Evidence-based consensus guidelines on patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer diagnosis and service access in New Zealand-a country pursuing COVID-19 elimination.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cancer services globally. New Zealand has pursued an elimination strategy to COVID-19, reducing (but not eliminating) this disruption. Early in the pandemic, our national Cancer Control Agency (Te Aho o Te Kahu) began monitoring and reporting on service access to inform national and regional decision-making. In this manuscript we use high-quality, national-level data to describe changes in cancer registrations, diagnosis and treatment over the course of New Zealand's response to COVID-19. METHODS: Data were sourced (2018-2020) from national collections, including cancer registrations, inpatient hospitalisations and outpatient events. Cancer registrations, diagnostic testing (gastrointestinal endoscopy), surgery (colorectal, lung and prostate surgeries), medical oncology access (first specialist appointments [FSAs] and intravenous chemotherapy attendances) and radiation oncology access (FSAs and megavoltage attendances) were extracted. Descriptive analyses of count data were performed, stratified by ethnicity (Indigenous Maori, Pacific Island, non-Maori/non-Pacific). FINDINGS: Compared to 2018-2019, there was a 40% decline in cancer registrations during New Zealand's national shutdown in March-April 2020, increasing back to pre-shutdown levels over subsequent months. While there was a sharp decline in endoscopies, pre-shutdown volumes were achieved again by August. The impact on cancer surgery and medical oncology has been minimal, but there has been an 8% year-to-date decrease in radiation therapy attendances. With the exception of lung cancer, there is no evidence that existing inequities in service access between ethnic groups have been exacerbated by COVID-19. INTERPRETATION: The impact of COVID-19 on cancer care in New Zealand has been largely mitigated. The New Zealand experience may provide other agencies or organisations with a sense of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer services within a country that has actively pursued elimination of COVID-19. FUNDING: Data were provided by New Zealand's Ministry of Health, and analyses completed by Te Aho o Te Kahu staff.

Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome: A Proposal for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome and ICD-11.

OBJECTIVE: For many medical professionals dealing with patients with persistent pain following spine surgery, the term Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) as a diagnostic label is inadequate, misleading, and potentially troublesome. It misrepresents causation. Alternative terms have been suggested, but none has replaced FBSS. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) published a revised classification of chronic pain, as part of the new International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), which has been accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO). This includes the term Chronic pain after spinal surgery (CPSS), which is suggested as a replacement for FBSS. METHODS: This article provides arguments and rationale for a replacement definition. In order to propose a broadly applicable yet more precise and clinically informative term, an international group of experts was established. RESULTS: 14 candidate replacement terms were considered and ranked. The application of agreed criteria reduced this to a shortlist of four. A preferred option-Persistent spinal pain syndrome-was selected by a structured workshop and Delphi process. We provide rationale for using Persistent spinal pain syndrome and a schema for its incorporation into ICD-11. We propose the adoption of this term would strengthen the new ICD-11 classification. CONCLUSIONS: This project is important to those in the fields of pain management, spine surgery, and neuromodulation, as well as patients labeled with FBSS. Through a shift in perspective, it could facilitate the application of the new ICD-11 classification and allow clearer discussion among medical professionals, industry, funding organizations, academia, and the legal profession.

Two cycles of adjuvant carboplatin for clinical stage 1 testicular seminoma in New Zealand centres: A retrospective analysis of efficacy and long-term events.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant carboplatin reduces relapse risk in clinical stage 1 (CS1) seminoma, though there is a paucity of long-term safety data. AIM: Our objective was to report long-term outcomes of two cycles of adjuvant carboplatin dosed at area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) of 7. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a retrospective analysis on treatment and outcomes of patients with CS1 seminoma who received adjuvant carboplatin from 2000 to 2016 at our centres in the Midland Region, New Zealand. Of 159 patients, median age 39 years, 153 received two cycles of carboplatin: 147 dosed at AUC7 and 6 at AUC6. Six patients had one cycle of carboplatin AUC7. One patient relapsed at 22 months and died of bleomycin pneumonitis 2 months after achieving a complete response with BEP chemotherapy. Neither RTI (present in 21.3%) nor tumor size >4 cm (in 43.3%) was predictive of relapse. Median follow-up was 106 months. At 15 years, outcomes were: relapse-free survival 99.4%, overall survival 91.4%, disease-specific survival 100%, subsequent malignant neoplasm rate 7.6%, and second testicular germ cell tumor rate 3.85%. One patient had persistent grade 1 thrombocytopenia at 46 months. CONCLUSIONS: These data add to the body of evidence that two cycles of carboplatin AUC7 is safe and effective adjuvant treatment for CS1 seminoma.

