A Review of the Clinical Utility of Therapeutic Facet Joint Injections in Whiplash Associated Cervical Spinal Pain.

Background and Objective: Whiplash neck injury was described by Crowe in 1928. Whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) is defined as a cervical spinal injury following an acceleration-deceleration mechanism. It is a constellation of symptoms due to psychological factors and neural adaptations, with significant social costs. Review Summary: There are multiple classification systems for WAD in the literature. The Quebec Classification is most reported and is predictive of the likelihood of progression to chronicity. The facet joint has been identified as a pain generator in 50% of cases. We outline the likely anatomical cause of WAD and summarize the protocol of medial branch block injections for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, as well as the indications for and published results of facet joint ablation in WAD. We also highlight the development of ultrasound as an alternative to computed tomography or fluoroscopy for injection guidance. Conclusions: WAD is a complex condition associated with sensory disturbance, pain, motor chronic pain, and psychological distress. The literature supports a single diagnostic medial branch block followed by a therapeutic facet joint ablation for chronic pain. WAD should be managed in a multidisciplinary fashion, with an early involvement of psychological specialists when required.

Deep brain stimulation for phantom limb pain.

Phantom limb pain is a rare cause of chronic pain in children but it is associated with extremely refractory pain and disability. The reason for limb amputation is often due to treatment for cancer or trauma and it has a lower incidence compared to adults. The mechanism of why phantom pain exists remains uncertain and may be a result of cortical reorganisation as well as ectopic peripheral input. Treatment is aimed at reducing both symptoms as well as managing pain related disability and functional restoration. Neuromodulatory approaches using deep brain stimulation for phantom limb pain is reserved for only the most refractory cases. The targets for brain stimulation include the thalamic nuclei and motor cortex. Novel targets such as the anterior cingulate cortex remain experimental as cases of serious adverse effects such as seziures have limited their widespread uptake. A multidisciplinary approach is crucial to successful rehabilitation using a biopsychosocial pain management approach.

ERN GENTURIS clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, management and surveillance of people with schwannomatosis.

A Guideline Group (GG) was convened from multiple specialties and patients to develop the first comprehensive schwannomatosis guideline. The GG undertook thorough literature review and wrote recommendations for treatment and surveillance. A modified Delphi process was used to gain approval for recommendations which were further altered for maximal consensus. Schwannomatosis is a tumour predisposition syndrome leading to development of multiple benign nerve-sheath non-intra-cutaneous schwannomas that infrequently affect the vestibulocochlear nerves. Two definitive genes (SMARCB1/LZTR1) have been identified on chromosome 22q centromeric to NF2 that cause schwannoma development by a 3-event, 4-hit mechanism leading to complete inactivation of each gene plus NF2. These genes together account for 70-85% of familial schwannomatosis and 30-40% of isolated cases in which there is considerable overlap with mosaic NF2. Craniospinal MRI is generally recommended from symptomatic diagnosis or from age 12-14 if molecularly confirmed in asymptomatic individuals whose relative has schwannomas. Whole-body MRI may also be deployed and can alternate with craniospinal MRI. Ultrasound scans are useful in limbs where typical pain is not associated with palpable lumps. Malignant-Peripheral-Nerve-Sheath-Tumour-MPNST should be suspected in anyone with rapidly growing tumours and/or functional loss especially with SMARCB1-related schwannomatosis. Pain (often intractable to medication) is the most frequent symptom. Surgical removal, the most effective treatment, must be balanced against potential loss of function of adjacent nerves. Assessment of patients' psychosocial needs should be assessed annually as well as review of pain/pain medication. Genetic diagnosis and counselling should be guided ideally by both blood and tumour molecular testing.

