Spinal Cord Stimulation Improves Quality of Life for Patients With Chronic Pain-Data From the UK and Ireland National Neuromodulation Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment for chronic pain and is supported by numerous studies. However, some recent articles have questioned its efficacy. This article examines a cohort of >1800 patients with SCS from the UK and Ireland National Neuromodulation Registry. It is intended to provide a "real-world" assessment of efficacy and compare its effects with other procedures performed for painful indications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Quality of life (QoL) data (EuroQoL five-level [EQ5D]) and demographic data were extracted from the National Neuromodulation Registry for all patients (N = 1811) who underwent SCS for chronic pain in 27 centers in the UK between February 2018 and July 2022. These were compared with data from the published literature for other commonly performed elective surgical procedures. RESULTS: The EQ5D utility index increased by a mean of 0.202 in the 1236 patients with paired pre- and postoperative utility scores. The median utility was 0.263 (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.384; n = 1811) preoperatively, whereas at six months after the operation, it was 0.550 (IQR = 0.396; n = 1025), p < 0.0001, Wilcoxon rank sum test. The median utility score at 12 months postoperation was 0.548 (IQR = 0.417; n = 970). There was no difference in utility scores at six months and 12 months after implantation (p = 0.15, Wilcoxon rank sum test). There was a significant improvement in QoL in all five domains of the five-level EQ5D tool at six months after baseline (p < 0.01, for all subcategories), and this was sustained at one year after implantation. The baseline utility was lower than in patients who underwent elective surgery for other painful conditions, and the absolute (and proportionate) increase in utility produced by SCS was greater than that achieved with most other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: SCS increases the QoL in patients requiring surgery for pain. Similar results were seen regardless of SCS indication. When comparing analogous data bases, SCS produces a greater percentage improvement in EQ5D utility than do many other elective surgical procedures for painful conditions, including spinal surgery and some joint replacements.

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).

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.

A Feasibility Study Exploring Measures of Autonomic Function in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Undergoing Spinal Cord Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is associated with impaired autonomic tone, characterized by sympathetic prevalence and vagal withdrawal. Although spinal cord stimulation (SCS) alleviates pain in FBSS, there is limited research investigating how SCS affects measures of autonomic function. This was a prospective, open-label, feasibility study exploring measures of autonomic function in patients with FBSS receiving SCS therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 14 patients with FBSS were recruited for baseline measurements and underwent a trial of 10-kHz SCS. There were three failed trials, resulting in the remaining 11 participants receiving a fully implanted 10-kHz SCS system. One participant requested an explant, resulting in ten participants completing both baseline and follow-up (three to six months after SCS implant) measurements. Autonomic function was assessed using time- and frequency-domain heart rate variability (HRV), baroreceptor reflex sensitivity (BRS), and muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) using microneurography. Because this was a feasibility study, most of the analysis was descriptive. However, paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests tested for differences between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: In the whole (N = 14) and final (N = 10) samples, there was between-participant variation in baseline and follow-up measures. This, combined with a small sample, likely contributed to finding no statistically significant differences in any of the measures between baseline and follow-up. However, plotting baseline and follow-up scores for individual participants revealed that those who showed increases in MSNA frequency, square root of the mean of the squared differences between adjacent RR intervals (RMSSD), percentage of the number of RR intervals >50 ms (pRR50), total power, and up BRS between baseline and follow-up had distinct clustering of baseline values compared with those who showed decreases in these measures. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this feasibility study will aid with informing hypotheses for future research. A key aspect that should be considered in future research concerns exploring the role of baseline measures of autonomic function in influencing change in autonomic function with SCS therapy.

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.

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.

