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).

Treating Chronic, Intractable Pain with a Miniaturized Spinal Cord Stimulation System: 1-Year Outcomes from the AUS-nPower Study During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Purpose: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a highly effective treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. Despite recent advances in technology, treatment gaps remain. A small SCS system with a miniaturized implantable pulse generator (micro-IPG; <1.5 cm3 in volume) and an externally worn power source may be preferred by patients who do not want a large, implanted battery. We report here the long-term outcomes from the first-in-human study evaluating the safety and performance of a new neurostimulation system. Patients and Methods: This was a prospective, multi-center, open-label, single-arm study to evaluate this SCS system, in the treatment of chronic, intractable leg and low-back pain. Consented subjects who passed screening continued on to the long-term phase of the study. One-year, patient-reported outcomes (PRO's) such as pain (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), functional disability, quality of life, and mood were captured. Results: Twenty-six (26) evaluable subjects with permanent implants were included in this analysis. The average leg pain NRS score decreased from 6.8 ± 1.2 at baseline to 1.1 ± 1.2 at the end of the study (p < 0.001), while the average low-back pain NRS score decreased from 6.8 ± 1.2 to 1.5 ± 1.2 (p < 0.001). The responder rate (proportion with ≥50% pain relief) was 91% in the leg(s) and 82% in the low back. There were significant improvements in functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and in mood (Beck Depression Inventory), demonstrating a 46% and 62% improvement, respectively (p < 0.001). Eleven-point Likert scales demonstrated the wearable to be very comfortable and very easy to use. Conclusion: There were considerable challenges conducting a clinical study during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as missed study programming visits. Nevertheless, subjects had significant PRO improvements through 1-year. The small size of the implanted device, along with a proprietary waveform, may allow for improved SCS outcomes and a drop in incidence of IPG-pocket pain.

Early Experience With a Novel Miniaturized Spinal Cord Stimulation System for the Management of Chronic Intractable Pain of the Back and Legs.

INTRODUCTION: A novel, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system with a battery-free miniaturized implantable pulse generator (IPG) was used in this feasibility study. The system uses an external power source that communicates bidirectionally with the IPG (< 1.5 cm3). Human factors, subject comfort, and effects on low back and leg pain were evaluated in this first-in-human study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, open-label clinical trial was initiated to evaluate the safety and performance of a novel miniaturized stimulator in the treatment of chronic, intractable leg and low-back pain. Eligible subjects were recruited for the study and gave consent. Subjects who passed the screening/trial phase (defined as ≥ 50% decrease in pain) continued to the long-term implant phase and were followed up at predefined time points after device activation. Interim clinical and usability outcomes were captured and reported at 90 days. RESULTS: Results of 22 subjects who chose a novel pulsed stimulation pattern therapy using the battery-free IPG (< 1.5 cm3) are described here. At 90-days follow-up, the average pain reduction was 79% in the leg (n = 22; p < 0.0001) and 76% in the low back (n = 21; p < 0.0001) compared with baseline. Responder rates (≥ 50% pain relief) at 90 days were 86% in leg pain (19/22) and 81% in low-back pain (17/21). Subjects rated the level of comfort of the external wearable power source to be 0.41 ± 0.73 at 90 days on an 11-point rating scale (0 = very comfortable, 10 = very uncomfortable). DISCUSSION: These interim results from the ongoing study indicate the favorable efficacy and usability of a novel, externally powered, battery-free SCS IPG (< 1.5 cm3) for leg and low-back pain. Study subjects wore the external power source continuously and found it comfortable, and the system provided significant pain relief. These preliminary findings warrant further investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is ACTRN12618001862235.

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.

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.

