulation paradigms, between participants who reported low (< 5, responders) vs high (≥ 5, nonresponders) pain scores, and in three representative participants. RESULTS: We found statistically significant (p < 0.05, false discovery rate corrected) increased MEG sensor signal power below 3 Hz in response to burst SCS compared with tonic and sham SCS. We did not find statistically significant differences (all p > 0.05) between the power spectra of responders and nonresponders. Our data did not show statistically significant differences in the spectral features of interest among the three stimulation paradigms or between responders and nonresponders. These results were confirmed by the MEG cortical maps. However, we did identify certain trends in the MEG source maps for all comparisons and several features, with substantial variation across participants. CONCLUSIONS: The considerable variation in cortical responses to the various SCS treatment options necessitates studies with sample sizes larger than commonly reported in the field and more personalized treatment plans. Studies with a finer stratification between responders and nonresponders are required to advance the knowledge on SCS treatment effects.

Allodynia, Hyperalgesia, (Quantitative) Sensory Testing and Conditioned Pain Modulation in Patients With Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Before and After Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic debilitating disease characterized by sensory abnormalities. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for CRPS, but few studies have investigated the effects of SCS therapy on sensory characteristics. Therefore, this study investigated the effect of SCS on allodynia, hyperalgesia, electrical quantitative sensory testing (QST) parameters, and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) effect. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 36655259). Patients with CRPS in one extremity and eligible for SCS were included. The outcome parameters allodynia (symptom and sign), hyperalgesia (symptom), sensory thresholds with QST, CPM effect, and pain scores were tested before and after three months of SCS (40-Hz tonic SCS). Both the CRPS-affected extremity and the contralateral, clinically unaffected extremity were used to test three sensory thresholds with electrical QST: current perception threshold (CPT), pain perception threshold (PPT), and pain tolerance threshold (PTT). The PTT also was used as a test stimulus for the CPM paradigm both before and after the conditioning ice-water test. Nonparametric testing was used for all statistical analyses. RESULTS: In total, 31 patients were included for analysis. Pain, allodynia (sign and symptom), and hyperalgesia (symptom) were all significantly reduced after SCS therapy. On the unaffected side, none of the QST thresholds (CPT, PPT, and PTT) was significantly altered after SCS therapy. However, the CPT on the CRPS-affected side was significantly increased after SCS therapy. A CPM effect was present both before and after SCS. CONCLUSIONS: Standard 40-Hz tonic SCS significantly reduces pain, hyperalgesia, and allodynia in patients with CRPS. These findings suggest that SCS therapy should not be withheld from patients who suffer from allodynia and hyperalgesia, which contradicts previous findings derived from retrospective analysis and animal research. ISRCTN Registry: The ISRCTN registration number for the study is ISRCTN 36655259.

Applicability and Validity of an e-Health Tool for the Appropriate Referral and Selection of Patients With Chronic Pain for Spinal Cord Stimulation: Results From a European Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: To support rational decision-making on spinal cord stimulation (SCS), a European expert panel developed an educational e-health tool using the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. This retrospective study aimed to determine the applicability and validity of the tool using data from patients for whom SCS had been considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 12 European implant centers retrieved data from 25 to 50 consecutive patients for whom SCS was considered in 2018-2019. For each patient, data were captured on the clinical and psychosocial variables included in the e-health tool, center decisions on SCS, and patient outcomes. Patient outcomes included global perception of effect by the patient and observer, and pain reduction (numeric pain rating scale) at six-month follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 483 patients were included, of whom 133 received a direct implant, 258 received an implant after a positive trial, 32 had a negative trial, and 60 did not receive SCS for reasons other than a negative trial. The most frequent indication was persistent spinal pain syndrome type 1 and type 2 (74%), followed by neuropathic pain syndromes (13%), complex regional pain syndrome (12%), and ischemic pain syndromes (0.8%). Data on the clinical and psychosocial variables were complete for 95% and 93% of patients, respectively, and missing data did not have a significant impact on the study outcomes. In patients who had received SCS, panel recommendations were significantly associated with patient outcomes (p < 0.001 for all measures). Substantial improvement ranged from 25% if the e-health tool outcome was "not recommended" to 83% if SCS was "strongly recommended". In patients who underwent a trial (N = 290), there was 3% of trial failure when SCS was "strongly recommended" vs 46% when SCS was "not recommended". CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective application of the e-health tool on patient data showed a strong relationship between the panel recommendations and both SCS trial results and treatment outcomes.

Comparing the Efficacy of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation With Conventional Medical Management in Patients With Chronic Postsurgical Inguinal Pain: Post Hoc Analyzed Results of the SMASHING Study.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 10% of patients who undergo inguinal hernia repair or Pfannenstiel incision develop chronic (> three months) postsurgical inguinal pain (PSIP). If medication or peripheral nerve blocks fail, a neurectomy is the treatment of choice. However, some patients do not respond to this treatment. In such cases, stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) appears to significantly reduce chronic PSIP in selected patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized controlled study, DRG stimulation was compared with conventional medical management (CMM) (noninvasive treatments, such as medication, transcutaneous electric neurostimulation, and rehabilitation therapy) in patients with PSIP that was resistant to a neurectomy. Patients were recruited at a tertiary referral center for groin pain (SolviMáx, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) between March 2015 and November 2016. Suitability for implantation was assessed according to the Dutch Neuromodulation Association guidelines. The sponsor discontinued the study early owing to slow enrollment. Of 78 planned patients, 18 were randomized (DRG and CMM groups each had nine patients). Six patients with CMM (67%) crossed over to DRG stimulation at the six-month mark. RESULTS: Fifteen of the 18 patients met the six-month primary end point with a complete data set for a per-protocol analysis. Three patients with DRG stimulation had a negative trial and were lost to follow-up. The average pain reduction was 50% in the DRG stimulation and crossover group (from 6.60 ± 1.24 to 3.28 ± 2.30, p = 0.0029). Conversely, a 13% increase in pain was observed in patients with CMM (from 6.13 ± 2.24 to 6.89 ± 1.24, p = 0.42). Nine patients with DRG stimulation experienced a total of 19 adverse events, such as lead dislocation and pain at the implantation site. CONCLUSIONS: DRG stimulation is a promising effective therapy for pain relief in patients with PSIP resistant to conventional treatment modalities; larger studies should confirm this. The frequency of side effects should be a concern in a new study. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02349659.

