Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation as Compared With L2 Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in Pain Relief for Nonoperated Discogenic Low Back Pain: Analysis of Two Prospective Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic discogenic low back pain (CD-LBP) is caused by degenerated disks marked by neural and vascular ingrowth. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be effective for pain relief in patients who are not responsive to conventional treatments. Previously, the pain-relieving effect of two variations of SCS has been evaluated in CD-LBP: Burst SCS and L2 dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS). The aim of this study is to compare the effectivity in pain relief and pain experience of Burst SCS with that of conventional L2 DRGS in patients with CD-LBP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were implanted with either Burst SCS (n = 14) or L2 DRGS with conventional stimulation (n = 15). Patients completed the numeric pain rating score (NRS) for back pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI) and EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D) questionnaires at baseline, and at three, six, and 12 months after implantation. Data were compared between time points and between groups. RESULTS: Both Burst SCS and L2 DRGS significantly decreased NRS, ODI, and EQ-5D scores as compared with baseline. L2 DRGS resulted in significantly lower NRS scores at 12 months and significantly increased EQ-5D scores at six and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Both L2 DRGS and Burst SCS resulted in reduction of pain and disability, and increased quality of life in patients with CD-LBP. L2 DRGS provided significantly increased pain relief and improvement in quality of life when compared with Burst SCS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The clinical trial registration numbers for the study are NCT03958604 and NL54405.091.15.

Lead migration rate in dorsal root ganglion stimulation using lead anchoring techniques: A follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Lead anchoring has previously been shown to reduce the rate of dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) lead migration. The aim of this study was to assess longer-term follow-up and consistency of lead migration prevention with lead anchoring in a new cohort of patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review from September 2017 to November 2022 of all patients who had DRG-S implants at our institute to identify the number of lead migrations that occurred over this period. The first cohort consisted of patients reported on in a previous publication (implanted from September 2017 through September 2020) subdivided into unanchored or anchored lead groups. The second cohort consisted of patients implanted during or after October 2020 who were not previously reported on for whom leads were anchored using silastic anchoring only. RESULTS: At the November 2022 data cutoff, in the initial cohort, 8 migrations had occurred in unanchored leads over an average follow-up of 49 months, equating to a migration rate of 9.1% per lead. Patients with anchored leads in the initial cohort experienced 2 migrations over an average follow-up of 38 months (0.7% migration rate per lead). There were no new lead migrations in these groups over the extended follow-up reported here. The migration rate in the new cohort was similar, with 1 migration over an average follow-up of 13 months (0.5% migration rate per lead). CONCLUSION: These results underscore the necessity of anchor placement during DRG-S lead implantation to prevent lead migration.

5. Sacroiliac joint pain.

INTRODUCTION: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is defined as pain localized in the anatomical region of the SI joint. The reported prevalence of SI joint pain among patients with mechanical low back pain varies between 15% and 30%. METHODS: In this narrative review, the literature on the diagnosis and treatment of SI joint pain was updated and summarized. RESULTS: Patient's history provides clues on the source of pain. The specificity and sensitivity of provocative maneuvers are relatively high when three or more tests are positive, though recent studies have questioned the predictive value of single or even batteries of provocative tests. Medical imaging is indicated only to rule out red flags for potentially serious conditions. The diagnostic value of SI joint infiltration with local anesthetic remains controversial due to the potential for false-positive and false-negative results. Treatment of SI joint pain ideally consists of a multidisciplinary approach that includes conservative measures as first-line therapies (eg, pharmacological treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy, manual medicine, exercise therapy and rehabilitation treatment, and if necessary, psychological support). Intra- and extra-articular corticosteroid injections have been documented to produce pain relief for over 3 months in some people. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the L5 dorsal ramus and S1-3 (or 4) lateral branches has been shown to be efficacious in numerous studies, with extensive lesioning strategies (eg, cooled RFA) demonstrating the strongest evidence. The reported rate of complications for SI joint treatments is low. CONCLUSIONS: SI joint pain should ideally be managed in a multidisciplinary and multimodal manner. When conservative treatment fails, corticosteroid injections and radiofrequency treatment can be considered.