Men and Women Respond Equally Well to Spinal Cord and Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: The influence of gender on outcomes in individuals undergoing treatment for chronic pain is unclear. This retrospective, single-site study explored the impact of gender on pain, quality of life (QoL), revisions, and explants in patients with failed back surgery syndrome or visceral pain, who received a fully implanted 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS), burst SCS, or dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following data were collected from paper and electronic records: gender, age, chronic pain diagnosis, system, baseline and follow-up scores (average pain [visual analog scale, VAS], worst pain [VAS], QoL [EQ-5D-3L]), revisions, and explants. Data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANCOVAs controlling for age, chi-square tests of independence, and logistic regression. RESULTS: The final sample comprised 387 patients (176 males and 211 females). Males were significantly older compared to females (mean difference: 2.33 years, p = 0.044). Controlling for age, baseline average pain was significantly lower in males than females (mean difference: -0.32, p = 0.049). Males and females responded equally well to 10 kHz SCS and burst SCS as well as DRG stimulation. A greater percentage of males (5%) than females (1%) had revisions due to lead fractures. Additionally, more females (13%) than males (6%) had an explant due to insufficient pain relief. Female gender and older age were associated with greater likelihood of having an explant compared to male gender and younger age. CONCLUSION: Gender may play an influential role in pain severity at baseline but have little effect at follow-up. To help identify which patients may undergo a revision or explant, gender and age could be important factors and should be further scrutinized. Even though men and women responded equally well to SCS and DRG stimulation, more men had a revision due to lead fractures, and more women were explanted due to insufficient pain relief.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients awaiting spinal cord stimulation surgery in the United Kingdom: a multi-centre patient survey.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recommended treatment for chronic refractory neuropathic pain. During the COVID-19 pandemic, elective procedures have been postponed indefinitely both to provide capacity to deal with the emergency caseload and to avoid exposure of elective patients to COVID-19. This survey aimed to explore the effect of the pandemic on chronic pain in this group and the views of patients towards undergoing SCS treatment when routine services should resume. METHODS: This was a prospective, multi-centre telephone patient survey that analysed data from 330 patients with chronic pain who were on an SCS waiting list. Questions focussed on severity of pain, effect on mental health, medication consumption and reliance on support networks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Views towards undergoing SCS therapy were also ascertained. Counts and percentages were generated, and chi-square tests of independence explored the impact of COVID-19 risk (very high, high, low) on survey responses. RESULTS: Pain, mental health and patient's ability to self-manage pain deteriorated in around 47%, 50% and 38% of patients, respectively. Some patients reported increases in pain medication consumption (37%) and reliance on support network (41%). Patients showed a willingness to attend for COVID-19 testing (92%), self-isolate prior to SCS (94%) and undergo the procedure as soon as possible (76%). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that even during the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains a strong clinical need for patients with chronic pain identified as likely SCS responders to be treated quickly. The current prioritisation of new SCS at category 4 (delayed more than 3 months) is challenged judging by this national survey. These patients are awaiting SCS surgery to relieve severe intractable neuropathic pain. A priority at category 3 (delayed up to 3 months) or in some selected cases, at category 2 are the appropriate priority categories.

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.

Surgical microdiscectomy versus transforaminal epidural steroid injection in patients with sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc (NERVES): a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal invasive treatment for sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc remains controversial, with a paucity of evidence for use of non-surgical treatments such as transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) over surgical microdiscectomy. We aimed to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of these options for management of radicular pain secondary to herniated lumbar disc. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial at 11 spinal units across the UK. Eligible patients were aged 16-65 years, had MRI-confirmed non-emergency sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc with symptom duration between 6 weeks and 12 months, and had leg pain that was not responsive to non-invasive management. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either TFESI or surgical microdiscectomy by an online randomisation system that was stratified by centre with random permuted blocks. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks. All randomly assigned participants who completed a valid ODQ at baseline and at 18 weeks were included in the analysis. Safety analysis included all treated participants. Cost-effectiveness was estimated from the EuroQol-5D-5L, Hospital Episode Statistics, medication usage, and self-reported resource-use data. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN04820368, and EudraCT, number 2014-002751-25. FINDINGS: Between March 6, 2015, and Dec 21, 2017, 163 (15%) of 1055 screened patients were enrolled, with 80 participants (49%) randomly assigned to the TFESI group and 83 participants (51%) to the surgery group. At week 18, ODQ scores were 30·02 (SD 24·38) for 63 assessed patients in the TFESI group and 22·30 (19·83) for 61 assessed patients in the surgery group. Mean improvement was 24·52 points (18·89) for the TFESI group and 26·74 points (21·35) for the surgery group, with an estimated treatment difference of -4·25 (95% CI -11·09 to 2·59; p=0·22). There were four serious adverse events in four participants associated with surgery, and none with TFESI. Compared with TFESI, surgery had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £38 737 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and a 0·17 probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. INTERPRETATION: For patients with sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc, with symptom duration of up to 12 months, TFESI should be considered as a first invasive treatment option. Surgery is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to TFESI. FUNDING: Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK.

