Patient and physician radiation exposure during minimally invasive lumbar decompression: A prospective assessment of X-ray exposure risks.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild®) is becoming a popular procedure for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum (LF). The mild® procedure is commonly performed under live fluoroscopic guidance and carries a risk of radiation exposure to the patient and healthcare. METHODS: One physician performed mild® on 41 patients at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Pain Management from October 2019 to December 2021, while wearing a radiation exposure monitor (Mirion Technologies). Mean fluoroscopy time, mean exposure per case, and mean exposure per unilateral level decompressed were the primary outcomes measured. The secondary outcome was to provide a comparison of radiation exposure during similar fluoroscopically guided procedures. RESULTS: Mean patient fluoroscopy exposure time was 2.1 min ±0.9 (range: 1.1-5.6) fluoroscopy time per unilateral level decompressed. The mean patient radiation skin exposure from mild® was 1.1 ± 0.9 mGym2, and the mean total dose was 142.3 ± 108.6 mGy per procedure. On average, the physician was exposed to an average deep tissue exposure of 4.1 ± 3.2 mRem, 2.9 ± 2.2 mRem estimated eye exposure, and 14.7 ± 11.0 mRem shallow tissue exposure per unilateral level decompressed. An individual physician would exceed the annual exposure limit of 5 Rem after approximately 610 mild® procedures per year. CONCLUSIONS: This study is an attempt to quantify the radiation exposure to the physician and patient during the mild® procedure. Compared with other fluoroscopically guided pain management procedures, patient and physician radiation exposure during mild® was low.

The Choice of Spinal Cord Stimulation Versus Targeted Drug Delivery in the Management of Chronic Pain: Validation of an Outcomes Predictive Formula.

OBJECTIVE: In 2020, Mekhail et al published a formula that predicted the likelihood of a successful outcome for those who undergo spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for long-term pain management, based on retrospectively collected clinical and demographic data from one major medical center. The aim of this study is to validate such a predictive formula, prospectively, in a cohort of patients from multiple medical practices that are more representative of real-life clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the study, 939 patients who underwent successful SCS or targeted drug delivery (TDD) trials at multiple independent medical centers in the USA were enrolled into the Medtronic product surveillance registry data base before they underwent SCS or TDD device implantation, from 2018 to 2020. The registry data were collected prospectively but not specifically for this study. The data examined included demographic information, pain diagnosis, pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS]), Oswestry Disability Index scores, and quality-of-life scores at baseline and six months after implant. Because our goal is to validate the previously published predictive formula, in addition to the outcomes data previously mentioned, we collected the variables necessary for such a task: sex, age, depression, the presence of neuropathic pain, spine-related pain diagnosis, and persistent spinal pain syndrome "post laminectomy syndrome." Spine-related pain diagnosis included subjects with chronic spine pain who never had back surgery and whose pain was not radicular nor neuropathic. RESULTS: Of 619 patients with SCS, 138 (22%) achieved ≥ 50% reductions of the baseline VAS at six months. The logistic model predicts SCS success with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 80% in the current validation data set. Of 320 patients with TDD, 147 (46%) achieved ≥ 50% reduction of the baseline VAS at six months. The logistic model predicts TDD success with an AUC of 78% in the current validation data set. CONCLUSION: The study provides real life validation of the previously published predictive formula(4).

A Clinical Evaluation of the Accuracy of an Intrathecal Drug Delivery Device.

INTRODUCTION: Implantable intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) devices are used to treat severe pain and spasticity refractory to conventional medical management. Although off-label medications and drug admixtures are commonly used in clinical practice and recommended by international guidelines, manufacturers state that this practice can result in device failure. The impact of off-label drugs and drug combinations on pump accuracy has hitherto never been assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multinational, three-center, retrospective review of patient records was undertaken. The inclusion criterion was the presence of an ITDD device implantation in adult patients, with the pump in situ for the expected battery lifespan. Residual drug volumes at each refill, drug mixtures and concentrations, and rate and flow pattern of the pump (simple or flex) were recorded. A normalized flow rate ratio was calculated (actual to theoretical flow rate). The impact of nonapproved drugs, battery life, pump size, and flow program on drug delivery accuracy was assessed. RESULTS: Data from 1402 pump refills were collected (73 patients). The overall mean accuracy ratio was 0.995 (95% CI = 0.986-1.004). The ratio for approved drug status was 0.990 vs 0.997 in nonapproved, with a difference of -0.007 (-0.032 to 0.017). At the tenth centile for remaining battery life (14 months), the ratio was 0.983 vs 1.009 for the 90th centile (69 months), with a difference of -0.026 (-0.038 to -0.014). The ratio for flex administration was 0.982 vs 1.006 for simple, with a difference of -0.024 (-0.040 to -0.008). For pump size of 40 mL, the ratio was 0.975 vs 1.010 for 20 mL, with a difference of -0.035 (-0.063 to -0.008). The 95% prediction interval for individual refill ratios was ±0.15. CONCLUSION: In a clinical setting, the ITDD pumps retained high levels of accuracy and acceptable precision across their lifespan despite using unapproved drugs or admixtures and under various flow modes and rates.

