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 Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)®: Recommendations for Spinal Cord Stimulation Long-term Outcome Optimization and Salvage Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has recognized a need to establish best practices for optimizing implantable devices and salvage when ideal outcomes are not realized. This group has established the Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)® to offer guidance on matters needed for both our members and the broader community of those affected by neuromodulation devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The executive committee of the INS nominated faculty for this NACC® publication on the basis of expertise, publications, and career work on the issue. In addition, the faculty was chosen in consideration of diversity and inclusion of different career paths and demographic categories. Once chosen, the faculty was asked to grade current evidence and along with expert opinion create consensus recommendations to address the lapses in information on this topic. RESULTS: The NACC® group established informative and authoritative recommendations on the salvage and optimization of care for those with indwelling devices. The recommendations are based on evidence and expert opinion and will be expected to evolve as new data are generated for each topic. CONCLUSIONS: NACC® guidance should be considered for any patient with less-than-optimal outcomes with a stimulation device implanted for treating chronic pain. Consideration should be given to these consensus points to salvage a potentially failed device before explant.

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

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise and international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the mitigation of neuromodulation complications. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)® project intends to update evidence-based guidance and offer expert opinion that will improve efficacy and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors were chosen on the basis of their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when NACC last published guidelines) to October 2023. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence was scant. RESULTS: The NACC examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC recommends best practices regarding the mitigation of complications associated with neurostimulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be used as a guide to assist decision-making when clinically appropriate.

Variables associated with nonresponders to high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation.

INTRODUCTION: The use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy to treat chronic pain continues to rise. Optimal patient selection remains one of the most important factors for SCS success. However, despite increased utilization and the existence of general indications, predicting which patients will benefit from neuromodulation remains one of the main challenges for this therapy. Therefore, this study aims to identify the variables that may correlate with nonresponders to high-frequency (10 kHz) SCS to distinguish the subset of patients less likely to benefit from this intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective single-center observational study of patients who underwent 10 kHz SCS implant. Patients were divided into nonresponders and responders groups. Demographic data and clinical outcomes were collected at baseline and statistical analysis was performed for all continuous and categorical variables between the two groups to calculate statistically significant differences. RESULTS: The study population comprised of 237 patients, of which 67.51% were responders and 32.49% were nonresponders. There was a statistically significant difference of high levels of kinesiophobia, high self-perceived disability, greater pain intensity, and clinically relevant pain catastrophizing at baseline in the nonresponders compared to the responders. A few variables deemed potentially relevant, such as age, gender, history of spinal surgery, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use, psychiatric illness, and opioid utilization at baseline were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Our study is the first in the neuromodulation literature to raise awareness to the association of high levels of kinesiophobia preoperatively in nonresponders to 10 kHz SCS therapy. We also found statistically significant differences with greater pain intensity, higher self-perceived disability, and clinically relevant pain catastrophizing at baseline in the nonresponders relative to responders. It may be appropriate to screen for these factors preoperatively to identify patients who are less likely to respond to SCS. If these modifiable risk factors are present, it might be prudent to consider a pre-rehabilitation program with pain neuroscience education to address these factors prior to SCS therapy, to enhance successful outcomes in neuromodulation.