Long-Term Outcomes of Restorative Neurostimulation in Patients With Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain Secondary to Multifidus Dysfunction: Two-Year Results of the ReActiv8-B Pivotal Trial.

BACKGROUND: Impaired neuromuscular control and degeneration of the multifidus muscle have been linked to the development of refractory chronic low back pain (CLBP). An implantable restorative-neurostimulator system can override the underlying multifidus inhibition by eliciting episodic, isolated contractions. The ReActiv8-B randomized, active-sham-controlled trial provided effectiveness and safety evidence for this system, and all participants received therapeutic stimulation from four months onward. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the two-year effectiveness of this restorative neurostimulator in patients with disabling CLBP secondary to multifidus muscle dysfunction and no indications for spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Open-label follow-up of 204 participants implanted with a restorative neurostimulation system (ReActiv8, Mainstay Medical, Dublin, Ireland) was performed. Pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry disability index [ODI]), quality-of-life (EQ-5D-5L), and opioid intake were assessed at baseline, six months, one year, and two years after activation. RESULTS: At two years (n = 156), the proportion of participants with ≥50% CLBP relief was 71%, and 65% reported CLBP resolution (VAS ≤ 2.5 cm); 61% had a reduction in ODI of ≥20 points, 76% had improvements of ≥50% in VAS and/or ≥20 points in ODI, and 56% had these substantial improvements in both VAS and ODI. A total of 87% of participants had continued device use during the second year for a median of 43% of the maximum duration, and 60% (34 of 57) had voluntarily discontinued (39%) or reduced (21%) opioid intake. CONCLUSIONS: At two years, 76% of participants experienced substantial, clinically meaningful improvements in pain, disability, or both. These results provide evidence of long-term effectiveness and durability of restorative neurostimulation in patients with disabling CLBP, secondary to multifidus muscle dysfunction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov with identifier NCT02577354.

Three-Year Durability of Restorative Neurostimulation Effectiveness in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain and Multifidus Muscle Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Restorative neurostimulation is a rehabilitative treatment for patients with refractory chronic low back pain (CLBP) associated with dysfunction of the lumbar multifidus muscle resulting in impaired neuromuscular control. The ReActiv8-B randomized, sham-controlled trial provided evidence of the effectiveness and safety of an implanted, restorative neurostimulator. The two-year analysis previously published in this journal demonstrated accrual of clinical benefits and long-term durability. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of three-year effectiveness and safety in patients with refractory, disabling CLBP secondary to multifidus muscle dysfunction and no indications for spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, observational follow-up of the 204 implanted trial participants. Low back pain visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol quality of life survey, and opioid intake were assessed at baseline, six months, and one, two, and three years after activation. The mixed-effects model repeated measures approach was used to provide implicit imputations of missing data for continuous outcomes and multiple imputation for proportion estimates. RESULTS: Data were collected from 133 participants, and 16 patients missed their three-year follow-up because of coronavirus disease restrictions but remain available for future follow-up. A total of 62% of participants had a ≥ 70% VAS reduction, and 67% reported CLBP resolution (VAS ≤ 2.5cm); 63% had a reduction in ODI of ≥ 20 points; 83% had improvements of ≥ 50% in VAS and/or ≥ 20 points in ODI, and 56% had these substantial improvements in both VAS and ODI. A total of 71% (36/51) participants on opioids at baseline had voluntarily discontinued (49%) or reduced (22%) opioid intake. The attenuation of effectiveness in the imputed (N = 204) analyses was relatively small and did not affect the statistical significance and clinical relevance of these results. The safety profile remains favorable, and no lead migrations have been observed to date. CONCLUSION: At three years, 83% of participants experienced clinically substantial improvements in pain, disability, or both. The results confirm the long-term effectiveness, durability, and safety of restorative neurostimulation in patients with disabling CLBP associated with multifidus muscle dysfunction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02577354.

Electrical neurostimulation for the treatment of chronic pruritus: A systematic review.

Approximately one fifth of the world population experiences continuous itch for 6 weeks or more during their life, that is chronic itch. It is diverse in its aetiologies, and it is notoriously hard to treat. Because itch and pain have largely overlapping pathophysiology and the demonstrated efficacy of neurostimulation in treatment of selected chronic pain conditions, we conducted a systematic review to investigate whether neurostimulation could be an effective treatment for chronic itch. We identified two randomized controlled trials and 17 open label studies or case reports investigating various neurostimulation modalities for the treatment of refractory itch of various aetiologies. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was the most investigated modality (n = 17), and in the largest number of conditions. Other modalities were cutaneous field stimulation (n = 2), painscrambler (n = 1), transcranial direct current stimulation (n = 1) and peripheral nerve field stimulation (n = 1). Atopic dermatitis was the most studied condition (n = 5). Despite the large heterogeneity in used stimulation paradigms and outcome parameters, all studies reported a positive effect of at least one neurostimulation modality. Our review indicates that electrical neurostimulation could be considered for the treatment of refractory chronic itch of selected aetiologies, such as atopic dermatitis or burn pruritus. However, better understanding of the mechanisms of action of the neurostimulation modalities and regimens in various pruritic conditions is necessary.