Impact of Long-Term Evoked Compound Action Potential Controlled Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation on Sleep Quality in Patients With Chronic Pain: An EVOKE Randomized Controlled Trial Study Subanalysis.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is considered an effective interventional nonpharmacologic treatment option for several chronic pain conditions. Here we present the effects of the novel evoked compound action potential (ECAP) controlled closed-loop (ECAP-CL) SCS system on long-term sleep quality outcomes from the EVOKE study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EVOKE study is a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial conducted at 13 sites in the United States (N = 134 patients). The clinical trial utilized SCS to manage chronic pain and compared novel ECAP-CL technology to open-loop SCS. Additionally, sleep quality data was collected using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and all study visits. RESULTS: The mean PSQI global score for ECAP-CL patients at baseline was 14.0 (n = 62; ± 0.5, SD 3.8), indicating poor sleep quality. Clinically meaningful and statistically significant reductions (p < 0.001) in the global PSQI scores were noted at 12 months (n = 55; 5.7 ± 0.6, SD 4.2). A total of 76.4% of ECAP-CL patients met or exceeded Minimal Clinically Important Difference from baseline in PSQI at 12 months. Additionally, 30.9% of ECAP-CL patients achieved "good sleep quality" scores (PSQI ≤ 5), and 29.1% achieved sleep quality remission. "Normative" sleep scores were observed in 29.6% of ECAP-CL patients at 12 months, and these scores were better than the US general population. Additionally, ECAP-CL patients achieved statistically significant changes from baseline (p < 0.01) across all seven subcomponent scores of PSQI at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: ECAP-CL SCS elicits consistent neural activation of the target leading to less variability in long-term therapy delivery. In the EVOKE study, this resulted in ECAP-CL patients demonstrating clinically superior and sustained pain relief. Results from this study provide new evidence of long-term improvement in sleep quality and quantity in patients with chronic pain resulting from the use of this novel ECAP-CL SCS technology. CLINICAL TRAIL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02924129.

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

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

Impact of biological sex on the outcomes of spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) continues to gain increasing popularity in the pain management field for the treatment of different painful conditions; however, to-date, the correlation between the SCS effectiveness and biological sex has not been fully established. We aimed to investigate the correlation between the biological sex and SCS outcomes. METHODS: Following Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective cohort study was performed by collecting data for patients treated with SCS at a tertiary academic center between the years 2002 and 2019. Data was assessed with multivariable linear regression to investigate the association between biological sex and pain scores at baseline, 6-, and 12- months following SCS implantation. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed based on a set of covariates including age, duration of pain, time since implant, BMI, opioid medications use, smoking, depression and history of alcohol, or substance abuse. RESULTS: Of the patients treated with SCS implants, 418 patients fit the inclusion and exclusion criteria, out of which the majority were females (272, 65%). The pre-matching data reported a significant difference in history of diabetes and depression and was also significant for greater opioid use in male patients at baseline, 6-, and 12-months post-SCS implant. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed based on the above mentioned covariant. After matching, no statistical difference was found among the variables, in both groups. Furthermore, after matching no significant differences in the pain scores at baseline, 6-, and 12-months post-SCS implant were observed. CONCLUSION: No biological sex-based differences in the analgesic response to SCS therapy was detected at 6- and 12-months post-SCS implant between groups with similar demographics, biomedical, and psychological values.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation or Spinal Cord Stimulation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: ACCURATE, a randomized controlled trial, compared safety and effectiveness of stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) vs. conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS-I and II) of the lower extremities. This analysis compares cost-effectiveness of three modalities of treatment for CRPS, namely DRG stimulation, SCS, and comprehensive medical management (CMM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The retrospective cost-utility analysis combined ACCURATE study data with claims data to compare cost-effectiveness between DRG stimulation, SCS, and CMM. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a Markov cohort model with ten-year time horizon from the U.S. payer perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported as cost in 2017 U.S. dollars per gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY were used to define highly cost-effective and cost-effective therapies. RESULTS: Both DRG and SCS provided an increase in QALYs (4.96 ± 1.54 and 4.58 ± 1.35 QALYs, respectively) and an increase in costs ($153,992 ± $36,651 and $128,269 ± $27,771, respectively) compared to CMM (3.58 ± 0.91 QALYs, $106,173 ± $27,005) over the ten-year model lifetime. Both DRG stimulation ($34,695 per QALY) and SCS ($22,084 per QALY) were cost-effective compared to CMM. In the base case, ICER for DRG v SCS was $68,095/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: DRG and SCS are cost-effective treatments for chronic pain secondary to CRPS-I and II compared to CMM. DRG accrued higher cost due to higher conversion from trial to permanent implant and shorter battery life, but DRG was the most beneficial therapy due to more patients receiving permanent implants and experiencing higher quality of life compared to SCS. New DRG technology has improved battery life, which we expect to make DRG more cost-effective compared to both CMM and SCS in the future.