Relationship between number of prior lumbar spine surgeries and outcomes following spinal cord stimulator implantation: A multisite, retrospective pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Lumbar spine surgery is a common procedure for treating disabling spine-related pain. In recent decades, both the number and cost of spine surgeries have increased despite technological advances and modification in surgical technique. For those patients that have continued uncontrolled back and/or lower extremity pain following lumbar spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a viable treatment option. However, the impact of lumbar spine surgical history remains largely unstudied. Specifically, the current study considers the impact of number of prior lumbar spine surgeries on pain relief outcomes following SCS implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried the electronic medical record of five separate pain practices for all patients who have undergone a SCS implant between January 1, 2017, and March 1, 2020. Inclusion criteria consisted of any patients with an SCS implant who underwent a prior lumbar spine surgery. The primary outcome was the mean calculated percentage pain relief in patients based on number of prior lumbar spine surgeries. RESULTS: There was a total of 1974 total SCS implant cases identified across five separate pain clinics. There was no difference in mean calculated pain relief in patients with one prior spine surgery versus those with two or more prior spine surgeries (28.2% vs. 25.8%, adjusted ß-coefficient -3.1, 95% CI -8.9 to 2.7, p = 0.290). Similarly, when analyzing number of spine surgeries as a continuous variable, there was no association between number of spine surgeries and calculated pain relief (adjusted ß-coefficient -1.5, 95% CI -4.0 to 1.1, p = 0.257). Additionally, after patients were stratified based on waveform, there was no association between number of prior lumbar spine surgeries (analyzed both as a categorical and continuous variable) and calculated percentage pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentered retrospective study found that there was no significant difference in pain scores in individuals who received SCS following one or more lumbar spine surgeries. Additionally, the waveform of the SCS device had no statistically significant impact on post-operative pain scores following one or more lumbar spine surgeries.

The current state of training in pain medicine fellowships: An Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD) survey of program directors.

INTRODUCTION: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved the first pain medicine fellowship programs over three decades ago, designed around a pharmacological philosophy. Following that, there has been a rise in the transition of pain medicine education toward a multidisciplinary interventional model based on a tremendous surge of contemporaneous literature in these areas. This trend has created variability in clinical experience and education amongst accredited pain medicine programs with minimal literature evaluating the differences and commonalities in education and experience of different pain medicine fellowships through Program Director (PD) experiences. This study aims to gather insight from pain medicine fellowship program directors across the country to assess clinical and interventional training, providing valuable perspectives on the future of pain medicine education. METHODS: This study involved 56 PDs of ACGME-accredited pain fellowship programs in the United States. The recruitment process included three phases: advanced notification, invitation, and follow-up to maximize response rate. Participants completed a standard online questionnaire, covering various topics such as subcategory fields, online platforms for supplemental education, clinical experience, postgraduate practice success, and training adequacy. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 39/56 (69%) standing members of the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD). All PDs allowed fellows to participate in industry-related and professional society-related procedural workshops, with 59% encouraging these workshops. PDs emphasized the importance of integrity, professionalism, and diligence for long-term success. Fifty-four percent of PDs expressed the need for extension of fellowship training to avoid supplemental education by industry or pain/spine societies. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the challenge of providing adequate training in all Pain Medicine subtopics within a 12-month pain medicine fellowship. PDs suggest the need for additional training for fellows and discuss the importance of curriculum standardization.

Multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is multifactorial in nature, with recent research highlighting the role of multifidus dysfunction in a subset of nonspecific CLBP. This review aimed to provide a foundational reference that elucidates the pathophysiological cascade of multifidus dysfunction, how it contrasts with other CLBP etiologies and the role of restorative neurostimulation. METHODS: A scoping review of the literature. RESULTS: In total, 194 articles were included, and findings were presented to highlight emerging principles related to multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation. Multifidus dysfunction is diagnosed by a history of mechanical, axial, nociceptive CLBP and exam demonstrating functional lumbar instability, which differs from other structural etiologies. Diagnostic images may be used to grade multifidus atrophy and assess other structural pathologies. While various treatments exist for CLBP, restorative neurostimulation distinguishes itself from traditional neurostimulation in a way that treats a different etiology, targets a different anatomical site, and has a distinctive mechanism of action. CONCLUSIONS: Multifidus dysfunction has been proposed to result from loss of neuromuscular control, which may manifest clinically as muscle inhibition resulting in altered movement patterns. Over time, this cycle may result in potential atrophy, degeneration and CLBP. Restorative neurostimulation, a novel implantable neurostimulator system, stimulates the efferent lumbar medial branch nerve to elicit repetitive multifidus contractions. This intervention aims to interrupt the cycle of dysfunction and normalize multifidus activity incrementally, potentially restoring neuromuscular control. Restorative neurostimulation has been shown to reduce pain and disability in CLBP, improve quality of life and reduce health care expenditures.