3. Pain originating from the lumbar facet joints.

INTRODUCTION: Pain originating from the lumbar facets can be defined as pain that arises from the innervated structures comprising the joint: the subchondral bone, synovium, synovial folds, and joint capsule. Reported prevalence rates range from 4.8% to over 50% among patients with mechanical low back pain, with diagnosis heavily dependent on the criteria employed. In well-designed studies, the prevalence is generally between 10% and 20%, increasing with age. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar facet joint pain was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: There are no pathognomic signs or symptoms of pain originating from the lumbar facet joints. The most common reported symptom is uni- or bilateral (in more advanced cases) axial low back pain, which often radiates into the upper legs in a non-dermatomal distribution. Most patients report an aching type of pain exacerbated by activity, sometimes with morning stiffness. The diagnostic value of abnormal radiologic findings is poor owing to the low specificity. SPECT can accurately identify joint inflammation and has a predictive value for diagnostic lumbar facet injections. After "red flags" are ruled out, conservatives should be considered. In those unresponsive to conservative therapy with symptoms and physical examination suggesting lumbar facet joint pain, a diagnostic/prognostic medial branch block can be performed which remains the most reliable way to select patients for radiofrequency ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Well-selected individuals with chronic low back originating from the facet joints may benefit from lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation.

6. Persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS) refers to chronic axial pain and/or extremity pain. Two subtypes have been defined: PSPS-type 1 is chronic pain without previous spinal surgery and PSPS-type 2 is chronic pain, persisting after spine surgery, and is formerly known as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) or post-laminectomy syndrome. The etiology of PSPS-type 2 can be gleaned using elements from the patient history, physical examination, and additional medical imaging. Origins of persistent pain following spinal surgery may be categorized into an inappropriate procedure (eg a lumbar fusion at an incorrect level or for sacroiliac joint [SIJ] pain); technical failure (eg operation at non-affected levels, retained disk fragment, pseudoarthrosis), biomechanical sequelae of surgery (eg adjacent segment disease or SIJ pain after a fusion to the sacrum, muscle wasting, spinal instability); and complications (eg battered root syndrome, excessive epidural fibrosis, and arachnoiditis), or undetermined. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of PSPS-type 2 was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: There is low-quality evidence for the efficacy of conservative treatments including exercise, rehabilitation, manipulation, and behavioral therapy, and very limited evidence for the pharmacological treatment of PSPS-type 2. Interventional treatments such as pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the dorsal root ganglia, epidural adhesiolysis, and spinal endoscopy (epiduroscopy) might be beneficial in patients with PSPS-type 2. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be an effective treatment for chronic, intractable neuropathic limb pain, and possibly well-selected candidates with axial pain. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of PSPS-type 2 is based on patient history, clinical examination, and medical imaging. Low-quality evidence exists for conservative interventions. Pulsed radiofrequency, adhesiolysis and SCS have a higher level of evidence with a high safety margin and should be considered as interventional treatment options when conservative treatment fails.

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain.

INTRODUCTION: Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.

Radiofrequency for chronic lumbosacral and cervical pain: Results of a consensus study using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

BACKGROUND: Despite the routine use of radiofrequency (RF) for the treatment of chronic pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region, there remains uncertainty on the most appropriate patient selection criteria. This study aimed to develop appropriateness criteria for RF in relation to relevant patient characteristics, considering RF ablation (RFA) for the treatment of chronic axial pain and pulsed RF (PRF) for the treatment of chronic radicular pain. METHODS: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) was used to explore the opinions of a multidisciplinary European panel on the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a variety of clinical scenarios. Depending on the type of pain (axial or radicular), the expert panel rated the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a total of 219 clinical scenarios. RESULTS: For axial pain in the lumbosacral or cervical region, appropriateness of RFA was determined by the dominant pain trigger and location of tenderness on palpation with higher appropriateness scores if these variables were suggestive of the diagnosis of facet or sacroiliac joint pain. Although the opinions on the appropriateness of PRF for lumbosacral and cervical radicular pain were fairly dispersed, there was agreement that PRF is an appropriate option for well-selected patients with radicular pain due to herniated disc or foraminal stenosis, particularly in the absence of motor deficits. The panel outcomes were embedded in an educational e-health tool that also covers the psychosocial aspects of chronic pain, providing integrated recommendations on the appropriate use of (P)RF interventions for the treatment of chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary European expert panel established patient-specific recommendations that may support the (pre)selection of patients with chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region for either RFA or PRF (accessible via https://rftool.org). Future studies should validate these recommendations by determining their predictive value for the outcomes of (P)RF interventions.