The durability of minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: Long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild® ) has been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis patients with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum as a contributing factor. This study examines the long-term durability of the mild procedure through 5-year follow-up. Pain relief and opioid medications utilization during 12-month follow-up were also assessed. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis secondary to ligamentum flavum hypertrophy who underwent mild from 2010 through 2015 at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Pain Management were included in this retrospective longitudinal observational cohort study. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of open lumbar decompression surgery at the same level(s) as the mild intervention during 5-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were the change in pain levels using the Numeric Rating Scale and opioid medications utilization using Morphine Milligram Equivalent dose per day from baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months post-mild procedure. Postprocedural complications (minor or major) were also collected. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients received mild during the protocol-defined time period and were included in the study. Only 9 out of 75 patients required lumbar surgical decompression during the 5-year follow-up period. Subjects experienced statistically significant pain relief and reduction of opioid medications utilization at 3, 6, and 12 months compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: Based on our analysis, the mild procedure is durable over 5 years and may allow elderly patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis to avoid lumbar decompression surgery while providing significant symptomatic relief.

Diagnosis of Sacroiliac Joint Pain: Predictive Value of Three Diagnostic Clinical Tests.

INTRODUCTION: To date, there have been no acceptable and accurate diagnostic criteria or standards of care for the management of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain. Several studies have yielded different contributions of clinical presentation, history, and physical examination in the diagnosis of SIJ pain. Our goal in this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic clinical tests and their predictive value in accurately diagnosing SIJ pain. METHODOLOGY: Upon enrolling 200 eligible patients with SIJ pain as their primary diagnosis, they were re-evaluated and their verbal rating scale (VRS) pain scores and demographic data were obtained. Thereafter, three SIJ diagnostic tests were performed: the thigh thrust test, the Patrick test, and a modified version of the Gaenslen test that is referred to as the Mekhail test. Subsequently, the patients were taken to the procedure room to undergo SIJ injection, for which a confirmative result was ≥50% pain relief. The physicians performing the procedure were blinded of the results of the 3 tests performed. Results from the 3 tests were incorporated with the procedure results, from which we drew statistical and medical conclusions determining their predictive value and degree of aid to physicians in diagnosing SIJ pain. RESULTS: We found that the cumulative effect of adding simultaneous tests increased the sensitivity of the testing but decreased the specificity, which generates a powerful screening tool. The combination of the Patrick and Mekhail tests demonstrated the best accuracy, with 94% sensitivity, 17% specificity, 81% positive predictive value, and 44% negative predictive value. The Patrick test was better than other tests for differentiating patients with SIJ pain from those with non-SIJ pain. No combination yielded both significant sensitivity and specificity. Generally, the overall predictive value of any of the tests on their own or their combination did not vary significantly from the predictive value of baseline demographics, including pre-injection pain score and pain referral diagram. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our study results were similar to those of previous investigators who found that physical examination plays a limited role in diagnosing SIJ pain. Specifically, we found that the clinical tests and/or their combinations added no significant predictive capacity compared to patients' baseline characteristics in predicting the response to diagnostic SIJ injection, albeit the combination of the Mekhail and Patrick tests yielded high sensitivity (94%), making them viable for consecutive screening, possibly reducing the unnecessary costs of diagnostic SIJ injection procedures.