Pain Relief and Safety Outcomes with Cervical 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain in head, neck, shoulders and upper limbs is debilitating, and patients usually rely on pain medications or surgery to manage their symptoms. However, given the current opioid epidemic, non-pharmacological interventions that reduce pain, such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS), are needed. The purpose of this study was to review the evidence on paresthesia-free 10 kHz SCS therapy for neck and upper extremity pain. METHODS: Systematic literature search was performed for studies reporting outcomes for cervical 10 kHz SCS using date limits from May 2008 to November 2020. The study results were analyzed and described qualitatively. Additionally, when feasible, meta-analyses of the outcome data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were conducted using both the fixed-effects (FE) and random-effects (RE) models. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were eligible for inclusion. The proportion of patients who achieved ≥ 50% pain reduction was 83% (95% CI 77-89%) in both the FE and RE models. The proportion of patients who reduced/eliminated their opioid consumption was 39% (95% CI 31-46%) in the FE model and 39% (95% CI 31-48%) in the RE model. Pain or discomfort with the implant, lead migration, and infections were potential risks following cervical SCS. Explant rate was 0.1 (95% CI 0.0-0.2) events per 100 person-months, and no patients in the included studies experienced a neurological complication or paresthesia. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest 10 kHz SCS is a promising, safe, minimally invasive alternative for managing chronic upper limb and neck pain.

Microdiscectomy compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for persistent radicular pain caused by prolapsed intervertebral disc: the NERVES RCT.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect > 3% of the UK population at any time and is most often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc. Currently, there is no uniformly adopted treatment strategy. Invasive treatments, such as surgery (i.e. microdiscectomy) and transforaminal epidural steroid injection, are often reserved for failed conservative treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the management of radicular pain secondary to lumbar prolapsed intervertebral disc for non-emergency presentation of sciatica of < 12 months' duration. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to either (1) microdiscectomy or (2) transforaminal epidural steroid injection. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised prospective trial comparing microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for sciatica due to prolapsed intervertebral disc with < 1 year symptom duration. SETTING: NHS services providing secondary spinal surgical care within the UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 163 participants (aged 16-65 years) were recruited from 11 UK NHS outpatient clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was participant-completed Oswestry Disability Questionnaire score at 18 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes were visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain; modified Roland-Morris score (for sciatica), Core Outcome Measures Index score and participant satisfaction at 12-weekly intervals. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life were assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Hospital Episode Statistics data; medication usage; and self-reported cost data at 12-weekly intervals. Adverse event data were collected. The economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS in England. RESULTS: Eighty-three participants were allocated to transforaminal epidural steroid injection and 80 participants were allocated to microdiscectomy, using an online randomisation system. At week 18, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores had decreased, relative to baseline, by 26.7 points in the microdiscectomy group and by 24.5 points in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection. The difference between the treatments was not statistically significant (estimated treatment effect -4.25 points, 95% confidence interval -11.09 to 2.59 points). Nor were there significant differences between treatments in any of the secondary outcomes: Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores, visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain, modified Roland-Morris score and Core Outcome Measures Index score up to 54 weeks. There were four (3.8%) serious adverse events in the microdiscectomy group, including one nerve palsy (foot drop), and none in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group. Compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection, microdiscectomy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £38,737 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: Primary outcome data was invalid or incomplete for 24% of participants. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness to assumptions made regarding missing data. Eighteen per cent of participants in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group subsequently received microdiscectomy prior to their primary outcome assessment. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, the NErve Root Block VErsus Surgery trial is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection. No statistically significant difference was found between the two treatments for the primary outcome. It is unlikely that microdiscectomy is cost-effective compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for sciatica secondary to prolapsed intervertebral disc. FUTURE WORK: These results will lead to further studies in the streamlining and earlier management of discogenic sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04820368 and EudraCT 2014-002751-25. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Sciatica or pain related to nerve irritation travelling down the leg is common in young working adults and most likely to be caused by a 'slipped' (prolapsed) disc. Although the majority of cases get better on their own and within 4­6 weeks, a significant group of patients struggle with disabling symptoms sometimes beyond 1 year. Consequently, patients struggle to maintain their home and working lives. Many treatments are available for sciatica, but simpler treatments (e.g. pain tablets, physiotherapy and changing one's lifestyle) are often not very effective and patients have often tried all of them by the time they are seen in hospital to have tests, such as scans, done. Surgery to remove part of the disc is recommended in cases where the pain is accompanied by severe weakness in one or both legs, or where doctors think that nerves may be damaged because patients have bladder, bowel and sexual functioning difficulties (i.e. red flag symptoms). Surgery works well in alleviation of referred leg pain and also to relieve pressure on a physically compressed nerve that may be showing clinical sign of injury/weakness. An alternative to surgery is to inject a mixture of anaesthetic and steroid close to the site of the disc injury and nerve, but at the moment we do not know whether or not these injections work in the long term. They are cheaper and less invasive, with fewer risks than surgery, such as from anaesthetic or infection. WHAT DID OUR STUDY INVESTIGATE?: This study compared the usefulness of surgery with injections for patients who have had sciatica for < 1 year and who have tried simple remedies but are still in pain. Patients were allocated to have either surgery or the injection. Symptoms (e.g. pain) were assessed after 18 weeks. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found that there was no significant difference between surgery and injection at the primary end point. Surgery was not significantly different from injection in terms of clinical outcome and was not cost-effective compared with injection. OUR CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Given the cost of surgery and the risks to patients, we suggest that further studies should be carried out to explore whether or not all patients with sciatica due to a slipped disc should be considered suitable for an injection, unless there is a good reason not to.

One-Year Results of Prospective Research Study Using 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation in Persistent Nonoperated Low Back Pain of Neuropathic Origin: Maiden Back Study.

PURPOSE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recommended treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. Persistent nonoperative low back pain of neuropathic origin has profound negative impacts on patient's lives. This prospective, open label, research study aimed to explore the use of SCS in patients with associated features of central sensitisation such as allodynia and hyperalgesia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with back pain and hyperalgesia or allodynia who had not had prior spinal surgery underwent a SCS trial followed by full implantation. SCS comprised administering electrical impulses epidurally at a frequency of 10 kHz and pulse width of 30 µsec. Patients attended follow-up visits after 6 and 12 months of SCS. Repeated measure ANOVAs/Friedman tests explored change after 6 and 12 months of 10 kHz SCS. Independent sample t-tests/Mann-Whitney U tests examined differences in response after 12 months of 10 kHz SCS. RESULTS: Back and leg pain, quality of life (QoL), pain-related disability, and morphine equivalence significantly improved compared with baseline following 6 and 12 months of 10 kHz SCS. There were no increases in the consumption of opioids, amitriptyline, gabapentin or pregabalin in any patient. After 12 months of treatment, 52% encountered ≥50% improvement in back pain, 44% achieved remission (0-3 cm back pain VAS), 40% reported ODI scores between 0 and 40 and 60% experienced a reduction of at least 10 ODI points. Patients reporting ≥10-point improvement in ODI had significantly longer pain history durations and experienced significantly greater improvements in back pain, leg pain and QoL than those reporting <10-point improvement in ODI. CONCLUSION: The 10 kHz SCS improved back and leg pain, QoL, pain-related disability and medication consumption in patients with nonoperative back pain of neuropathic origin. With further research incorporating a sham control arm, the efficacy of 10 kHz SCS in this patient cohort will become more established.

Pocket pain, does location matter: a single-centre retrospective study of patients implanted with a spinal cord stimulator.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for alleviating pain but reported complication rates vary between healthcare centers. This study explored the prevalence of pain associated with Implantable Pulse Generators (IPGs), the component that powers the SCS system. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single site study analyzing data from 764 patients who had a fully implanted SCS between September 2013 and March 2020. Demographic data were collected together with IPG site and type, patient reported presence of IPG site pain, revisions, explants and baseline scores for neuropathic pain (using the Self-Administered Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs questionnaire). Data were statistically analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, independent sample t-tests, X2 tests of independence and logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: IPG site pain occurred in 127 (17%) of 764 patients. These patients had higher baseline neuropathic pain scores than those who reported no IPG site pain. This complication was more common in females than males. The lowest rates of IPG site pain occurred after posterior chest wall placement and the highest rates occurred after abdominal implants. 7% of patients had revision surgery for IPG site pain (n=55) and 10 of 95 explanted patients stated that IPG site pain was a secondary influencing factor. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that IPG site pain is a common complication, contributing to SCS revisions and explantation. This study shows that anatomical factors and baseline characteristics of individual patients may contribute to IPG site pain and indicates that exploration of potential factors leading to IPG revision is required.

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.

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The TRIAL-STIM Study aims to assess the diagnostic performance, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a screening trial prior to full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device. METHODS/DESIGN: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a superiority, parallel-group, three-centre, randomised controlled trial in patients with chronic neuropathic pain with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation. The study will take place in three UK centres: South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (The James Cook University Hospital); Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. A total of 100 adults undergoing SCS implantation for the treatment of neuropathy will be included. Subjects will be recruited from the outpatient clinics of the three participating sites and randomised to undergo a screening trial prior to SCS implant or an implantation-only strategy in a 1:1 ratio. Allocation will be stratified by centre and minimised on patient age (≥ 65 or < 65 years), gender, presence of failed back surgery syndrome (or not) and use of high frequency (HF10™) (or not). The primary outcome measure is the numerical rating scale (NRS) at 6 months compared between the screening trial and implantation strategy and the implantation-only strategy. Secondary outcome measures will include diagnostic accuracy, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months as measured on the NRS, health-related quality-of-life (EQ-5D), function (Oswestry Disability Index), patient satisfaction (Patients' Global Impression of Change) and complication rates. A nested qualitative study will be carried out in parallel for a total of 30 of the patients recruited in each centre (10 at each centre) to explore their views of the screening trial, implantation and overall use of the SCS device. The economic evaluation will take the form of a cost-utility analysis. DISCUSSION: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a randomised controlled trial with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation aiming to determine the clinical utility of screening trials of SCS as well as their cost-effectiveness. The nested qualitative study will seek to explore the patient's view of the screening trials, implantation and overall use of SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN60778781 . Registered on 15 August 2017.

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.

Chronic Low Back Pain: Restoration of Dynamic Stability.

OBJECTIVES: Electrical stimulation for multifidus muscle contraction is a novel approach for treating chronic low back pain (CLBP). A multicenter, open-label feasibility study investigated this modality in patients with continuing CLBP despite medical management and no prior back surgery and no known pathological cause of CLBP. METHODS: Twenty-six patients with continuing CLBP despite physical therapy and medication were implanted with commercially-available implantable pulse generators and leads positioned adjacent to the medial branch of the dorsal ramus as it crosses the L3 transverse process such that electrical stimulation resulted in contraction of the lumbar multifidus (LM) muscle. Patients self-administered stimulation twice daily for 20 min. Low back pain (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Quality of Life (EQ-5D) scores were collected at three and five months and compared to baseline. Stimulation was withdrawn between months 4 and 5 to test durability of effect. RESULTS: At three months, 74% of patients met or exceeded the minimally important change (MIC) in VAS and 63% for disability. QoL improved in 84% of patients (N = 19) and none got worse. Five of the 11 patients on disability for CLBP (45%) resumed work by three months. Half the patients reported ≥50% VAS reduction by month 5. Twenty-one lead migration events occurred in 13 patients, of which 7 patients are included in the efficacy cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Episodic stimulation to induce LM contraction can reduce CLBP and disability, improve quality of life and enable return to work. A dedicated lead design to reduce risk of migration is required.

Bolus intrathecal injection of ziconotide (Prialt®) to evaluate the option of continuous administration via an implanted intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) system: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated efficacy and safety of bolus doses of ziconotide (Prialt®, Eisai Limited, Hertfordshire, UK) to assess the option of continuous administration of this drug via an implanted intrathecal drug delivery system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty adults with severe chronic pain who were under consideration for intrathecal (IT) therapy were enrolled in this open label, nonrandomized, pilot study. Informed consent was obtained. Demographics, medical/pain history, pain scores, and concomitant medications were recorded. A physical examination was performed. Creatine kinase was measured. Initial visual analog scale (VAS), blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate were recorded. All patients received an initial bolus dose of 2.5 mcg ziconotide; the dose in the subsequent visits was modified according to response. Subsequent doses were 2.5 mcg, 1.2 mcg, or 3.75 mcg as per protocol. A good response (≥30% reduction in baseline pain VAS) with no side-effects on two occasions was considered a successful trial. Data were analyzed using a generalized estimating equations model, with pain VAS as the outcome and time (seven time points; preinjection and one to six hours postinjection) as the predictor. RESULTS: Generalized estimating equations analysis of summary measures showed a mean reduction of pain VAS of approximately 25% at the group level; of 11 responders, seven underwent pump implantation procedure, two withdrew because of adverse effects, one refused an implant, and one could not have an implant (lack of funding from the Primary Care Trust). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated that mean VAS was reduced by approximately 25% at the group level after IT ziconotide bolus. Treatment efficacy did not vary with sex, center, age, or pain etiology. Ziconotide bolus was generally well tolerated. Larger studies are needed to determine if bolus dosing with ziconotide is a good predictor of response to continuous IT ziconotide via an intrathecal drug delivery system.