Core patient-reported outcome measures for chronic pain patients treated with spinal cord stimulation or dorsal root ganglia stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Neurostimulation is a highly effective therapy for the treatment of chronic Intractable pain, however, due to the complexity of pain, measuring a subject's long-term response to the therapy remains difficult. Frequent measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to reflect multiple aspects of subjects' pain is a crucial step in determining therapy outcomes. However, collecting full-length PROs is burdensome for both patients and clinicians. The objective of this work is to identify the reduced set of questions from multiple validated PROs that can accurately characterize chronic pain patients' responses to neurostimulation therapies. METHODS: Validated PROs were used to capture pain, physical function and disability, as well as psychometric, satisfaction, and global health metrics. PROs were collected from 509 patients implanted with Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) or Dorsal Root Ganglia (DRG) neurostimulators enrolled in the prospective, international, post-market REALITY study (NCT03876054, Registration Date: March 15, 2019). A combination of linear regression, Pearson's correlation, and factor analysis were used to eliminate highly correlated questions and find the minimal meaningful set of questions within the predefined domains of each scale. RESULTS: The shortened versions of the questionnaires presented almost identical accuracy for classifying the therapy outcomes as compared to the validated full-length versions. In addition, principal component analysis was performed on all the PROs and showed a robust clustering of pain intensity, psychological factors, physical function, and sleep across multiple PROs. A selected set of questions captured from multiple PROs can provide adequate information for measuring neurostimulation therapy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PROs are important subjective measures to evaluate the physiological and psychological aspects of pain. However, these measures are cumbersome to collect. These shorter and more targeted PROs could result in better patient engagement, and enhanced and more frequent data collection processes for digital health platforms that minimize patient burden while increasing therapeutic benefits for chronic pain patients.

Applicability and Validity of an e-Health Tool for the Appropriate Referral and Selection of Patients With Chronic Pain for Spinal Cord Stimulation: Results From a European Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: To support rational decision-making on spinal cord stimulation (SCS), a European expert panel developed an educational e-health tool using the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. This retrospective study aimed to determine the applicability and validity of the tool using data from patients for whom SCS had been considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 12 European implant centers retrieved data from 25 to 50 consecutive patients for whom SCS was considered in 2018-2019. For each patient, data were captured on the clinical and psychosocial variables included in the e-health tool, center decisions on SCS, and patient outcomes. Patient outcomes included global perception of effect by the patient and observer, and pain reduction (numeric pain rating scale) at six-month follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 483 patients were included, of whom 133 received a direct implant, 258 received an implant after a positive trial, 32 had a negative trial, and 60 did not receive SCS for reasons other than a negative trial. The most frequent indication was persistent spinal pain syndrome type 1 and type 2 (74%), followed by neuropathic pain syndromes (13%), complex regional pain syndrome (12%), and ischemic pain syndromes (0.8%). Data on the clinical and psychosocial variables were complete for 95% and 93% of patients, respectively, and missing data did not have a significant impact on the study outcomes. In patients who had received SCS, panel recommendations were significantly associated with patient outcomes (p < 0.001 for all measures). Substantial improvement ranged from 25% if the e-health tool outcome was "not recommended" to 83% if SCS was "strongly recommended". In patients who underwent a trial (N = 290), there was 3% of trial failure when SCS was "strongly recommended" vs 46% when SCS was "not recommended". CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective application of the e-health tool on patient data showed a strong relationship between the panel recommendations and both SCS trial results and treatment outcomes.

