Short-Term Health Care Costs of High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Postsurgical Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: High-frequency spinal cord stimulation (HF-SCS) is a treatment option for postsurgical persistent spinal pain syndrome (type 2 PSPS). We aimed to determine the health care costs associated with this therapy in a nationwide cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IBM Marketscan® Research Databases were used to identify patients who underwent HF-SCS implantation from 2016 to 2019. Inclusion criteria included prior spine surgery or diagnoses of PSPS or postlaminectomy pain syndrome any time within the two years before implantation. Inpatient and outpatient service costs, medication costs, and out-of-pocket costs were collected six months before implantation (baseline) and one, three, and six months after implantation. The six-month explant rate was calculated. Costs were compared between baseline and six months after implant via Wilcoxon sign rank test. RESULTS: In total, 332 patients were included. At baseline, patients incurred median total costs of $15,393 (Q1: $9,266, Q3: $26,216), whereas the postimplant median total costs excluding device acquisition were $727 (Q1: $309, Q3: $1,765) at one month, $2,840 (Q1: $1,170, Q3: $6,026) at three months, and $6,380 (Q1: $2,805, Q3: $12,637) at six months. The average total cost was reduced from $21,410 (SD $21,230) from baseline to $14,312 (SD $25,687) at six months after implant for an average reduction of $7,237 (95% CI = $3212-$10,777, p < 0.001). The median device acquisition costs were $42,937 (Q1: $30,102, Q3: $65,880). The explant rate within six months was 3.4% (8/234). CONCLUSIONS: HF-SCS for PSPS was associated with significant decreases in total health care costs and offsets acquisition costs within 2.4 years. With the rising incidence of PSPS, it will be critical to use clinically effective and cost-efficient therapies for treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation therapy compared with conventional medical management over the first 12 months of therapy for patients with nonsurgical back pain: randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis evaluated if spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at 10 kHz plus conventional medical management (CMM) is cost-effective compared with CMM alone for the treatment of nonsurgical refractory back pain (NSRBP). METHODS: NSRBP subjects were randomized 1:1 into the 10-kHz SCS (n = 83) or CMM (n = 76) group. Outcomes assessed at 6 months included EQ-5D 5-level (EQ-5D-5L), medication usage, and healthcare utilization (HCU). There was an optional crossover at 6 months and follow-up to 12 months. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated with cost including all HCU and medications except for the initial device and implant procedure, and cost-effectiveness was analyzed based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of < $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: Treatment with 10-kHz SCS resulted in a significant improvement in quality of life (QOL) over CMM (EQ-5D-5L index score change of 0.201 vs -0.042, p < 0.001) at a lower cost, based on reduced frequency of HCU resulting in an ICER of -$4964 at 12 months. The ICER was -$8620 comparing the 6 months on CMM with postcrossover on 10-kHz SCS. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with 10-kHz SCS provides higher QOL at a lower average cost per patient compared with CMM. Assuming an average reimbursement for device and procedure, 10-kHz SCS therapy is predicted to be cost-effective for the treatment of NSRBP compared with CMM within 2.1 years.

Resource Use and Cost of Subcutaneous Nerve Stimulation Versus Optimized Medical Management in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: An Analysis of the SubQStim Study.

OBJECTIVES: To undertake a detailed healthcare resource use and cost analysis of the SubQStim study, which randomized patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) with low back pain to receive subcutaneous nerve field stimulation in combination with optimized medical management (treatment) or optimized medical management alone (control). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient-level data from the SubQStim study were used to present descriptive analyses of healthcare resource use and estimated costs for pain medication, healthcare visits, adverse events, and device acquisition/implantation. A United Kingdom National Health Service perspective was adopted, using cost data from national tariffs, drug and device prices, and social care cost studies. Results were calculated as the mean cost per patient over the nine-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Mean cost per patient was £18,403 in the treatment group versus £1613 in the control group. Almost 90% of the cost in the treatment group consisted of device acquisition/implantation. Higher adverse event costs were observed for patients in the treatment group, but lower costs were observed for pain medication and healthcare visits. Over nine months, opioid use decreased in the treatment group and increased in the control group. Enrolment and follow-up were terminated early in the clinical study, leading to substantial between-patient variability in each cost category. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous nerve field stimulation has the potential to offset the initial costs of the device by reducing analgesic medication and the number of healthcare visits in FBSS patients, alongside potential gains in health-related quality of life. There remains uncertainty in long-term costs and cost-effectiveness of stimulation and longer-term follow-up analyses are needed.