Postoperative Infections Associated With Prolonged Spinal Cord Stimulation Trial Duration (PROMISE RCT).

INTRODUCTION: In the PROMISE study, a multinational randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) with multicolumn surgical leads as a treatment of low back pain, clinicians followed their usual practice. An early, unplanned safety analysis revealed that the infection rate in Belgium (5/23), where trial duration was a median 21.5 days, was significantly higher than the 1/64 rate observed in the other study countries (median 5.8 days, p < 0.01). This report reviews infections observed in the PROMISE study after study completion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For all infections related to SCS, we used descriptive statistics and tests of independent variables to analyze potentially contributing factors (age, sex, coexisting medical conditions, tobacco use, lead type, and trial duration) between subjects with infections versus those without. Cumulative incidence curves were created using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between the two strata using a log-rank test. RESULTS: Among nine (5.2%) infections in 174 subjects trialed, the only significant contributing factor to infection was trial duration: median 21 days (range 3-56) for those with infection vs. six days (1-41) for those without (p = 0.001; Wilcoxon rank-sum test). The cumulative incidence of infection for subjects trialed >10 days was 24.1% vs. 1.4% for subjects trialed ≤10 days (p < 0.001). After the protocol was amended to limit trial duration to 10 days, 14 infection-free trials were performed in Belgium. CONCLUSIONS: Although not part of the preplanned analysis, our observation supports the hypothesis of a cause-effect relationship between trial duration and the risk of infection and the conclusion that prolonged SCS trials should be avoided.

Randomized Placebo-/Sham-Controlled Trials of Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Methodological Appraisal.

OBJECTIVES: The recent availability of paraesthesia/sensation free spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities allow the design of clinical trials of SCS using placebo/sham controls and blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers. The aims of this study were to: 1) systematically review the current evidence base of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS placebo/sham trials and 2) to undertake a methodological critique of their methods. Based on this critique, we developed a checklist for the design and reporting of future RCTs of SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic data bases were searched from inception until January 2019 for RCTs of SCS using a placebo/sham control. RCTs with only an active comparator arm were excluded. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Searches identified 12 eligible RCTs. SCS modalities included paraesthesia stimulation, subthreshold, burst, and high-frequency SCS and were mainly conducted in patients with failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, and refractory angina. The quality and transparency of reporting of the methods of placebo stimulation, blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers varied markedly across studies. CONCLUSIONS: To date the methods of placebo/sham control and blinding in RCTs have been poorly reported, leading to concerns about the validity and replicability of the findings. Important aspects that need to be clearly reported in the design of placebo-/sham-controlled RCTs of SCS include the transparent reporting of stimulation programming parameters, patient position during perception threshold measurement, management of the patient handheld programmer, frequency of recharging, and assessment of the fidelity of blinding.

Redefining Spinal Cord Stimulation "Trials": A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Single-Stage Wireless Permanent Implantable Devices.

BACKGROUND: "Traditional" spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trials with percutaneous electrodes externalized to a pulse generator (PG) are typically limited in duration due to risk of infection. Newer miniaturized wireless SCS technology eliminates the percutaneous extension (as well as PGs implanted for chronic use), thus facilitating a single-stage implantation after which the device can remain indefinitely. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate fully implanted wireless SCS devices during a 30-day screening trial in subjects with chronic low back pain and leg pain and a history of lumbosacral spine surgery. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial of single-stage wireless SCS using a wireless percutaneous system, 99 subjects received either 10 kHz high frequency stimulation (HFS) or lower frequency stimulation (LFS) below 1500 Hz (Bolash R, Creamer M, Rauck R, et al. Wireless high frequency spinal cord stimulation (10 kHz) compared to multi-waveform low frequency spinal cord stimulation in the management of chronic pain in failed back surgery syndrome subjects: preliminary results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. Pain Med 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnz019). In this report, we assess the 30-day trial success rate (≥50% pain relief from baseline) and complications. RESULTS: The overall trial success rate was 88% (87/99): 92% (46/50) for HFS and 84% (41/49) for LFS (NS). The trial success rate in the 64 subjects with predominant low back pain was 92% (59/64) vs. 80% (28/35) in those with leg pain ≥ low back pain (NS). During the screening trial, one infection occurred (1%) and one subject withdrew and was explanted (1%). Electrode migrations were seen on routine follow-up x-rays in 10 cases (10%). CONCLUSION: Using wireless SCS devices that allow for an extended trial period and evaluation of various waveforms, we observed a high rate trial success rate with both HFS and LFS waveforms, with minimal incidence of infection. Long-term follow-up will address the cost-effectiveness and morbidity associated with this technology, which facilitates single-stage treatment.