Interventional Pain Physician Burnout During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The study sought to assess the prevalence of physician burnout among interventional pain physicians in 2022. RECENT FINDINGS: Physician burnout is major psychosocial and occupational health issue. Prior to the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, over 60% of physicians reported emotional exhaustion and burnout. Physician burnout was reported to become more prevalent in multiple medical specialties during the COVID-19 pandemic. An 18-question survey was distributed electronically to all ASPN members (n = 7809) in the summer of 2022 to assess demographics, burnout characteristics (e.g., Have you felt burned out due to COVID?), and strategies to cope with burnout and stress (e.g., reached out for mental health assistance). Members were able to complete the survey once and were unable to make changes to their responses once submitted. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the prevalence and severity of physician burnout within the ASPN community. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences in burnout by provider characteristics (age, gender, years practicing, and practice type) with p-values less than 0.05 indicating statistical significance. There were 7809 ASPN members that received the survey email, 164 of those members completed the survey, a response rate of 2.1%. The majority of respondents were male (74.1%, n = 120), 94% were attending physicians (n = 152), and 26% (n = 43) have been in practice for twenty years or longer. Most respondents expressed having experienced burnout during the COVID pandemic (73.5%, n = 119), 21.6% of the sample reported reduced hours and responsibilities during the pandemic, and 6.2% of surveyed physicians quit or retired due to burnout. Nearly half of responders reported negative impacts to their family and social lives as well as personal physical and mental health. A variety of negative (e.g., changes in diet, smoking/vaping) and positive coping strategies (e.g., exercise and training, spiritual enrichment) were employed in response to stress and burnout; 33.5% felt they should or had reached out for mental health assistance and suicidal ideations were expressed in 6.2% due to burnout. A high percentage of interventional pain physicians continue to experience mental symptoms that may lead to risk for significant issues going forward. Our findings should be interpreted with caution based on the low response rate. Evaluation of burnout should be incorporated into annual assessments given issues of survey fatigue and low survey response rates. Interventions and strategies to address burnout are warranted.

Multiphase Spinal Cord Stimulation in Participants With Chronic Back or Leg Pain: Results of the BENEFIT-02 Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of a new charge-distributed multiphase stimulation paradigm during an extended spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blind, feasibility study included participants with chronic low back and/or leg pain and baseline numerical rating scale (NRS) for overall pain intensity ≥6. After a successful commercial SCS trial, participants were randomized to multiphase SCS therapy A (approximately 600-1500 Hz) or B (approximately 300-600 Hz), delivered via an investigational external pulse generator and existing leads during an 11-to-12-day testing period. Primary end points were mean NRS change from baseline to final in-office visit for each multiphase therapy and between therapies. Secondary end points included mean NRS change from end of commercial trial to final study visit and incidence of device-related adverse events (AEs). Additional measures included patient-reported outcomes collected at home through electronic watches and written diaries. Power usage was compared between multiphase and commercial therapies. RESULTS: A total of 122 participants initiated a commercial trial; 77 were randomized to a multiphase arm, and 65 completed the study. Reductions in mean NRS scores from baseline to final study visit were significant for multiphase therapy A and B (-4.3 and -4.7, respectively; both p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in mean NRS reduction or percent pain relief between multiphase therapies. In an additional analysis, 63.9% of participants reported greater pain relief with multiphase than with commercial SCS therapy in the at-home setting. On average, multiphase required less power than did commercial devices. One non-serious device-related AE was reported, and no infections occurred during the extended trial. CONCLUSIONS: Multiphase SCS effectively reduced pain in participants with chronic low back and/or leg pain during a trial, with no unanticipated device-related AEs reported. Future studies should evaluate long-term effectiveness of multiphase stimulation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03594266.

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.

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.

The MOTION Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Objective Real-World Outcomes for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients Treated with the mild® Procedure: One-Year Results.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to provide Level-1 objective, real-world outcome data for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis suffering from neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. DESIGN: The MOTION Study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the mild® Procedure (minimally invasive lumbar decompression; Vertos Medical, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA) as a first-line therapy in combination with nonsurgical conventional medical management (CMM) vs CMM alone as the active control. METHODS: Patients in the test group received the mild Procedure at baseline. Both the mild+CMM group and the control group were allowed unrestricted access to conventional real-world therapies. Patient-reported outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index, the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. A validated Walking Tolerance Test, the incidence of subsequent lumbar spine interventions, and the occurrence of adverse events were used to measure objective outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients in each group were analyzed at 1-year follow-up. No device- or procedure-related adverse events were reported in either group. Results from all primary and secondary outcome measures showed statistical significance in favor of mild+CMM. CONCLUSIONS: One-year results of this Level-1 study demonstrated superiority of mild+CMM over CMM alone for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who were suffering from neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. Use of the validated Walking Tolerance Test to objectively measure increased ability to walk without severe symptoms provided evidence of statistically significantly better outcomes for mild+CMM than for CMM alone. With no reported device or procedure-related adverse events, the long-standing safety profile of the mild Procedure was reaffirmed. mild is a safe, durable, minimally invasive procedure that has been shown to be effective as an early interventional therapy for patients suffering from symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Explantation of 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation Devices: A Retrospective Review of 744 Patients Followed for at Least 12 Months.

OBJECTIVES: High-frequency 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (10 kHz-SCS) has achieved analgesia superior to traditional SCS in a number of studies. However, there is concern regarding long-term outcomes of 10 kHz-SCS. Prior work has suggested that explant rates are higher with 10 kHz-SCS. Our primary objective was to determine the explant rate of 10 kHz-SCS in a large patient cohort from multiple centers followed for at least 12 months after implant surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients who received a 10 kHz-SCS implant before July 1, 2019. We abstracted patient demographics, implant date, primary site of pain, implant indication, explant date, and reason for explant. A total of 744 patients were included in the study analysis. RESULTS: Average age of the overall cohort was 65.53 years and 407 (54.7%) were women. Average follow-up for all patients was 793 days. There were a total of 76 explants (10.2%). The most common reason for explant was loss of efficacy, which accounted for 39 explants (51.3% of total explants, 5.2% of overall cohort). Female sex and radiculopathy as the SCS indication were associated with statistically significant decreased risk of 10 kHz-SCS explant. CONCLUSIONS: We found 10 kHz-SCS explant rates to be similar to prior reported explant rates for traditional SCS devices. Patient-related factors including female sex and radiculopathy as the primary SCS indication may be protective factors against explantation.

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 Comprehensive Practice Guideline for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compatibility in Implanted Neuromodulation Devices.

OBJECTIVES: The evolution of neuromodulation devices in order to enter magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners has been one of understanding limitations, engineering modifications, and the development of a consensus within the community in which the FDA could safely administer labeling for the devices. In the initial decades of neuromodulation, it has been contraindicated for MRI use with implanted devices. In this review, we take a comprehensive approach to address all the major products currently on the market in order to provide physicians with the ability to determine when an MRI can be performed for each type of device implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have prepared a narrative review of MRI guidelines for currently marketed implanted neuromodulation devices including spinal cord stimulators, intrathecal drug delivery systems, peripheral nerve stimulators, deep brain stimulators, vagal nerve stimulators, and sacral nerve stimulators. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID, SCOPUS, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, as well as manufacturer-provided information. RESULTS: Guidelines and recommendations for each device and their respective guidelines for use in and around MR environments are presented. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive guideline with regards to various devices in the market and MRI compatibility from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

Anatomic Lead Placement Without Paresthesia Mapping Provides Effective and Predictable Therapy During the Trial Evaluation Period: Results From the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, DELIVERY Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the trial success rate between anatomic lead placement (AP) and paresthesia-mapped (PM) lead placement techniques for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) using a nonlinear burst stimulation pattern. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with back and/or leg pain with a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of ≥6 who had not undergone previous SCS were enrolled in the study. A total of 270 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to each treatment arm. In the AP group, one lead tip was placed at the mid-body of T8, and the other at the superior endplate of T9. In the PM group, physicians confirmed coverage of the patient's primary pain location. Trial success was a composite of the following: ≥50% patient-reported pain relief at the end of the minimum three-day trial period, physician's recommendation, and patient's interest in a permanent implant. RESULTS: Trial success for AP vs. PM groups was equivalent to 84.4% and 82.3%, respectively. Physicians who performed both techniques preferred AP technique (70% vs. 30%). Procedure times for placement of two leads were 31% shorter in the AP group (p < 0.0001). Decrease in the mean NRS pain score was similar between groups (53.2%, AP group; 53.8%, PM group, p = 0.79). Trial success for patients who went on to an extended trial with tonic stimulation was 50% (5/10) vs. 79% (11/14) for AP group and PM group, respectively (p = 0.2). A total of 13 adverse events were observed (4.5%), most commonly lead migrations and pain around implant site, with no difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: When using a nonlinear burst stimulation pattern, anatomic or PM lead placement technique may be used. Nonresponders to subthreshold stimulation had a higher conversion rate when a PM technique was used. AP resulted in shorter procedure times with a similar safety profile and was strongly preferred by trialing physicians.

Cost-effectiveness and Safety of Interspinous Process Decompression (Superion).

OBJECTIVE: There are several treatment options for patients suffering from lumbar spinal stenosis, including surgical and conservative care. Interspinous spacer decompression using the Superion device offers a less invasive procedure for patients who fail conservative treatment before traditional decompression surgery. This review assesses the current cost-effectiveness, safety, and performance of lumbar spinal stenosis treatment modalities compared with the Superion interspinous spacer procedure. METHODS: EMBASE and PubMed were searched to find studies reporting on the cost-effectiveness, safety, and performance of conservative treatment, including medicinal treatments, epidural injections, physical therapy, and alternative methods, as well as surgical treatment, including laminectomy, laminectomy with fusion, and interspinous spacer decompression. Results were supplemented with manual searches. RESULTS: Despite substantial costs, persistent conservative treatment (>12 weeks) of lumbar spinal stenosis showed only minimal improvement in pain and functionality. When conservative treatment fails, surgery is more effective than continuing conservative treatment. Lumbar laminectomy with fusion has considerably greater cost than laminectomy alone, as the length of hospital stay increases, the costs for implants are substantial, and complications increase. Although laminectomy and the Superion have comparable outcomes, the Superion implant is positioned percutaneously. This approach may minimize the direct and indirect costs of outpatient rehabilitation and absenteeism, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Superion interspinous lumbar decompression is a minimally invasive procedure for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who have failed conservative treatment. Compared with extending conservative treatment or traditional spinal surgery, interspinous lumbar decompression reduces the direct and indirect costs associated with lumbar spinal stenosis.

An Algorithmic Approach to Treating Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: An Evidenced-Based Approach.

OBJECTIVE: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of the neural and vascular elements and is becoming more common due to degenerative changes that occur because of aging processes. Symptoms may manifest as pain and discomfort that radiates to the lower leg, thigh, and/or buttocks. The traditional treatment algorithm for LSS consists of conservative management (physical therapy, medication, education, exercise), often followed by epidural steroid injections (ESIs), and when nonsurgical treatment has failed, open decompression surgery with or without fusion is considered. In this review, the variables that should be considered during the management of patients with LSS are discussed, and the role of each treatment option to provide optimal care is evaluated. RESULTS: This review leads to the creation of an evidence-based practical algorithm to aid clinicians in the management of patients with LSS. Special emphasis is directed at minimally invasive surgery, which should be taken into consideration when conservative management and ESI have failed.