Socioeconomic Disparities in the Utilization of Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy in Patients with Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies are used in the management of patients with complex regional pain syndrome I (CRPS I) and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). The purpose of this study was to investigate the racial and health insurance inequalities with SCS therapy in patients with chronic pain who had CRPS I and FBSS. METHODS: Patients with chronic pain who had a discharge diagnosis of FBSS and CRPS I were identified using the National Inpatient Sample database. Our primary outcome was defined as the history of SCS utilization by race/ethnicity, income quartile, and insurance status. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the variables associated with utilization of SCS therapy. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2015, 40,858 patients who were hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of FBSS and/or CRPS I were identified. Of these patients, 1,082 (2.7%) had a history of SCS therapy. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that compared to White patients, Black and Hispanic patients had higher odds of having SCS therapy (Black patients: odds ratio [OR] = 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 1.77; P = 0.003; Hispanic patients: OR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.81; P = 0.007). Patients with private insurance had significantly higher odds of having SCS therapy compared with those with Medicare (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.43; P = 0.003). Compared to patients with Medicare, Medicaid patients had lower odds of having SCS therapy (OR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.70; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that socioeconomic disparities may exist in the utilization of SCS among hospitalized patients with CRPS I and FBSS the United States. However, confirming these data from other administrative databases, in the outpatient setting, may shed more insight.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations Reporting the Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recognized treatment for chronic pain. This systematic review aims to assess economic evaluations of SCS for the management of all chronic pain conditions, summarize key findings, and assess the quality of studies to inform healthcare resource allocation decisions and future research. METHODS: Economic evaluations were identified by searching general medical and economic databases complemented with screening of reference lists of identified studies. No restrictions on language or treatment comparators were applied. Relevant data were extracted. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were judged to be of acceptable quality. Economic evaluations assessed SCS for the management of refractory angina pectoris, failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), and peripheral arterial disease. Model-based studies typically applied a 2-stage model, i.e. decision tree followed by Markov model. Time horizon varied from 1 year to lifetime. Cost-effectiveness ranged widely from dominant (SCS cost-saving and more effective) to incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of >£100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness appeared to depend on the time horizon, choice of comparator, and indication. Ten of the studies indicated SCS as cost-saving or cost-effective compared with the alternative strategies. CONCLUSION: The results consistently suggest that SCS is cost-effective when considering a long-term time horizon, particularly for the management of FBSS and CRPS. Further studies are needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of SCS for ischemic pain and DPN.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation as Add-On Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Presently, there is only limited evidence about the cost-effectiveness of peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) and no evidence to date on the cost-effectiveness of PNFS as an add-on therapy to spinal cord stimulation (SCS). In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, PNFS as add-on therapy to SCS demonstrated clinical effectiveness in treating chronic low back pain in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients. We report here the cost-effectiveness of PNFS as additional therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a health-care perspective using the general principles of cost-utility analysis, using empirical data from our multicenter randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of hybrid SCS + PNFS on low back pain in FBSS patients, who were back pain non-responders to initial SCS-therapy, over a time-horizon of three months. Outcome measures were costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost and QALYs were integrated using the net monetary benefit (NMB). Differences in costs, effects, and NMB were analyzed using multilevel regression. Uncertainty surrounding the NMB was presented by cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients implanted with both SCS and PNFS, randomly assigned to a group with PNFS either activated or inactive, completed the controlled part of the study. With mean total costs for the SCS + active PNFS group of €1813.86 (SD €109.78) versus €1103.64 (SD €123.43) for the SCS + inactive PNFS group at three months, we found an incremental cost-utility ratio of €25.311 per QALY gained and a probability being cost-effective of more than 80% given a willingness to pay for a QALY of about €40.000. CONCLUSIONS: From a Dutch national health-care context, when the willingness to pay threshold is up to 60.000 Euros per QALY, PNFS as an add-on therapy to SCS for the treatment of low back pain in FBSS patients has a high probability of being cost-effective.

Incidence, diagnosis and management of sacroiliitis after spinal surgery: a systematic review of the literature.