Investigating strategies to improve clinical trial opportunities for patients with cancer in New Zealand-INSIGHT.

AIMS: Fewer than 5% of adult cancer patients participate in clinical trials, with multiple patient, clinician and institutional barriers identified. This study aimed to explore patient factors that impact access to cancer trials in New Zealand. METHODS: A questionnaire that included demographics and factors that might impact trial participation was circulated via nine district health boards (DHBs) and four cancer foundations to patients with a cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: Between July 2016 and August 2017, 691 patients responded, 62% female and 77% aged >50 years. Most patients (86%) would consider trial participation, which differed by income (p=0.0001) but not by age, tumour type or gender. Patients would consider attending another hospital (44%) or relocating (11%); 10% considered trials a last resort. Advantageous factors to participation included: benefiting others (92%), better treatment (82%), more scans and longer follow-up (47% and 51%). Disincentives included fear of randomisation (78%), treatment toxicities (71%), time and cost of more visits (40%) and unspecified future research (32%). CONCLUSION: Identified barriers to trial participation were similar in New Zealand to other developed countries. In this motivated cohort, patients are very interested in trial participation at any stage of their treatment and did not mind extra travel or tests.

Multicolumn spinal cord stimulation for predominant back pain in failed back surgery syndrome patients: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Despite optimal medical management (OMM), low back pain (LBP) can be disabling, particularly after spinal surgery. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective in reducing neuropathic leg pain; however, evidence is limited for LBP. This prospective, open-label, parallel-group trial randomized (1:1) failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients with predominant LBP to SCS plus OMM (SCS group) or OMM alone (OMM group) at 28 sites in Europe and the Americas. If trial stimulation was successful, a multicolumn SCS system was implanted. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (before randomization) and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. Patients could change treatment groups at 6 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in LBP (responder) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included change in pain intensity, functional disability, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The results are posted at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT01697358. In the intent-to-treat analysis, there were more responders in the SCS group than in the OMM group (13.6%, 15/110 vs 4.6%, 5/108, difference 9% with 95% confidence interval 0.6%-17.5%, P = 0.036) at 6 months. The SCS group improved in all secondary outcomes compared with the OMM group. The OMM group only improved in HRQoL. In the SCS group, 17.6% (18/102) experienced SCS-related adverse events through 6 months, with 11.8% (12/102) requiring surgical reintervention. Adding multicolumn SCS to OMM improved pain relief, HRQoL, and function in a traditionally difficult-to-treat population of failed back surgery syndrome patients with predominant LBP. Improvements were sustained at 12 and 24 months.

Medical resource utilization for administration of trastuzumab in a New Zealand oncology outpatient setting: a time and motion study.

BACKGROUND: In New Zealand, trastuzumab is standard therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive early and metastatic breast cancer. Given the requirement for ongoing adjuvant or maintenance treatment and intravenous (IV) delivery, such a regimen consumes considerable health care resources. The development of a subcutaneous (SC) trastuzumab formulation with a short administration time offers the potential to reduce hospital expenditure. The aim of this study was to determine medical resource utilization associated with administration of trastuzumab SC injection via handheld syringe vs trastuzumab IV infusion in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer in New Zealand. METHODS: This noninterventional, descriptive study was conducted at the outpatient oncology centers at Auckland City and Tauranga Hospitals. Trained observers recorded times associated with health care professional (HCP) tasks and consumables use associated with preparation and administration of trastuzumab IV or SC in women with early or metastatic breast cancer. The cost for each formulation was calculated as the mean cost of HCP time (based on Pharmaceutical Management Agency hourly rates) plus the mean cost of consumables used. RESULTS: Use of trastuzumab SC vs IV reduced mean chair time by 36.95 minutes and total nurse time by 6.12 minutes; there was a 20.45-minute reduction in pharmacist time when the SC formulation was used. After adding consumable costs, the overall estimated saving with trastuzumab SC vs IV was $76.94 (New Zealand dollars) per patient per cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with trastuzumab IV infusion, administration of trastuzumab via SC injection reduced time spent in the clinic and decreased HCP resources and consumables needed to administer treatment. These reductions could contribute to a decrease in health care costs and an improvement in the efficiency of HER2-positive breast cancer treatment delivery.