Comparing the Efficacy of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation With Conventional Medical Management in Patients With Chronic Postsurgical Inguinal Pain: Post Hoc Analyzed Results of the SMASHING Study.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 10% of patients who undergo inguinal hernia repair or Pfannenstiel incision develop chronic (> three months) postsurgical inguinal pain (PSIP). If medication or peripheral nerve blocks fail, a neurectomy is the treatment of choice. However, some patients do not respond to this treatment. In such cases, stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) appears to significantly reduce chronic PSIP in selected patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized controlled study, DRG stimulation was compared with conventional medical management (CMM) (noninvasive treatments, such as medication, transcutaneous electric neurostimulation, and rehabilitation therapy) in patients with PSIP that was resistant to a neurectomy. Patients were recruited at a tertiary referral center for groin pain (SolviMáx, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) between March 2015 and November 2016. Suitability for implantation was assessed according to the Dutch Neuromodulation Association guidelines. The sponsor discontinued the study early owing to slow enrollment. Of 78 planned patients, 18 were randomized (DRG and CMM groups each had nine patients). Six patients with CMM (67%) crossed over to DRG stimulation at the six-month mark. RESULTS: Fifteen of the 18 patients met the six-month primary end point with a complete data set for a per-protocol analysis. Three patients with DRG stimulation had a negative trial and were lost to follow-up. The average pain reduction was 50% in the DRG stimulation and crossover group (from 6.60 ± 1.24 to 3.28 ± 2.30, p = 0.0029). Conversely, a 13% increase in pain was observed in patients with CMM (from 6.13 ± 2.24 to 6.89 ± 1.24, p = 0.42). Nine patients with DRG stimulation experienced a total of 19 adverse events, such as lead dislocation and pain at the implantation site. CONCLUSIONS: DRG stimulation is a promising effective therapy for pain relief in patients with PSIP resistant to conventional treatment modalities; larger studies should confirm this. The frequency of side effects should be a concern in a new study. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02349659.

Subcutaneous Stimulation as Add-on Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Significantly Increases the Total Electrical Charge per Second: Aspects on Stimulation Parameters and Energy Requirements of the Implanted Neurostimulators.

OBJECTIVE: In our previous multicenter randomized controlled trial, we demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) as add-on therapy to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of chronic back pain in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) or failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). To our knowledge, no previous study has investigated the effect of PNFS as an add-on to SCS on the energy consumption of the implanted neurostimulators. Therefore, in this study, we compared the specific stimulation parameters and energy requirements of a previously unreported group of patients with only SCS with those of a group of patients with SCS and add-on PNFS. We also investigated differences that might explain the need for PNFS in the treatment of chronic low back pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 75 patients with complete sets of stimulation parameters, with 21 patients in the SCS-only group and 54 patients in the SCS + PNFS group. Outcome measures were average visual analog scale score, SCS parameters (voltage, frequency, and pulse width), SCS charge per second, and total charge per second. We analyzed baseline characteristics and differences between and within groups over time. RESULTS: Both groups had comparable patient characteristics at baseline and showed a significant decrease in back and leg pain. SCS charge per second did not significantly differ between the groups at baseline or at 12 months. The total charge per second was significantly higher in the active SCS + PNFS group than in the SCS-only group at baseline; in the SCS + PNFS group, this persisted for up to 12 months, and the SCS charge per second and total charge per second increased significantly over time. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that add-on PNFS increases the total charge per second compared with SCS alone, as expected. However, further research is needed because our results do not directly explain why some patients require add-on PNFS to treat low back pain.

Spinal Cord Stimulation With Additional Peripheral Nerve/Field Stimulation Versus Spinal Cord Stimulation Alone on Back Pain and Quality of Life in Patients With Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) or failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) refers to new or persistent pain following spinal surgery for back or leg pain in a subset of patients. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a neuromodulation technique that can be considered in patients with predominant leg pain refractory to conservative treatment. Patients with predominant low back pain benefit less from SCS. Another neuromodulation technique for treatment of chronic low back pain is subcutaneous stimulation or peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS). We investigated the effect of SCS with additional PNFS on pain and quality of life of patients with PSPS compared with that of SCS alone after 12 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a comparative study of patients with PSPS who responded to treatment with either SCS + PNFS or SCS only following a multicenter randomized clinical trial protocol. In total, 75 patients completed the 12-month follow-up: 21 in the SCS-only group and 54 in the SCS + PNFS group. Outcome measures were pain (visual analog scale), quality of life (36-Item Short Form Survey [SF-36]), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), overall health (EuroQol Five-Dimension [EQ-5D]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and pain assessed by the McGill questionnaire. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Both groups showed a significant reduction in back and leg pain at 12 months compared with baseline measurements. No significant differences were found between the groups in effect on both primary (pain) and secondary parameters (SF-36, HADS, EQ-5D, ODI, and McGill pain). CONCLUSION: In a subgroup of patients with chronic back and leg pain, SCS alone provided similar long-term pain relief and quality-of-life improvement as PNFS in addition to SCS. In patients with refractory low back pain not responding to SCS alone, adding PNFS should be recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT01776749.