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is a possible source of persistent or new onset pain after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion. The aim of this paper is to systematically review and analyze the available literature related to the incidence, diagnosis and management of sacroiliitis after spinal arthrodesis. The authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of all articles identified concerning sacroiliac joint pain after lumbar or lumbosacral fusion, to assess their suitability to the research focus. The average incidence of sacroiliitis after lumbar or lumbosacral arthrodesis was found to be 37 ± 28.48 (range 6-75), increasing directly to the number of fused segments involved, especially when the sacrum is included. The most accurate evaluation is the image-guided injection of anesthetic solutions in the joint. Surgery treatment may be considered when conservative therapy fails, with open surgery or with minimally invasive SIJ fusion. Although the risk of developing SIJ degeneration is unclear, the results indicate that pain and degeneration of SIJ develop more often in patients undergoing lumbosacral fusion regardless of the number of melting segments. The treatment of sacroiliitis appears to be independent of his etiology, with or without previous instrumentation on several levels.

Optimizing the Management and Outcomes of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Consensus Statement on Definition and Outlines for Patient Assessment.

Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a controversial term for identifying patients affected by new, recurrent, or persistent pain in the low back and/or legs following spinal surgery. The lack of a comprehensive standardized care pathway compromises the appropriate management of FBSS patients, which is associated with a heavy financial burden. An international panel of spine surgeons, neurosurgeons, and pain specialists with a particular interest in FBSS established the chronic back and leg pain (CBLP) network with the aim of addressing the challenges and barriers in the clinical management of FBSS patients by building a common transdisciplinary vision. Based on literature reviews, additional input from clinical expertise of multiple professional disciplines, and consensus among its members, the network attempted to provide recommendations on the management of patients with FBSS utilizing a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. The presentation of this work has been divided in two separate parts to enhance its clarity. This first paper, in favour of selecting appropriate validated tools to improve the FBSS patient assessment, focuses on FBSS taxonomy and its clinical implications for evaluation. Concise recommendations for assessment, treatment, and outcome evaluation using a MDT approach would be an important resource for specialists and nonspecialist clinicians who manage patients with FBSS, to improve decision-making, reduce variation in practice, and optimize treatment outcomes in this difficult-to-treat population.

Long-term Cost Utility of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a cause of significant morbidity for up to 40% of patients following spine surgery, and is estimated to cost almost $20 billion. Treatment options for these patients currently include conventional medical management (CMM), repeat operation, or spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Much of the published data regarding cost effectiveness of SCS comprise smaller scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) rather than large databases capturing practices throughout the US. SCS has been shown to have superior outcomes to CMM or repeat spinal operation in several landmark studies, yet there are few large studies examining its long-term economic impact. OBJECTIVES: This study compares health care utilization for SCS compared to other management in patients with FBSS. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Inpatient and outpatient sample. METHODS: Patients with a history of FBSS from 2000 to 2012 were selected. We compared those who received SCS to those who underwent conventional management. A longitudinal analysis was used to model the value of log(cost) in each one year interval using a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model to account for the correlation of the same patient's cost in multiple years. Similarly, a Poisson GEE model with the log link was applied to correlated count outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 122,827 FBSS patients. Of these, 5,328 underwent SCS implantation (4.34%) and 117,499 underwent conventional management. Total annual costs decreased over time following implantation of the SCS system, with follow-up analysis at 1, 3, 6, and 9 years. The longitudinal GEE model demonstrated that placement of an SCS system was associated with an initial increase in total costs at the time of implantation (cost ratio [CR]: 1.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41, 2.15, P < 0.001), however there was a significant and sustained 68% decrease in cost in the year following SCS placement (CR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.42, P < 0.001) compared to CMM. There was also an aggregate time trend that for each additional year after SCS, cost decreased on average 40% percent annually (CR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.65, P < 0.001), with follow-up up to 1, 3, 6, and 9 years post-procedure. LIMITATIONS: Costs are not correlated with patient outcomes, patients are not stratified in terms of complexity of prior back surgery, as well as inherent limitations of a retrospective analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We found that from 2000 to 2012, only 4.3% of patients across the United States with FBSS were treated with SCS. Long-term total annual costs for these patients were significantly reduced compared to patients with conventional management. Although implantation of an SCS system results in a short-term increase in costs at one year, the subsequent annual cumulative costs were significantly decreased long-term in the following 9 years after implantation. This study combines the largest group of FBSS patients studied to date along with the longest follow-up interval ever analyzed. Since SCS has repeatedly been shown to have superior efficacy to CMM in randomized clinical trials, the current study demonstrating improved long-term health economics at 1, 3, 6, and 9 years supports the long-term cost utility of SCS in the treatment of FBSS patients. Key words: Failed back surgery syndrome, spinal cord stimulation, back pain, leg pain, neuromodulation, FBSS, SCS.