Comparison of Paresthesia Mapping With Anatomic Placement in Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Long-Term Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover CRISP Study.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for chronic intractable pain. Conventional SCS involves electrode placement based on intraoperative paresthesia mapping; however, newer paradigms like burst may allow for anatomic placement of leads. Here, for the first time, we report the one-year safety and efficacy of burst SCS delivered using a lead placed with conventional, paresthesia mapping, or anatomic placement approach in subjects with chronic low back pain (CLBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects with CLBP were implanted with two leads. The first lead was placed to cross the T8/T9 disc and active contacts for this lead were chosen through paresthesia mapping. The second lead was placed at the T9/T10 spinal anatomic landmark. Subjects initially underwent a four-week, double-blinded, crossover trial with a two-week testing period with burst SCS delivered through each lead in a random order. At the end of trial period, subjects expressed their preference for one of the two leads. Subsequently, subjects received burst SCS with the preferred lead and were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months. Pain intensity (visual analog scale), quality-of-life (EuroQol-5D instrument), and disability (Oswestry Disability Index) were evaluated at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-three subjects successfully completed the trial. Twenty-one preferred the paresthesia mapping lead and 21 preferred the anatomic placement lead. Anatomic placement lead was activated in one subject who had no preference. The pain scores (for back and leg) significantly improved from baseline for both lead placement groups at all follow-up time points, with no significant between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that equivalent clinical benefits could be achieved with burst SCS using either paresthesia mapping or anatomic landmark-based approaches for lead placement. Nonparesthesia-based approaches, such as anatomic landmark-based lead placement investigated here, have the potential to simplify implantation of SCS and improve current surgical practice.

Multicentre, clinical trial of burst spinal cord stimulation for neck and upper limb pain NU-BURST: a trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established therapy for chronic neuropathic pain and most frequently utilised for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS). BurstDR™ also known as DeRidder Burst-SCS, a novel waveform, has demonstrated superiority to conventional tonic stimulation of the thoracic spine in FBSS. There are case reports of an improvement in multidimensional pain outcomes using DeRidder Burst-SCS in the cervical spine for chronic neck and cervical radicular pain. The safety and efficacy of cervical DeRidder Burst-SCS stimulation still however remain undetermined. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicentre feasibility trial evaluating the safety and therapeutic efficacy of DeRidder Burst-SCS stimulation for the treatment of chronic intractable neck pain with or without radiation to the arm, shoulder, and upper back. After baseline evaluation, subjects will undergo an SCS trial using the Abbott Invisible Trial system according to standard clinical procedures. During the trial phase, SCS leads will be implanted in the cervical epidural space. At the end of the SCS trial, subjects experiencing at least 50% pain relief will be considered for permanent implant. Pain intensity, medication usage, and other multidimensional pain outcomes will be collected. The timing of these will be at baseline, end of the SCS trial and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits. Incidence of adverse events will be collected throughout the study duration. DISCUSSION: The results of this feasibility study will validate the efficacy and safety of DeRidder Burst-SCS stimulation in the cervical spine. The results obtained in this study will potentially be used to generate a level 1 evidence-based study with formal statistical hypotheses testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03159169.

Explant rates of electrical neuromodulation devices in 1177 patients in a single center over an 11-year period.

INTRODUCTION: The publication of explant rates has established risk factors and a definitive objective outcome of failure for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) treating neuropathic pain. We present a UK study analyzing explants of electrical neuromodulation devices for different conditions over 11 years in a single center specializing in neuromodulation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using a departmental database between 2008 and 2019. Explants were analyzed according to condition, mode of stimulation and other demographics using logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier graphs with log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test. RESULTS: Out of a total of 1177 patients, the explant rate was 17.8% at 5 years and 25.2% at 10 years. Loss of efficacy was the most frequent reason for explant 119/181 (65%). Multivariant regression analysis indicated patients with back pain without prior surgery had a reduced risk of explant (p=0.03). Patients with SCS systems that had 10 kHz, options of multiple waveforms, and rechargeable batteries also had a decreased risk of explant (p<0.001). None of these findings were confirmed when comparing Kaplan-Meier graphs, however. Contrary to other studies, we found gender and age were not independent variables for explant. CONCLUSION: These data contribute to a growing list of explant data in the scientific literature and give indications of what factors contribute to long-term utilization of electrical neuromodulation devices.

Comparison of Paresthesia Mapping to Anatomical Placement in Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Initial Trial Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Crossover, CRISP Study.

INTRODUCTION: In this prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, crossover study, we compared the therapeutic efficacy of burst SCS delivered using a lead implanted with the paresthesia mapping approach to a lead implanted with an anatomic placement approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects with chronic low back pain were implanted with two leads, one using paresthesia-mapping approach (PM) and the second using anatomical placement procedure (AP). Stimulation contacts were chosen using the standard intraoperative paresthesia-testing procedure for the paresthesia-mapped lead or an activated bipole overlapping the T9-T10 junction for the anatomical lead. Amplitude for either lead was selected such that no sensory percepts were generated. Subjects were assessed at baseline and after a trial period during which they tested each lead for two weeks in random order. Eligible subjects had the option to receive permanent implants using their preferred AP or PM approach at end-of-trial. RESULTS: Of the 53 subjects who completed both trial periods, 43 (81.1%) experienced at least 50% back pain relief with at least one lead. Nearly half of these (20; 46.5%) were profound responders who experienced at least 80% back pain relief with either leads. Primary and secondary outcomes, at the end of trial, showed significant improvements for both AP and PM leads from baseline yet were not significantly different from each other. DISCUSSION: The trial results of this study suggest that similar clinical outcomes can be achieved in burst SCS when performing lead placement either using paresthesia mapping or anatomical placement with imaging references.

Multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial of 10 khz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic neuropathic low back pain (MODULATE-LBP): a trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic neuropathic low back pain (CNLBP) is a debilitating condition in which established medical treatments seldom alleviate symptoms. Evidence demonstrates that high-frequency 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) reduces pain and improves health-related quality of life in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), but evidence of this effect is limited in individuals with CNLBP who have not had surgery. The aim of this multicentre randomised trial is to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 10 kHz SCS for this population. METHODS: This is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. A total of 96 patients with CNLBP who have not had spinal surgery will be implanted with an epidural lead and a sham lead outside the epidural space without a screening trial. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to 10 kHz SCS plus usual care (intervention group) or to sham 10 kHz SCS plus usual care (control group) after receiving the full implant. The SCS devices will be programmed identically using a cathodal cascade. Participants will use their handheld programmer to alter the intensity of the stimulation as per routine practice. The primary outcome will be a 7-day daily pain diary. Secondary outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index, complications, EQ-5D-5 L, and health and social care costs. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline (pre-randomisation) and at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after device activation. The primary analyses will compare primary and secondary outcomes between groups at 6 months, while adjusting for baseline outcome scores. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) will be calculated at 6 months and over the lifetime of the patient. DISCUSSION: The outcomes of this trial will inform clinical practice and healthcare policy on the role of high-frequency 10 kHz SCS for use in patients with CNLBP who have not had surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03470766. Registered on 20 March 2018. DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The NIHR had no role in the study design, writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit for publication. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: AK, SP, DP, SW, RST, AC, SE, LM, RD and JF all contributed to the trial design and to securing trial funding. AK, JR, SP, DP, and SE are involved in the recruitment, the intervention and the follow-up. SW will perform data collection and analysis. RST will be responsible for the statistical analysis, and RD will be responsible for the health economic analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Prospective, Randomized, Sham-Control, Double Blind, Crossover Trial of Subthreshold Spinal Cord Stimulation at Various Kilohertz Frequencies in Subjects Suffering From Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (SCS Frequency Study).

INTRODUCTION: The increasing use of high frequency paresthesia-free spinal cord stimulation has been associated with improved outcomes in the therapy of neuropathic pain. What is unknown is the effect of varying frequency on pain relief and the placebo effect. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, sham-controlled double blind crossover study. Subjects with predominantly axial low back pain undergoing spinal cord stimulation therapy for failed back surgery syndrome were randomized to sham, 1200 Hz, 3030 Hz, and 5882 Hz with a four-phase crossover design over 12 weeks. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were randomized in the study. The mean low back pain score at baseline was 7.75. The mean low back pain scores on a 10 cm visual analog scale during the randomized crossover phase were 4.83, 4.51, 4.57, and 3.22, for sham, 1200 Hz, 3030 Hz, and 5882 Hz, respectively, with the lowest low back pain score observed in the 5882 Hz frequency group (p = 0.002). Of note, sham stimulation resulted in a reduction of pain by -2.92 cm and was not significantly different from stimulation at 1200 Hz and 3030 Hz. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized crossover study demonstrated that 5882 Hz stimulation can produce significant pain relief for axial low back pain compared with lower frequencies and sham stimulation. Sham stimulation produced similar analgesic effects to 1200 Hz and 3030 Hz and this effect may influence future neuromodulation clinical trial designs.

Long-Term Improvements in Chronic Axial Low Back Pain Patients Without Previous Spinal Surgery: A Cohort Analysis of 10-kHz High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation over 36 Months.