A prospective study of BurstDR™ spinal cord stimulation for non-operated discogenic low back pain.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic discogenic low back pain (CD-LBP) is caused by degeneration of the disc due to trauma to the annulus or by unprovoked degeneration, resulting in chronic pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) employing the BurstDR™ waveform has been shown to be an effective treatment in a variety of chronic pain conditions. The aim of this prospective case study was to determine the effect of BurstDR™ SCS on pain relief, disability, and patient satisfaction in a population with CD-LBP. METHODS: Seventeen subjects with CD-LBP received a SCS trial with BurstDR™ stimulation. Patients with >50% pain relief after a trial period of 2 weeks were permanently implanted (n = 15). Patients then rated LBP and leg pain using the numeric rating scale (NRS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), patient global impression of change (PGIC), EQ-5D quality of life, and painDETECT for neuropathic pain at baseline following trial, 3, 6, and 12 months after permanent implantation. RESULTS: Treatment with BurstDR™ SCS resulted in significant reduction of LBP as the NRS was reduced from 71.7 ± 7.3 at baseline to 42.5 ± 18.1 at 12 months. Average pain relief at 12 months was 42.5%. In patients with leg pain (n = 8), pain was significantly reduced from 66.9 ± 8.2 to 11.7 ± 10.4 at 12 months. PainDETECT scores for neuropathic pain significantly reduced from 18.9 ± 4.8 at baseline, and 14.8 ± 3.2 at 12 months. Baseline ODI score significantly reduced from 41.2 ± 12.8 to 25.8 ± 8.6 at 12 months. PGIC scores remained low from 2.6 ± 1.6 at 3 months, 2.5 ± 1.0 at 6 months, and 2.5 ± 1.3 at 12 months. EQ-5D-5L rates remained constant from baseline 56.10 ± 23.9 to 68.6 ± 12.9 at 12 months. CONCLUSION: BurstDR™ SCS resulted in significant reduction of back pain, leg pain, and quality of life in patients with CD-LBP and decreased the level of disability and generated positive patient satisfaction scores.

An Anatomy-Informed, Novel Technique for S1 Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation Lead Placement.

OBJECTIVE: A heightened and organized understanding of sacral anatomy could potentially lead to a more effective and safe method of dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) lead placement. The aim of this technical note is to describe a standardized access method for S1 DRG-S lead placement. DESIGN: Technical note. METHODS: The described approach utilizes alignment of the lumbosacral prominence and is measurement-based, allowing for standardized sacral access, even when visualization is suboptimal. The medial-to-lateral needle trajectory is designed to limit interaction with the sensitive neural structures and allows for a more parallel orientation of the lead to the DRG and nerve root. CONCLUSIONS: The described technique potentially improves the safety of S1 DRG-S lead placement. The parallel lead orientation to the DRG may also increase efficacy while lowering energy requirements.