Multicenter Retrospective Study of Neurostimulation With Exit of Therapy by Explant.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices are cost effective and improve function as well as quality of life. Despite the demonstrated benefits of SCS, some patients have the device explanted. We are interested in exploring the patient characteristics of those explanted. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of neurostimulation patients who underwent explantation at 18 centers across the United States within the previous five years. RESULTS: Data from 352 patients were collected and compiled. Failed Back Surgery syndrome was the most common diagnosis (38.9%; n = 136/350) and over half of the patients reported numerical rating scale (NRS) scores ≥8 prior to implant (64.3%; n = 207/322). All patients reported changes in NRS scores across time, with an initial decrease after implant followed by a pre-explant increase (F (2, 961) = 121.7, p < 0.001). The most common reason for device explant was lack or loss of efficacy (43.9%; 152/346) followed by complications (20.2%; 70/346). Eighteen percent (18%; 62/343) of patients were explanted by a different physician than the implanting one. Rechargeable devices were explanted at a median of 15 months, whereas primary cell device explants occurred at a median of 36 months (CI 01.434, 2.373; median endpoint time ratio = 2.40). DISCUSSION: Loss or lack of efficacy and complications with therapy represent the most frequent reasons for neurostimulation explantation. Of the devices that were explanted, therapy was terminated earlier when devices were rechargeable, when complications occurred, or when pain relief was not achieved or maintained. Furthermore, in nearly 20% of the cases, a different provider than the implanting physician performed device removal. CONCLUSIONS: SCS is largely a safe and efficacious strategy for treating select chronic refractory pain syndromes. Further prospective data and innovation are needed to improve patient selection, maintain SCS therapeutic efficacy and reduce the reasons that lead to device explant.

Impact of Insurance Provider on Overall Costs in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Cost Study of 122,827 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) affects 40% of patients following spine surgery with estimated costs of $20 billion to the US health care system. The aim of this study was to assess the cost differences across the different insurance providers for FBSS patients. METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal study was performed using the Truven MarketScan® database to identify FBSS patients from 2001 to 2012. Patients were grouped into Commercial, Medicaid, or Medicare cohorts. We collected one-year prior to FBSS diagnosis (baseline), then at year of spinal cord stimulation (SCS)-implantation and nine-year post-SCS implantation cost outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 122,827 FBSS patients, with 117,499 patients who did not undergo an SCS-implantation (Commercial: n = 49,075, Medicaid: n = 23,180, Medicare: n = 45,244) and 5328 who did undergo an SCS implantation (Commercial: n = 2279, Medicaid: n = 1003, Medicare: n = 2046). Baseline characteristics were similar between the cohorts, with the Medicare-cohort being significantly older. Over the study period, there were significant differences in overall cost metrics between the cohorts who did not undergo SCS implantation with the Medicaid-cohort had the lowest annual median (interquartile range) total cost (Medicaid: $4530.4 [$1440.6, $11,973.5], Medicare: $7292.0 [$3371.4, $13,989.4], Commercial: $4944.3 [$363.8, $13,294.0], p < 0.0001). However, when comparing the patients who underwent SCS implantation, the commercial-cohort had the lowest annual median (interquartile range) total costs (Medicaid: $4045.6 [$1146.9, $11,533.9], Medicare: $7158.1 [$3160.4, $13,916.6], Commercial: $2098.1 [$0.0, $8919.6], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a significant difference in overall costs between various insurance providers in the management of FBSS, with Medicaid-insured patients having lower overall costs compared to Commercial- and Medicare-patients. SCS is cost-effective across all insurance groups (Commercial > Medicaid > Medicare) beginning at two years and continuing through nine-year follow-up. Further studies are necessary to understand the cost differences between these insurance providers, in hopes of reducing unnecessary health care expenditures for patients with FBSS.