Emergence From the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Care of Chronic Pain: Guidance for the Interventionalist.

BACKGROUND: The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a significant disruption in the care of pain from chronic and subacute conditions. The impact of this cessation of pain treatment may have unintended consequences of increased pain, reduced function, increased reliance on opioid medications, and potential increased morbidity, due to the systemic impact of untreated disease burden. This may include decreased mobility, reduction in overall health status, and increase of opioid use with the associated risks. METHODS: The article is the study of the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) COVID-19 task force to evaluate the policies set forth by federal, state, and local agencies to reduce or eliminate elective procedures for those patients with pain from spine, nerve, and joint disease. The impact of these decisions, which were needed to reduce the spread of the pandemic, led to a delay in care for many patients. We hence review an emergence plan to reinitiate this pain-related care. The goal is to outline a path to work with federal, state, and local authorities to combat the spread of the pandemic and minimize the deleterious impact of pain and suffering on our chronic pain patients. RESULTS: The article sets forth a strategy for the interventional pain centers to reemerge from the current pandemic and to set a course for future events. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic represents an overwhelming challenge to interventional pain physicians and their patients. In addition to urgent actions needed for disease mitigation, the ASPN recommends a staged return to pain management professionals' workflow.

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

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

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

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

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.

The Impact of Tobacco Smoking on Spinal Cord Stimulation Effectiveness in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Patients.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to investigate the correlation of smoking and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) effectiveness for pain relief in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) patients while controlling for possible confounding factors including opioid intake. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective cohort study was performed by collecting data for all CRPS patients treated with SCS at Cleveland Clinic between 1998 and 2013. We divided patients into three groups based on their smoking status at the time of SCS device implant: Current smokers, former smokers, or nonsmokers. We used a linear mixed modeling to assess the association between smoking status and pain score at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. We then used pairwise t-tests for post hoc comparisons of pain scores. RESULTS: Of the 420 CRPS patients treated with SCS implants, the reduction in pain score was highest among nonsmokers. Nonsmokers demonstrated a consistent and steady decrease in pain scores over time, whereas the current and former smoker cohorts showed an initial reduction in pain at three months compared to baseline which was not sustained to the 12-months benchmark. Nonetheless, former smokers continued to report slightly lower pain scores than current smokers, although not statistically significant. The baseline opioid consumption was least among nonsmokers (30 [0, 62] oral mg morphine sulfate equivalent). We also found a statistically significant association between time postimplant and reported pain score (χ2 = 508.88, p < 0.001). The overall mean pain score for all three cohorts was highest at baseline (7.6 ± 1.7) and showed a decrease at the 3, 6, and 12 months postimplant time points with mean score of 5.7 ± 2.0, 5.6 ± 2.3, and 5.4 ± 2.5, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tobacco cigarette smoking was associated with reduced SCS effectiveness for pain relief.

Outcomes of a Multicenter, Prospective, Crossover, Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating Subperception Spinal Cord Stimulation at ≤1.2 kHz in Previously Implanted Subjects.

OBJECTIVE: The WHISPER randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluates safety and clinical effectiveness of subperception spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at ≤1.2 kHz in subjects previously implanted with an SCS system for treatment of chronic, neuropathic pain. METHODS: WHISPER is a prospective, multicenter RCT with a crossover design sponsored by Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02314000). Eligible subjects were randomized (N = 140) to receive subperception or supraperception for three months and then crossed over to receive the alternative. Upon completion of crossover period, subjects who preferred subperception were followed up to one year. Overall pain, quality-of-life, and other outcomes were collected in the study. The primary endpoint was the overall pain responder rate (≥50% improvement from baseline) with no increase in medications. Secondary endpoints consisted of pain scores, physical disability, quality of life, and treatment preference. RESULTS: The study met its primary endpoint and demonstrated noninferiority between supraperception and subperception in a prespecified cohort of 70 randomized subjects (Interim Analysis). Thirty-nine percent of subjects with subperception settings and 29% with supraperception settings had a greater than or equal to 50% reduction in their overall pain scores with no increase in average daily medication at three-months post-activation as compared with baseline. Further assessment of all participating study subjects (N = 140) revealed similar results. Subjects were previously implanted 3.8 ± 2 years and had a disability score (Oswestry Disability Index) of 70.2 ± 11.4 at study start. Of the randomized subjects that completed the End of Period 2 Visit, 93 (66%) preferred subperception SCS and their mean overall pain reduced from 7.3 ± 1.1 (N = 89) at baseline to 4.0 ± 2.1 (N = 80) at 12-months post-activation. Post hoc analysis also demonstrated that multiple options provide superior outcomes, as supported by a 74% increase in the responder rate when subjects could choose their most effective option (47%) compared with supraperception alone (27%). DISCUSSION: Subperception SCS at ≤1.2 kHz is safe and effective in subjects with extreme physical disability and previously implanted for chronic pain. Further, by providing study participants with different waveform options, increased pain relief was achieved.