Dutch Consensus Paper: A Consensus View on the Place of Neurostimulation Within the Treatment Arsenal of Five Reimbursed Indications for Neurostimulation in The Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: After an interpretation trajectory, the Dutch Quality of Healthcare Institute recommended that for five indications, spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation, or occipital nerve stimulation, together referred to as neurostimulation, can be considered effective and be reimbursed in the Netherlands. These five indications are the well and largely studied, accepted neurostimulation indications in scientific literature. As an extension of this, all the scientific societies involved in the Netherlands were required to reach a consensus about the diagnosis and treatment of these five formulated indications to describe the place of neurostimulation within the treatment algorithm. This article describes the development process and content of the consensus paper. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scientific committee, consisting of three anesthesiologists/pain physicians (one of whom acted as the working group's chair), a neurosurgeon, a neurologist, a rehabilitation physician, and three nurse practitioners, participated. A quality advisor of the Knowledge Institute of the Dutch Federation of Medical Specialists supported the committee. The committee participated on behalf of their various scientific and professional societies. Three sessions were organized during which the place of neurostimulation in the treatment algorithm of the five relevant indications was discussed extensively. A narrative literature review and experts' opinions formed the basis of decision-making in the process. RESULTS: For all five diagnoses, general and diagnosis-specific treatment requirements, conservative treatments, and minimally invasive treatments are listed. These treatments should be considered in the chronic pain management algorithm before eventually proceeding to neurostimulation. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The content of this consensus view was discussed and compared with other literature on cost-effectiveness and the place in the algorithm of treating chronic pain. This Dutch consensus paper could ultimately contribute to the maintenance or expansion of neurostimulation and the reimbursement.

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation device explantation: A multicenter pooled data analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) is a relatively new neuromodulation modality. Therefore, data on long-term device explantation rates is limited. This investigation aimed to assess DRG-S device explantation rates at long-term follow-up. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed individuals implanted with DRG-S in four pain centers from different continuous periods between April 2016 to September 2020. We recorded patient demographics, diagnoses, duration to explantation or last follow-up, treatment complications, and failure etiologies. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients with 756 leads and a mean 27-month follow-up were included. The mean age was 55 ± 15 years; 148 (63%) were female. Leading diagnoses were CRPS (n = 106, 43%), followed by FBSS (n = 64, 26%), and non-surgical low back pain (n = 23, 9%). The explantation rate was ~2% per year (n = 10 total). At explantation, the average time from implantation was 13 ± 10 months. Six patients were explanted for inadequate pain relief. Two patients were explanted due to device-related complications. One patient was explanted secondary to infection and subsequently reimplanted. Five explanted patients experienced a therapy-related complication before eventual explantation: one transient post-procedural neuritis and pocket site pain, one lead fracture, two lead migrations, and one experienced a fracture, a migration, and pocket site pain. DISCUSSION: This large retrospective study of DRG-S revealed a low therapy-termination rate. The rate of infection leading to explantation was objectively very low at 0.4%. The leading cause of explantation was inadequate pain relief. Explanted patients often had a therapy-related complication. Therefore, minimizing adverse treatment events may reduce ultimate explantation rates.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Sciatica in the Netherlands: A Survey among Neurologists and Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess how Dutch neurologists and anesthesiologists diagnose and treat people with sciatica in secondary care and to evaluate their adherence to the newest guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey. Respondents were asked about their current clinical practice related to sciatica. Three authors rated the respondents' adherence to the guidelines on a three-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Eighty neurologists and 44 anesthesiologists completed the questionnaire. Neurologists diagnose their sciatica patients primarily using a magnetic resonance imaging (89%). Selective diagnostic nerve blocks are considered useful by 81% of the neurologists. Neurologists primarily treat patients with pain medication, and 40% of them think epidural steroid injections are effective in 40-60% of injected patients. Twenty-nine percent of neurologists refer patients to a neurosurgeon after 4 months. Anesthesiologists consider a selective diagnostic nerve root block to have a higher diagnostic value than mapping. The most reported side effect of epidural injections is exacerbation of pain (82%). Pulse radiofrequency is applied in 9-11% of acute cases. The results also indicate that Dutch neurologists and anesthesiologists follow an evidence-based approach that is strictly or broadly in line with the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Neurologists treat sciatica patients initially with pain medication and physiotherapy, followed by epidural steroid injections and referral for surgery. Anesthesiologists treat sciatica patients with one or more steroid injections or may perform a selective nerve root block. Imaging, selective nerve root blocks, medication, physiotherapy, and pulse radiofrequency are topics of further research.