Minimum Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit in Pain, Functional, and Quality of Life Scales in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: .: Prospective observational 1-year study. OBJECTIVE: .: To determine minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) of outcome measures in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients, as these metrics enable assessment of whether and when an intervention produces clinically meaningful effects in a patient. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: .: Several methods have been devised to quantify clinically important difference, but MCID and SCB for FBSS patients has yet to be determined. METHODS: .: Patients with persisting/recurrent low back pain (LBP) and/or leg pain after lumbar surgery who completed 16 weeks of treatment (n = 105) at two hospitals in Korea from November 2011 to September 2014 were analyzed. Global perceived effect was used to determine receiver operating characteristic curves in visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and short form-36 (SF-36) in an anchor-based approach. RESULTS: .: MCIDs for ODI, LBP and leg pain VAS, physical component summary, mental health component summary (MCS), and overall health scores of SF-36 were 9.0, 22.5, 27.5, 10.2, 4.0, and 8.9, and SCBs were 15.0, 32.5, 37.0, 19.7, 19.3, and 21.1, respectively. MCID and SCB area under the curve was ≥0.8, and ≥0.7, respectively. CONCLUSION: .: LBP and leg pain VAS, ODI, and physical component summary of SF-36 may be used to measure responsiveness in FBSS patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: Results From the PRECISE Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) refractory to conventional medical management (CMM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational, multicenter, longitudinal ambispective study, where patients with predominant leg pain refractory to CMM expecting to receive SCS+CMM were recruited in 9 Italian centers and followed up to 24 months after SCS. We collected data on clinical status (pain intensity, disability), Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) and on direct and indirect costs before (pre-SCS) and after (post-SCS) the SCS intervention. Costs were quantified in € 2009, adopting the National Health Service's (NHS), patient and societal perspectives. Benefits and costs pre-SCS versus post-SCS were compared to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost utility ratios. RESULTS: 80 patients (40% male, mean age 58 years) were recruited. Between baseline and 24 months post-SCS, clinical outcomes and HRQoL significantly improved. The EQ-5D utility index increased from 0.421 to 0.630 (p < 0.0001). Statistically significant improvement was first observed six months post-SCS. Societal costs increased from €6600 (pre-SCS) to €13,200 (post-SCS) per patient per year. Accordingly, the cost-utility acceptability curve suggested that if decision makers' willingness to pay per Quality-Adjusted-Life-Years (QALYs) was €60,000, SCS implantation would be cost-effective in 80% and 85% of cases, according to the NHS's and societal point of views, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that in clinical practice, SCS+CMM treatment of FBSS patients refractory to CMM provides good value for money. Further research is encouraged in the form of larger, long-term studies.

Multicolumn spinal cord stimulation for significant low back pain in failed back surgery syndrome: design of a national, multicentre, randomized, controlled health economics trial (ESTIMET Study).

BACKGROUND: Many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic neuropathic radicular pain over recent decades, but despite global favourable outcomes in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) with leg pain, the back pain component remains poorly controlled by neurostimulation. Technological and scientific progress has led to the development of new SCS leads, comprising a multicolumn design and a greater number of contacts. The efficacy of multicolumn SCS lead configurations for the treatment of the back pain component of FBSS has recently been suggested by pilot studies. However, a randomized controlled trial must be conducted to confirm the efficacy of new generation multicolumn SCS. Évaluation médico-économique de la STImulation MEdullaire mulTi-colonnes (ESTIMET) is a multicentre, randomized study designed to compare the clinical efficacy and health economics aspects of mono- vs. multicolumn SCS lead programming in FBSS patients with radicular pain and significant back pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: FBSS patients with a radicular pain VAS score≥50mm, associated with a significant back pain component were recruited in 14 centres in France and implanted with multicolumn SCS. Before the lead implantation procedure, they were 1:1 randomized to monocolumn SCS (group 1) or multicolumn SCS (group 2). Programming was performed using only one column for group 1 and full use of the 3 columns for group 2. Outcome assessment was performed at baseline (pre-implantation), and 1, 3, 6 and 12months post-implantation. The primary outcome measure was a reduction of the severity of low back pain (bVAS reduction≥50%) at the 6-month visit. Additional outcome measures were changes in global pain, leg pain, paraesthesia coverage mapping, functional capacities, quality of life, neuropsychological aspects, patient satisfaction and healthcare resource consumption. TRIAL STATUS: Trial recruitment started in May 2012. As of September 2013, all 14 study centres have been initiated and 112/115 patients have been enrolled. Preliminary results are expected to be published in 2015. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration information-URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier NCT01628237.