Paresthesia-Free Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation: An ACCURATE Study Sub-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: ACCURATE, a randomized controlled trial comparing dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation to spinal cord stimulation, showed that DRG stimulation is a safe and effective therapy in individuals with lower extremity chronic pain due to complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I or II. Investigators noted that DRG stimulation programming could be adjusted to minimize, or eliminate, the feeling of paresthesia while maintaining adequate pain relief. The present study explores treatment outcomes for DRG subjects who were paresthesia-free vs. those who experienced the sensation of paresthesia, as well as the factors that predicted paresthesia-free analgesia. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of therapy outcomes was conducted for 61 subjects in the ACCURATE study who received a permanent DRG neurostimulator. Outcomes of subjects who were paresthesia-free were compared to those who experienced paresthesia-present therapy at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12-month follow-ups. Predictor variables for the presence or absence of paresthesias with DRG stimulation were also explored. RESULTS: The percentage of subjects with paresthesia-free pain relief increased from 16.4% at 1-month to 38.3% at 12-months. Paresthesia-free subjects generally had similar or better outcomes for pain severity, pain interference, quality of life, and mood state as subjects with paresthesia-present stimulation. Factors that increased the odds of a subject feeling paresthesia were higher stimulation amplitudes and frequencies, number of implanted leads, and younger age. CONCLUSIONS: Some DRG subjects achieved effective paresthesia-free analgesia in the ACCURATE trial. This supports the observation that paresthesia is not synonymous with pain relief or required for optimal analgesia with DRG stimulation.

Longevity and Utilization Cost of Rechargeable and Non-Rechargeable Spinal Cord Stimulation Implants: A Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite major advancements in features and capabilities of the implantable pulse generator (IPG), real-life longevity and cost-effectiveness studies to guide pain specialists to make the appropriate choice between rechargeable and non-rechargeable IPG are limited. Our study aimed to compare the longevity and cost effectiveness of rechargeable vs. non-rechargeable IPG and SCS systems. METHODS: Data were collected for all SCS implantations performed between 1994 and 2018. The primary goal was to determine IPG longevity, defined as the time interval between IPG implantation and elective replacement due to IPG end of life (EOL). On the other hand, SCS system longevity was defined as the time between SCS implantation and its removal or revision for any reason other than IPG EOL. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to assess IPG and SCS system longevities. Cost analysis was performed for cost effectiveness. RESULTS: The median IPG longevity was significantly higher for rechargeable SCS devices than for non-rechargeable SCS devices (7.20 years and 3.68 years, respectively). The median cost per day was similar for both IPGs, $13.90 and $13.81 for non-rechargeable and rechargeable, respectively. The median cost for SCS systems was higher for the rechargeable group ($60.70) compared with the non-rechargeable group ($31.38). CONCLUSIONS: Rechargeable IPG had increased longevity compared to their non-rechargeable counterparts, yet there was no significant difference in the actual longevity due to premature revisions or explantations between both SCS systems. Furthermore, non-rechargeable SCS systems were found to be the more cost-effective option when compared with rechargeable SCS systems.

Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Protocol Using Human Spinal Cord Recording Comparing Safety, Efficacy, and Neurophysiological Responses Between Patients Being Treated With Evoked Compound Action Potential-Controlled Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation or Open-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation (the Evoke Study).