10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome with Predominant Leg Pain: Results from a Prospective Study in Patients from the Dutch Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent back/and or leg pain is a common outcome after spinal surgery (otherwise known as failed back surgery syndrome [FBSS]). Studies have shown that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at 10 kHz provides effective analgesia in FBSS patients with both back and leg pain symptoms and in those with predominant back pain. This study is the first to evaluate the therapy in FBSS patients with predominant leg pain. METHODS: The safety and efficacy of 10 kHz SCS was evaluated in an uncontrolled, open-label, prospective study of FBSS patients with predominant leg pain in the Netherlands. Follow-ups were performed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post implantation. RESULTS: Sixty out of 68 patients (88%) experienced sufficient pain relief during a stimulation trial. Of these, 58 proceeded to permanent implantation of a 10 kHz SCS system. After 12 months of treatment, 80% of patients experienced ≥ 50% reduction in baseline leg pain, and a similar proportion (76%) experienced ≥ 50% reduction in baseline back pain. At least two-thirds of patients were also leg pain and back pain remitters (visual analog scale [VAS] ≤ 2.5 cm). The therapy was also associated with a general improvement in patients' quality of life, as measured by secondary outcomes including disability, perception of health improvement, mental well-being, and satisfaction. A positive impact on opioid consumption was also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous findings, 10 kHz SCS for the treatment of FBSS patients with predominant radicular symptoms is safe and effective and is associated with improved quality of life.

A paramedian approach for dorsal root ganglion stimulation placement developed to limit lead migration and fracture.

INTRODUCTION: Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), has demonstrated superiority in the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia. Lead migration and fracture impact DRG-S therapeutic stability. Lead anchoring reduces DRG-S lead migration without increasing lead fracture. Lead fracture may be related to lead entrapment in the superficial fascial plane. A novel medialized approach for lead placement and anchoring is presented to address these issues. METHODS: We suggest an alternative technique for implanting percutaneous DRG-S leads at the T10-L5 levels. RESULTS: A novel medialized ipsilateral technique for lead placement and anchoring for single, bilateral, and adjacent segment placement is presented. The Tuohy needle puncture site is medial to the pedicle and adjacent to the spinous process, two vertebral levels caudad to the target foramen. Trajectory is maintained in the sagittal plane, to access the caudad interlaminar space near the midline. This technique allows for ipsilateral or contralateral lead placement. After epidural access, the introducer sheath is rotated toward the targeted foramen and advanced. The guidewire followed by the lead is passed, and once lead position is confirmed, tension "S" loops are created, followed by anchoring to the deep fascia. CONCLUSION: We describe a new paramedian technique for DRG-S lead placement. We propose it will decrease DRG-S complication rates through anchoring to reduce migration and by avoiding the fascial planes thought to be responsible for fracture. Long-term outcomes applying our proposed techniques are required for determining the true impact, however, early anecdotal results suggest that these new techniques are favorable.

Lead migration and fracture rate in dorsal root ganglion stimulation using anchoring and non-anchoring techniques: A multicenter pooled data analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) is a neuromodulation technique introduced in the last decade with evolving implant methods. Initial prospective research found low incidences of lead migration and lead fracture with DRG-S. However, several recent studies have highlighted high lead migration and lead fracture rates with DRG-S. We investigated the influence of lead anchoring on migrations and fractures. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review between 2016 and 2020 of individuals implanted with DRG-S leads by 4 experienced implanters. The implanters independently changed their standard practice regarding lead anchoring over time, with opposing trends (no anchoring > anchoring, anchoring > no anchoring). We compared lead migration and lead fracture rates between anchored and unanchored DRG-S leads in the entire study cohort. Cox regression was performed on lead migration and fracture distributions. RESULTS: We included 756 leads (n = 565 anchored and n = 191 unanchored) from 249 patients. In unanchored leads, migration occurred in 16 leads (8.4%) from 13 patients (21.0%). In anchored leads, migration occurred in 8 leads (1.4%) from 5 patients (2.7%). Fracture in unanchored leads occurred in 6 leads (3.1%) from 6 patients (9.7%). Fractures in anchored leads occurred in 11 leads (1.9%) from 9 patients (4.8%). The migration survival distributions for the anchored and unanchored leads were statistically significantly different (p < 0.01) with decreased survival for unanchored leads (hazard ratio = 5.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.2-15.5). DISCUSSION: We found that anchoring DRG-S leads significantly reduces lead migration when compared to leads placed without an anchor. There was no significant difference in fracture rate between anchored and unanchored leads.