Objective: This prospective, open-label study was designed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of 10-kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the treatment of chronic axial low back pain with no history of spinal surgery. Methods: Patients with chronic low back pain without previous spinal surgery underwent assessment by a multidisciplinary pain and surgical team to confirm eligibility. After a successful temporary trial of 10-kHz HF-SCS therapy, defined by ≥50% back pain reduction, enrolled subjects underwent permanent system implantation and were followed up for 36 months. Outcome measures consisted of a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) for pain intensity, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and a standard measure of health-related quality of life. Results: Twenty-one patients satisfied the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Following a temporary trial, 20 of 21 (95%) subjects were implanted with a pulse generator, and 17 of 20 reached the 36-month time point. From baseline to 36 months, the average VAS pain intensity decreased from 79 ± 12 mm to 10 ± 12 mm, the average ODI score decreased from 53 ± 13 to 19.8 ± 13, and use of opioids decreased from 18 subjects to two subjects. One subject was deceased, unrelated to the study, one subject was explanted due to loss of effectiveness, and one subject was lost to follow-up. Conclusions: These results suggest that 10-kHz high-frequency SCS may provide significant, long-term back pain relief, improvement in disability and quality of life, and reduction in opioids for nonsurgical refractory back pain.

Current experience of spinal neuromodulation in chronic pain: Is there a role in children and young people?

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain in children has been an under-recognized problem compared to adult pain. The aim of management is to help children and their families cope with the symptoms rather than a cure. Current medical treatments to reduce pain intensity are often short lived, poorly tolerated or ineffective. RESULTS: The use of electrical stimulation to treat pain is the current basis of modern Neuromodulation at the spinal cord and has been well established as spinal cord stimulation in adult practice. This involves placement of an epidural electrode connected to a subcutaneous implanted pulse generator. The electrode generates an electrical field at the dorsal columns of the spinal cord that inhibits pain pathways. Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy in neuropathic pain states such as the failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. CONCLUSION: Despite its initial expense, Spinal cord stimulation is a cost effective therapy in the long term and has the advantages of being a minimally invasive therapy and reversible.

10 kHz High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Axial Low Back Pain in Patients With No History of Spinal Surgery: A Preliminary, Prospective, Open Label and Proof-of-Concept Study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effectiveness of 10 kHz high frequency spinal cord stimulation (HF10 therapy) treatment of chronic low back pain in patients who have not had spinal surgery. METHODS: Patients with chronic low back pain without prior spinal surgery were evaluated by a team of spine surgeons to rule out any spinal pathology amenable to surgical interventions and by a multidisciplinary pain team to confirm eligibility for the study. After a successful (>50% back pain reduction) trial of HF10 therapy, enrolled subjects underwent permanent system implantation and were followed-up one year post-implant. RESULTS: About 95% of the enrolled subjects (20/21) received the permanent system. At 12 months post-implant, both back pain VAS score and ODI were significantly reduced compared with baseline values (by 73% and 48%, respectively); an estimated quality-adjusted life year gain of 0.47 and a reduction in opioid use by 64% was observed. Four more patients among those unable to work at baseline due to back pain were employed at 12 months post-implant. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: HF10 therapy may provide significant back pain relief, reduction in disability, improvement quality of life, and reduction in opioid use in chronic low back pain not resulting from spinal surgery.

Sustained effectiveness of 10 kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for patients with chronic, low back pain: 24-month results of a prospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of paresthesia-free high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (HF10 SCS) for the treatment of chronic, intractable pain of the low back and legs. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, observational study. METHOD: Patients with significant chronic low back pain underwent implantation of a spinal cord stimulator capable of HF10 SCS. Patients' pain ratings, disability, sleep disturbances, opioid use, satisfaction, and adverse events were assessed for 24 months. RESULTS: After a trial period, 88% (72 of 82) of patients reported a significant improvement in pain scores and underwent the permanent implantation of the system. Ninety percent (65 of 72) of patients attended a 24-month follow-up visit. Mean back pain was reduced from 8.4 ± 0.1 at baseline to 3.3 ± 0.3 at 24 months (P < 0.001), and mean leg pain from 5.4 ± 0.4 to 2.3 ± 0.3 (P < 0.001). Concomitantly to the pain relief, there were significant decreases in opioid use, Oswestry Disability Index score, and sleep disturbances. Patients' satisfaction and recommendation ratings were high. Adverse Events were similar in type and frequency to those observed with traditional SCS systems. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic low back pain, HF10 SCS resulted in clinically significant and sustained back and leg pain relief, functional and sleep improvements, opioid use reduction, and high patient satisfaction. These results support the long-term safety and sustained efficacy of HF10 SCS.