BACKGROUND: The spinal cord (SC) response to stimulation has yet to be studied in a pivotal clinical study. We report the study design of an ongoing multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled, parallel-arm study of an evoked compound action potential (ECAP) controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system, which aims to gain U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. METHODS: This study will enroll 134 SCS candidates with chronic trunk and limb pain from up to 20 United States sites. Subjects are randomized 1:1 to receive ECAP-controlled closed-loop or open-loop, conventional SCS. The primary objective is noninferiority of closed-loop stimulation determined by the proportion of subjects with ≥50% reduction in overall trunk and limb pain and no increase in pain medications at the three-month visit. If noninferiority is met, superiority is tested. In addition, measures recommended by IMMPACT (e.g., pain intensity, functional disability, emotional functioning, quality of life, impression of change, and sleep), neurophysiological properties (e.g., SC activation, conduction velocity, chronaxie, and rheobase), and safety are analyzed. DISCUSSION: All approved SCS therapies, regardless of the presence or absence of stimulation induced paresthesias, produce fixed-output stimuli; that is, the energy delivered from the electrode array has a defined output irrespective of the neural response of SC fibers. An SCS system has been developed that directly measures the neurophysiologic activation of the SC to stimulation (i.e., ECAP amplitude) and uses this information in a feedback mechanism to produce closed-loop SCS to maintain optimal and stable activation of the SC. This study represents the first randomized, double-blind, pivotal study in the field of neuromodulation to measure SC activation in ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop stimulation and is expected to yield important information regarding differences in safety, efficacy, and neurophysiological properties. The potential clinical utility of these objective measurements of SC activation and other neurophysiological properties promises to improve outcomes of SCS for chronic pain patients.

DRG FOCUS: A Multicenter Study Evaluating Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation and Predictors for Trial Success.

INTRODUCTION: Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) is a powerful tool in the treatment of chronic, neuropathic pain. The premise of DRGS is similar to that of conventional spinal cord stimulation (cSCS), however, there is more variability in how it can be utilized. While it is this variability that likely gives it its versatility, DRGS is not as straightforward to implement as cSCS. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of DRGS on a broad number of diagnoses, determine which dorsal root ganglia were associated with better outcomes for particular body parts/diagnoses, and evaluate what factors/parameters were associated with higher rates of trial success. METHODS: This is a physician initiated, multicenter retrospective registry of 217 patients trialed with DRGS. Data were collected via an online questionnaire that assessed specifics regarding the patient's pain, distribution, size, and response to treatment. The data were analyzed to see if there were certain diagnoses and/or parameters that were more or less associated with trial success. RESULTS: DRGS was found to be an effective treatment in all diagnoses evaluated within this study, most of which had statistically significant improvements in pain. The most important predictor of trial success was the amount of painful area covered by paresthesias during the programing phase. The number of leads utilized had a direct and indirect impact on trial success. Pain in the distribution of a specific peripheral nerve responded best and there was no statistical difference based on what body part was being treated. CONCLUSION: DRGS can be an effective treatment for a variety of neuropathic pain syndromes, in addition to CRPS. It is recommended that a minimum of 2 leads should be utilized per area being treated. In addition, this therapy was shown to be equally efficacious in any body part/region so long as the area being treated is focal and not widespread.

Comparison of Paresthesia Coverage of Patient's Pain: Dorsal Root Ganglion vs. Spinal Cord Stimulation. An ACCURATE Study Sub-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This was a sub-analysis of the ACCURATE clinical trial that evaluated the accuracy and necessity of targeting paresthesia coverage of painful areas with dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation vs. tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: On diagrams of the torso and lower limbs, subjects marked where they felt pain at baseline and paresthesias at three months postimplant. Seventy-five subjects (41 DRG and 34 SCS) with diagrams of sufficient quality were scanned, digitized, and included in this analysis. Subject completed diagrams were digitized and superimposed with a grid of 1398 squares. Quantification of the percentage of bodily areas affected by pain and stimulation induced paresthesias was performed. RESULTS: The percent of painful areas covered by paresthesia was significantly lower for DRG subjects than for SCS subjects (13% vs. 28% of the painful regions, p < 0.05), possibly because significantly more DRG subjects felt no paresthesia during stimulation when compared to SCS subjects (13/41 DRG vs. 3/34 SCS) (p < 0.05). The amount of paresthesia produced outside the painful areas (unrequired paresthesia) was significantly lower in DRG subjects than that of SCS subjects. On average, the percent of unrequired paresthesia was only 20% of the subjects' total painful body surface area in the DRG group compared to 210% in the SCS group (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this ACCURATE study sub-analysis show that DRG stimulation produces paresthesias, on average, that are less frequent, less intense, with a smaller footprint on the body and less dependent on positional changes.