Neurostimulation options for failed back surgery syndrome: The need for rational and objective measurements. Proposal of an international clinical network using an integrated database and health economic analysis: the PROBACK network.

INTRODUCTION: In the context of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) treatment, the current practice in neurostimulation varies from center-to-center and most clinical decisions are based on an individual diagnosis. Neurostimulation evaluation tools and pain relief assessment are of major concern, as they now constitute one of the main biases of clinical trials. Moreover, the proliferation of technological devices, in a fertile and unsatisfied market, fosters and only furthers the confusion. There are three options available to apply scientific debates to our daily neurostimulation practice: intentional ignorance, standardized evidence-based practice or alternative data mining approach. OBJECTIVE: In view of the impossibility of conducting multiple randomized clinical trials comparing various devices, one by one, the proposed concept would be to redefine the indications and the respective roles of the various spinal cord and peripheral nerve stimulation devices with large-scale computational modeling/data mining approach, by conducting a multicenter prospective database registry, supported by a clinician's global network called "PROBACK". METHODS: We chose to specifically analyze 6 parameters: device coverage performance/coverage selectivity/persistence of the long-term electrical response (technical criteria) and comparative mapping of patient pain relief/persistence of the long-term clinical response/safety and complications occurrence (clinical criteria). Two types of analysis will be performed: immediate analysis (including cost analysis) and computational analysis, i.e. demonstration of the robustness of certain correlations of variables, in order to extract response predictors. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: By creating an international prospective database, the purpose of the PROBACK project was to set up a process of extraction and comparative analysis of data derived from the selection, implantation and follow-up of FBSS patients candidates for implanted neurostimulation. This evaluation strategy should help to change the opinions of each implanter and each health system towards a more rational decision-making approach subtended by mathematical reality.

Cost effectiveness of a novel 10 kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation system in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS).

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective method of relieving chronic intractable pain, and one of its key indications is failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). The objective of the current study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of 10 kHz high-frequency SCS (HF10 SCS) compared to conventional medical management (CMM), reoperation, and traditional nonrechargeable (TNR-SCS) and rechargeable SCS (TR-SCS). METHODS: A health economic model of SCS in the United Kingdom was reproduced in the perspective of the health care system to simulate costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over 15 years. In the model, both a decision tree and the Markov model were used to describe the health outcomes of the evaluated therapies. RESULTS: HF10 SCS therapy showed a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3,153 per QALY gained as compared to CMM and established dominance (less costly, more QALYs) compared to TNR-SCS (£8,802 per QALY vs. CMM) and TR-SCS (£5,101 per QALY vs. CMM). CONCLUSION: This first analysis of the cost effectiveness of HF10 SCS suggests that it is more cost effective and provides a greater number of QALYs than both TNR-SCS and TR-SCS.

Utilization of spinal cord stimulation in patients with failed back surgery syndrome.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a population-based insurance claims data set. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and lumbar reoperation for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), and examine their associated complications and health care costs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: FBSS is a major source of chronic neuropathic pain and affects up to 40% of patients who undergo lumbosacral spine surgery for back pain. Thus far, few economic analyses have been performed comparing the various treatments for FBSS, with these studies involving small sample sizes. In addition, the nationwide practices in the use of SCS for FBSS are unknown. METHODS: The MarketScan data set was used to analyze patients with FBSS who underwent SCS or spinal reoperation between 2000 and 2009. Propensity score methods were used to match patients who underwent SCS with those who underwent lumbar reoperation to examine health care resource utilization. Postoperative complications were analyzed with multivariate logistic regression. Health care use was analyzed using negative binomial and general linear models. RESULTS: The study cohort included 16,455 patients with FBSS, with 395 undergoing SCS implantation (2.4%). Complication rates at 90 days were significantly lower for SCS than spinal reoperation (P < 0.0001). Also in the matched cohort, hospital stay (P < 0.0001) and associated charges (P = 0.016) were lower for patients with SCS. However outpatient, emergency room, and medication charges were similar between the 2 groups. Overall cost totaling $82,586 at 2 years was slightly higher in the lumbar reoperation group than in the SCS group with total cost of $80,669 (P = 0.88). CONCLUSION: Although previous studies have demonstrated superior efficacy for the treatment of FBSS, SCS remains underused. Despite no significant decreases in overall health care cost with SCS implantation, because it is associated with decreased complications and improved outcomes, this technology warrants closer consideration for the management of chronic pain in patients with FBSS.