Everolimus and zoledronic acid in patients with renal cell carcinoma with bone metastases: a randomized first-line phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are a major cause of morbidity. Post hoc analysis has suggested that bone turnover markers can identify patients at risk of skeletal-related events (SREs) among those receiving zoledronic acid. This study sought to evaluate the effect on bone metastases of everolimus alone compared with everolimus plus zoledronic acid. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty treatment-naive patients with RCC and ≥ 1 bone metastases were randomized 1:1 to everolimus (10 mg daily) versus everolimus plus zoledronic acid (4 mg intravenously 4-weekly). Bone-specific assessments were performed at baseline and at weeks 1, 4, 8, and 12. Treatment was continued on allocated arm until progression per RECIST 1.1 (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1). The primary outcome measure was urine N-telopeptide (uNTX) level, with secondary measures of plasma C-telopeptide (CTX), quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Pain [FACT-BP], Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]), progression-free survival (PFS), SREs, and safety. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, reduction in mean uNTX and CTX on everolimus plus zoledronic acid relative to everolimus was 68.4% (95% CI, 60.1%-74.9%; P < .0001) and 76.2% (95% CI, 67.3%-82.7%; P < .0001), respectively. There was no evidence of a difference for FACT-BP (P = .5), but evidence was favorable for BPI Severity (P = .05) and BPI Interference (P = .06). Median PFS was 7.5 months (95% CI, 3.4-11.2) on everolimus plus zoledronic acid and 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.2-6.3) on everolimus (P = .009). Median time to first SRE was 9.6 months (95% CI, 4.3-15.5) on everolimus plus zoledronic acid and 5.2 months (95% CI, 1.6-8.2) on everolimus (P = .03). CONCLUSION: In this RCC population, the addition of zoledronic acid to everolimus significantly reduced bone resorption markers and may prolong tumor control.

A review of economic factors related to the delivery of health care for chronic low back pain.

INTRODUCTION AND METHODS: We describe tools used to evaluate the economic impact of health care interventions, discuss the economic burden of chronic low back pain, and review evidence on the cost-effectiveness of treating failed back surgery syndrome with spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal drug delivery, acupuncture, epidural injections, disc prosthesis, lumbar fusion, and noninvasive therapies. We also mention the lack of cost studies for emerging therapies, such as vibrotherapy and peripheral nerve field stimulation. Topics include types of cost studies; the economic perspectives taken by such studies; direct and indirect costs; measures of success; definitions of cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-utility ratios, and quality-adjusted life years; the concept of maximum willingness to pay; and the use of cost-effectiveness models. CONCLUSION: The fact that chronic low back pain arises from a variety of causes makes choosing appropriate treatment difficult. Determining the cost-effectiveness of various treatments for chronic low back pain depends on well-designed and well-executed randomized controlled trials with parallel economic evaluations. Researchers can use economic models to extrapolate costs and outcomes over the long term.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation of the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system for the treatment of chronic pain and ischemic diseases: the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) evaluated evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of neurostimulation to treat chronic pain, chronic critical limb ischemia, and refractory angina and recommended appropriate clinical applications. METHODS: The NACC used literature reviews, expert opinion, clinical experience, and individual research. Authors consulted the Practice Parameters for the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain (2006), systematic reviews (1984 to 2013), and prospective and randomized controlled trials (2005 to 2013) identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Neurostimulation is relatively safe because of its minimally invasive and reversible characteristics. Comparison with medical management is difficult, as patients considered for neurostimulation have failed conservative management. Unlike alternative therapies, neurostimulation is not associated with medication-related side effects and has enduring effect. Device-related complications are not uncommon; however, the incidence is becoming less frequent as technology progresses and surgical skills improve. Randomized controlled studies support the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in treating failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. Similar studies of neurostimulation for peripheral neuropathic pain, postamputation pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and other causes of nerve injury are needed. International guidelines recommend spinal cord stimulation to treat refractory angina; other indications, such as congestive heart failure, are being investigated. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate neurostimulation is safe and effective in some chronic pain conditions. Technological refinements and clinical evidence will continue to expand its use. The NACC seeks to facilitate the efficacy and safety of neurostimulation.