Durability of the Therapeutic Effect of Restorative Neurostimulation for Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the ongoing follow-up of ReActiv8-A clinical trial is to document the longitudinal benefits of episodic stimulation of the dorsal ramus medial branch and consequent contraction of the lumbar multifidus in patients with refractory mechanical chronic low back pain (CLBP). We report the four-year outcomes of this trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ReActiv8-A is a prospective, single-arm trial performed at nine sites in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Australia. Eligible patients had disabling CLBP (low back pain Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] ≥6; Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] ≥25), no indications for spine surgery or spinal cord stimulation, and failed conventional management including at least physical therapy and medications for low back pain. Fourteen days postimplantation, stimulation parameters were programmed to elicit strong, smooth contractions of the multifidus, and participants were given instructions to activate the device for 30-min stimulation-sessions twice daily. Annual follow-up through four years included collection of NRS, ODI, and European Quality of Life Score on Five Dimensions (EQ-5D). Background on mechanisms, trial design, and one-year outcomes were previously described. RESULTS: At baseline (N = 53) (mean ± SD) age was 44 ± 10 years; duration of back pain was 14 ± 11 years, NRS was 6.8 ± 0.8, ODI 44.9 ± 10.1, and EQ-5D 0.434 ± 0.185. Mean improvements from baseline were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and clinically meaningful for all follow-ups. Patients completing year 4 follow-up, reported mean (±standard error of the mean) NRS: 3.2 ± 0.4, ODI: 23.0 ± 3.2, and EQ-5D: 0.721 ± 0.035. Moreover, 73% of participants had a clinically meaningful improvement of ≥2 points on NRS, 76% of ≥10 points on ODI, and 62.5% had a clinically meaningful improvement in both NRS and ODI and 97% were (very) satisfied with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with disabling intractable CLBP who receive long-term restorative neurostimulation, treatment satisfaction remains high and improvements in pain, disability, and quality-of-life are clinically meaningful and durable through four years.

New Therapy for Refractory Chronic Mechanical Low Back Pain-Restorative Neurostimulation to Activate the Lumbar Multifidus: One Year Results of a Prospective Multicenter Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the international multicenter prospective single arm clinical trial was to evaluate restorative neurostimulation eliciting episodic contraction of the lumbar multifidus for treatment of chronic mechanical low back pain (CMLBP) in patients who have failed conventional therapy and are not candidates for surgery or spinal cord stimulation (SCS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three subjects were implanted with a neurostimulator (ReActiv8, Mainstay Medical Limited, Dublin, Ireland). Leads were positioned bilaterally with electrodes close to the medial branch of the L2 dorsal ramus nerve. The primary outcome measure was low back pain evaluated on a 10-Point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Responders were defined as subjects with an improvement of at least the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) of ≥2-point in low back pain NRS without a clinically meaningful increase in LBP medications at 90 days. Secondary outcome measures included Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Quality of Life (QoL; EQ-5D). RESULTS: For 53 subjects with an average duration of CLBP of 14 years and average NRS of 7 and for whom no other therapies had provided satisfactory pain relief, the responder rate was 58%. The percentage of subjects at 90 days, six months, and one year with ≥MCID improvement in single day NRS was 63%, 61%, and 57%, respectively. Percentage of subjects with ≥MCID improvement in ODI was 52%, 57%, and 60% while those with ≥MCID improvement in EQ-5D was 88%, 82%, and 81%. There were no unanticipated adverse events (AEs) or serious AEs related to the device, procedure, or therapy. The initial surgical approach led to a risk of lead fracture, which was mitigated by a modification to the surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: Electrical stimulation to elicit episodic lumbar multifidus contraction is a new treatment option for CMLBP. Results demonstrate clinically important, statistically significant, and lasting improvement in pain, disability, and QoL.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial of transforaminal epidural etanercept for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation.

STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and efficacy of three different doses of the tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitor etanercept versus placebo for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: TNF-α is considered to be a major cause of radicular leg pain associated with symptomatic LDH. Systemic administration of TNF-α inhibitors for sciatica has indicated a trend toward efficacy. METHODS: Forty-nine subjects aged between 18 and 70 years, with persistent lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to LDH, and an average leg pain intensity of 5/10 or more were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: 0.5-mg, 2.5-mg, 12.5-mg etanercept, or placebo. Subjects received 2 transforaminal epidural injections, 2 weeks apart, and were assessed for efficacy up to 26 weeks after the second injection. The primary outcome measure was the change in mean daily worst leg pain (WLP). Secondary outcomes included average leg pain, worst back pain, average back pain, in-clinic pain, Oswestry Disability Index, patient global impression of change, and tolerability. RESULTS: Forty-three of the 49 randomized patients completed the study. Patients receiving 0.5-mg etanercept showed a clinically and statistically significant (P< 0.1) reduction in mean daily WLP compared with the placebo cohort from 2 to 26 weeks for both the per protocol population (-5.13 vs. -1.95; P= 0.066) and the intention-to-treat population (-4.40 vs. -1.84; P= 0.058). Fifty percent of these subjects reported a 100% reduction in WLP 4 weeks post-treatment compared with 0% of subjects in the placebo cohort. Improvements in all secondary outcomes were also observed in the 0.5-mg etanercept cohort. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in placebo and all etanercept cohorts. CONCLUSION: Two transforaminal injections of etanercept provided clinically significant reductions in mean daily WLP and worst back pain compared with placebo for subjects with symptomatic LDH. Epidural etanercept may offer patients with sciatica a safe and effective nonoperative treatment.

Peripheral nerve stimulation: a treatment for chronic low back pain and failed back surgery syndrome?

Objective. This study aims to evaluate the usefulness of peripheral nerve stimulation as a treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain. Materials and Methods. More than 12 months, we collected data on consecutive patients who had successful trials and were subsequently implanted with octrode percutaneous leads placed subcutaneously within the major area of pain. Eleven patients met diagnostic criteria for failed back surgery syndrome. A questionnaire assessed outcomes including: pain, analgesic use, and patient satisfaction. The response rate was 93% (13/14): average follow-up time was seven months. Results. There was a significant decrease in pain levels: an average reduction of 3.77 visual analog scale points. Eleven patients (85%) reported successful outcomes and an average pain reduction of 4.18 points but two reported a poor response. Pain relief was highly correlated with reduced analgesia and patient satisfaction. No complications were reported. Conclusion. This study demonstrates a treatment option that is safe, nonpharmacologic, reversible, and effective for patients with chronic low back pain that have exhausted other treatment options.

The incidence of intravascular penetration in medial branch blocks: cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spines.

STUDY DESIGN: Clinical observational study. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the incidence of inadvertent intravascular injections in spinal medial branch blocks in a clinical setting. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous research established the rate of inadvertent intravascular injection in lumbar medial branch blocks at 8%. The incidence of intravascular injection in cervical and thoracic medial branch blocks has not been reported previously. This study establishes the rate of inadvertent intravascular injection in patients receiving medial branch blocks of the cervical and thoracic spines. Further, this study reports a significantly lower rate of inadvertent intravascular injection for lumbar medial branch blocks than previously reported. METHODS: Patients were originally referred to the clinic, for diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal origin somatic pain. Medial branch blocks were then performed as diagnostic procedures to confirm the zygapophysial joint(s) as the suspected source of pain. Blocks were performed by experienced practitioners on nonidentified patients over a 3-year period. Clinical observations were recorded for 14,312 separate medial branch block levels. The level of the spine and the incidence of inadvertent intravascular injections were recorded. RESULTS: This study demonstrates that the overall incidence of intravascular penetration in medial branch blocks is rare, with an overall rate of 3.5%. This study also establishes the rate of intravascular injection for levels within the spine: the cervical spine is likely to be intravascular 3.9% of the time and the lumbar spine 3.7%, whereas the thoracic spine is significantly lower, with just 0.7% injections reported as intravascular. Significant differences were also observed between individual vertebral levels. CONCLUSION: The false-negative rate for medial branch blocks is likely to be lower than previously reported. The rate of inadvertent intravascular injection for thoracic medial branch blocks is 0.7%. Cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks are associated with an overall rate of 3.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Although these rates are lower than previously reported, the incidence of false-negative blocks still justifies the use of contrast to confirm nonvascular injection.

Hip joint pathology: clinical presentation and correlation between magnetic resonance arthrography, ultrasound, and arthroscopic findings in 25 consecutive cases.

BACKGROUND: The hip joint is becoming increasingly recognized as a source of groin pain and, in the authors' experience, buttock and low back pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the range of pathologic diagnoses, clinical presentation, and the correlation between magnetic resonance arthrographic, ultrasonographic, and arthroscopic findings in the hip joint. METHODS: We prospectively studied 25 consecutive hip arthroscopies to determine the range of pathologic diagnoses, clinical presentation, and the correlation between magnetic resonance arthrographic, ultrasonographic, and arthroscopic findings. RESULTS: All of the hips arthroscoped had pathology. Back pain and hip pain were the 2 most common presentations. The only consistently positive clinical test result was a restricted and painful hip quadrant compared with the contralateral hip. Of the 17 patients whose flexion, abduction, external rotation (FABER) test results were reported at the time of examination, 15 (88%) were positive, and 2 (12%) negative. Plain radiographs were normal in all patients. All but 1 patient underwent magnetic resonance arthrography. Although specificity of 100% was achieved in our study, the sensitivity was significantly lower, with a relatively high number of false negatives. Hip arthroscopy proved the definitive diagnostic procedure for intraarticular pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Hip pathology, particularly labral pathology, may be more common than has been previously recognized. In those patients with chronic groin and low back pain, a high index of suspicion should be maintained. Clinical signs of a painful, restricted hip quadrant and a positive FABER test result should suggest magnetic resonance arthrography in the first instance, but a negative magnetic resonance image should not preclude hip arthroscopy if there is high clinical suspicion of hip joint pathology.