Rehabilitation perspectives of neuromodulation.

Chronic pain is one of the most prevalent and costly health care problems in the United States today. Two conditions, failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), in particular have been difficult to manage, resulting in increased disability and poorer quality of life measures for patients as well as increased treatments cost for payers. Given the cost of chronic pain management and overall subjectivity of analog pain scores, many payers are emphasizing the importance of functional outcomes as a means of assessing efficacy of treatment. Neuromodulation devices such as spinal cord stimulators are shown to be cost effective and able to improve functional outcomes and quality of life. Specific rehabilitation therapies also demonstrate improved functional outcomes. This article aims to discuss the role of rehabilitation in the patient with a neuromodulatory device. From the available data and our clinical experience, we recommend incorporating rehabilitation after placement of a neuromodulation device in order to optimize functional outcomes.

Effectiveness of cervical spinal cord stimulation for the management of chronic pain.

INTRODUCTION: Scientific evidence supports spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a cost-effective treatment option that, for many disease states, should be employed earlier in the treatment continuum. Reimbursement for SCS in the cervical spine has recently been challenged based on supposed lack of clinical literature. To refute this assumption, we analyzed data from an international registry to support the use of cervical SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following outcomes were collected as part of an institutional review board-approved, prospective, multicenter, international registry: pain relief, Pain Disability Index (PDI) score, quality of life (QoL), and satisfaction at 3, 6, and 12 months post-implantation. Descriptive statistics are provided for all measures. Changes from baseline in PDI scores were analyzed using Tukey's pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients underwent implantation of SCS leads in the cervical spine at 16 study sites in the United States and 3 international study sites. Direct patient report of percentage of pain relief was 54.2%, 60.2%, and 66.8% at 3, 6, and 12 months post-implantation, respectively. Pain relief was categorized as excellent/good by 61.6% of patients at 3 months, with similar results observed at 6 and 12 months. PDI scores were significantly reduced at all time points. At 3 months post-implantation, 92.4% of patients indicated they were very satisfied/satisfied with the SCS device. No patients indicated that they were dissatisfied. Overall QoL was reported as improved/greatly improved by 73.1% of patients at 3 months. Similar results for QoL and satisfaction were reported at 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the use of SCS in the cervical spine is a medically effective method of pain management that satisfies and improves the QoL of most patients. The use of SCS can reduce the high cost of direct medical treatment of pain, as well as increasing the productivity of patients, and therefore should be reimbursed in appropriately selected patients.

Cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation therapy in management of chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and conventional medical management (CMM) compared with CMM alone for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and refractory angina pectoris (RAP). DESIGN: Markov models were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SCS vs CMM alone from the perspective of a Canadian provincial Ministry of Health. Each model followed costs and outcomes in 6-month cycles. Health effects were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were gathered from public sources and expressed in 2012 Canadian dollars (CAN$). Costs and effects were calculated over a 20-year time horizon and discounted at 3.5% annually, as suggested by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Cost-effectiveness was identified by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (50,000 Monte-Carlo iterations). Outcome measures were: cost, QALY, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expected value of perfect information (EVPI), and strategy selection frequency. RESULTS: The ICER for SCS was: CAN$ 9,293 (FBSS), CAN$ 11,216 (CRPS), CAN$ 9,319 (PAD), CAN$ 9,984 (RAP) per QALY gained, respectively. SCS provided the optimal economic path. The probability of SCS being cost-effective compared with CMM was 75-95% depending on pathology. SCS generates a positive INMB for treatment of pain syndromes. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that results were robust to plausible variations in model costs and effectiveness inputs. Per-patient EVPI was low, indicating that gathering additional information for model parameters would not significantly impact results. CONCLUSION: SCS with CMM is cost-effective compared with CMM alone in the management of FBSS, CRPS, PAD, and RAP.