Spinal cord stimulation for predominant low back pain in failed back surgery syndrome: study protocol for an international multicenter randomized controlled trial (PROMISE study).

BACKGROUND: Although results of case series support the use of spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome patients with predominant low back pain, no confirmatory randomized controlled trial has been undertaken in this patient group to date. PROMISE is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group study designed to compare the clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation plus optimal medical management with optimal medical management alone in patients with failed back surgery syndrome and predominant low back pain. METHOD/DESIGN: Patients will be recruited in approximately 30 centers across Canada, Europe, and the United States. Eligible patients with low back pain exceeding leg pain and an average Numeric Pain Rating Scale score ≥5 for low back pain will be randomized 1:1 to spinal cord stimulation plus optimal medical management or to optimal medical management alone. The investigators will tailor individual optimal medical management treatment plans to their patients. Excluded from study treatments are intrathecal drug delivery, peripheral nerve stimulation, back surgery related to the original back pain complaint, and experimental therapies. Patients randomized to the spinal cord stimulation group will undergo trial stimulation, and if they achieve adequate low back pain relief a neurostimulation system using the Specify® 5-6-5 multi-column lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) will be implanted to capture low back pain preferentially in these patients. Outcome assessment will occur at baseline (pre-randomization) and at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months post randomization. After the 6-month visit, patients can change treatment to that received by the other randomized group. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in low back pain at the 6-month visit. Additional outcomes include changes in low back and leg pain, functional disability, health-related quality of life, return to work, healthcare utilization including medication usage, and patient satisfaction. Data on adverse events will be collected. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Healthcare use data will be used to assess costs and long-term cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Recruitment began in January 2013 and will continue until 2016. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01697358 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Spinal cord stimulation paresthesia and activity of primary afferents.

A patient with failed back surgery syndrome reported paresthesia in his hands and arms during a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) screening trial with a low thoracic electrode. The patient's severe thoracic stenosis necessitated general anesthesia for simultaneous decompressive laminectomy and SCS implantation for chronic use. Use of general anesthesia gave the authors the opportunity to characterize the patient's unusual distribution of paresthesia. During SCS implantation, they recorded SCS-evoked antidromic potentials at physiologically relevant amplitudes in the legs to guide electrode placement and in the arms as controls. Stimulation of the dorsal columns at T-8 evoked potentials in the legs (common peroneal nerves) and at similar thresholds, consistent with the sensation of paresthesia in the arms, in the right ulnar nerve. The authors' electrophysiological observations support observations by neuroanatomical specialists that primary afferents can descend several (in this case, at least 8) vertebral segments in the spinal cord before synapsing or ascending. This report thus confirms a physiological basis for unusual paresthesia distribution associated with thoracic SCS.

Spinal cord stimulation versus re-operation in patients with failed back surgery syndrome: an international multicenter randomized controlled trial (EVIDENCE study).

OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol of the EVIDENCE study, a multicenter multinational randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) with rechargeable pulse generator versus re-operation through 36-month follow-up in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: Study subjects have neuropathic radicular leg pain exceeding or equaling any low back pain and meet specified entry criteria. One-to-one randomization is stratified by site and by one or more prior lumbosacral operations. The sample size of 132 subjects may be adjusted to between 100 and 200 subjects using a standard adaptive design statistical method with pre-defined rules. Crossover treatment is possible. Co-primary endpoints are proportion of subjects reporting ≥ 50% leg pain relief without crossover at 6 and at 24 months after SCS screening trial or re-operation. Insufficient pain relief constitutes failure of randomized treatment, as does crossover. Secondary endpoints include cost-effectiveness; relief of leg, back, and overall pain; change in disability and quality of life; and rate of crossover. We are collecting data on subject global impression of change, patient satisfaction with treatment, employment status, pain/paresthesia overlap, SCS programming, and adverse events. DISCUSSION: As the first multicenter randomized controlled trial of SCS versus re-operation and the first to use only rechargeable SCS pulse generators, the EVIDENCE study will provide up-to-date evidence on the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome.