Effect of Spinal Cord Burst Stimulation vs Placebo Stimulation on Disability in Patients With Chronic Radicular Pain After Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The use of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain after lumbar spine surgery is increasing, yet rigorous evidence of its efficacy is lacking. Objective: To investigate the efficacy of spinal cord burst stimulation, which involves the placement of an implantable pulse generator connected to electrodes with leads that travel into the epidural space posterior to the spinal cord dorsal columns, in patients with chronic radiculopathy after surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disorders. Design, Setting, and Participants: This placebo-controlled, crossover, randomized clinical trial in 50 patients was conducted at St Olavs University Hospital in Norway, with study enrollment from September 5, 2018, through April 28, 2021. The date of final follow-up was May 20, 2022. Interventions: Patients underwent two 3-month periods with spinal cord burst stimulation and two 3-month periods with placebo stimulation in a randomized order. Burst stimulation consisted of closely spaced, high-frequency electrical stimuli delivered to the spinal cord. The stimulus consisted of a 40-Hz burst mode of constant-current stimuli with 4 spikes per burst and an amplitude corresponding to 50% to 70% of the paresthesia perception threshold. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was difference in change from baseline in the self-reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI; range, 0 points [no disability] to 100 points [maximum disability]; the minimal clinically important difference was 10 points) score between periods with burst stimulation and placebo stimulation. The secondary outcomes were leg and back pain, quality of life, physical activity levels, and adverse events. Results: Among 50 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52.2 [SD, 9.9] years; 27 [54%] were women), 47 (94%) had at least 1 follow-up ODI score and 42 (84%) completed all stimulation randomization periods and ODI measurements. The mean ODI score at baseline was 44.7 points and the mean changes in ODI score were -10.6 points for the burst stimulation periods and -9.3 points for the placebo stimulation periods, resulting in a mean between-group difference of -1.3 points (95% CI, -3.9 to 1.3 points; P = .32). None of the prespecified secondary outcomes showed a significant difference. Nine patients (18%) experienced adverse events, including 4 (8%) who required surgical revision of the implanted system. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with chronic radicular pain after lumbar spine surgery, spinal cord burst stimulation, compared with placebo stimulation, after placement of a spinal cord stimulator resulted in no significant difference in the change from baseline in self-reported back pain-related disability. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03546738.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Subcutaneous Nerve Stimulation for Back Pain Due to Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: The SubQStim Study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of peripheral nerve stimulation utilizing a subcutaneous lead implant technique-subcutaneous nerve stimulation (SQS) plus optimized medical management (SQS + OMM arm) vs. optimized medical management alone (OMM arm) in patients with back pain due to failed back surgery syndrome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were recruited from 21 centers, in Europe, Israel, and Australia. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to SQS + OMM or OMM arms. Those in the SQS arm were implanted with a neurostimulator and up to two subcutaneous percutaneous cylindrical leads in the area of pain. Patients were evaluated pre-randomization and at one, three, six, and nine months post-randomization. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with a ≥50% reduction in back pain intensity ("responder") from baseline to nine months. Secondary outcomes included proportion of responders with a ≥50% reduction in back pain intensity at six months and ≥30% reduction at nine months, and the mean change from baseline in back pain intensity at six and nine months between the two arms. RESULTS: Due to the slow rate of recruitment, the study was terminated early with 116 subjects randomized. A total of 33.9% (19/56, missing: n = 20 [36%]) of subjects in the SQS + OMM arm and 1.7% (1/60, missing: n = 24 [40%]) in the OMM arm were responders at Month 9 (p < 0.0001). Secondary objectives showed a significant difference in favor of SQS + OMM arm. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the addition of SQS to OMM is more effective than OMM alone in relieving low back pain at up to nine months.

Spinal Cord Stimulation in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: Effects on Posture and Gait-A Preliminary 3D Biomechanical Study.

We studied 8 patients with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices which had been previously implanted to treat neuropathic chronic pain secondary to Failed Back Surgery Syndrome. The aim of our study was to investigate the effects of SCS on posture and gait by means of clinical scales (Short Form Health Survey-36, Visual Analogue Scale for pain, and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) and instrumented evaluation with 3D Gait Analysis using a stereophotogrammetric system. The latter was performed with the SCS device turned both OFF and ON. We recorded gait and posture using the Davis protocol and also trunk movement during flexion-extension on the sagittal plane, lateral bending on the frontal plane, and rotation on the transversal plane. During and 30 minutes after the stimulation, not only the clinical scales but also spatial-temporal gait parameters and trunk movements improved significantly. Improvement was not shown under stimulation-OFF conditions. Our preliminary data suggest that SCS has the potential to improve posture and gait and to provide a window of pain-free opportunity to optimize rehabilitation interventions.

C2 subcutaneous stimulation for failed back surgery syndrome: a case report.

OBJECTIVE: Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a term embracing a constellation of conditions that describes persistent or recurring low back pain, with or without sciatica following one or more spine surgeries. It has been shown in animals that electrical stimulation of the high cervical C2 area can suppress pain stimuli derived from the L5-S1 dermatome. It is unknown whether C2 electrical stimulation in humans can be used to treat pain derived from the L5-S1 area, and a case is reported in which subcutaneous C2 is applied to treat FBSS. CASE: A patient presents to the neuromodulation clinic because of FBSS (after three lumbar diskectomies) and noninvasive neuromodulation is performed consisting of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) at C2. The C2 TENS stimulation is successful in improving pain. It induces paresthesias in the C2 dermatome above a certain amplitude threshold, but does not generate paresthesias in the pain area. However, the patient becomes allergic to the skin-applied TENS electrodes and therefore a new treatment strategy is discussed with the patient. A subcutaneous C2 electrode is inserted under local anesthesia, and attached to an external pulse generator. METHODS: Three stimulation designs are tested: a classical tonic stimulation, consisting of 40 Hz stimulation, a placebo, and a burst stimulation, consisting of 40 Hz burst mode, with five spikes delivered at 500 Hz at 1000 µsec pulse width and 1000 µsec interspike interval. RESULTS: The patient's stimulation results demonstrate that burst mode is superior to placebo and tonic mode, and she receives a fully implanted C2 electrode connected to an internal pulse generator via an extension wire. CONCLUSION: The burst design is capable of both suppressing the least and worst pain effectively, and she has remained almost pain-free for over three years.

Combination therapy of radiofrequency lumbar facet joint denervation and epidural spinal cord stimulation for failed back surgery syndrome.

An 81-year-old woman with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) was treated using a combination of percutaneous radiofrequency (RF) lumbar zygapophysial joint denervation and epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS). She had undergone a staged laminectomy for narrowing of the spinal canal from L1 to S1 and degenerative spondylolisthesis at the L3-4 level. Postoperatively, in addition to low back pain (LBP) induced by dynamic motion, she began to experience intractable leg pain with a burning sensation, presumably caused by damage to the cauda equina. She initially underwent RF lumbar zygapophysial joint denervation for the LBP and subsequently underwent SCS via dual electrode leads for the leg pain. This combination therapy of RF denervation and SCS relieved the LBP almost entirely and relieved the leg pain by approximately 50%. The combination of these two minimally invasive interventions is particularly effective for severe leg pain and LBP in elderly patients or medically compromised cases with contraindications against general anesthesia, as well as in patients with FBSS.

Spinal cord stimulation for failed back surgery syndrome: outcomes in a workers' compensation setting.

Questions remain concerning effectiveness and risks of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic back and leg pain after spine surgery ("failed back surgery syndrome" [FBSS]). This prospective, population-based controlled cohort study evaluated outcomes of workers' compensation recipients with FBSS who received at least a trial of SCS (SCS group, n=51) versus those who (1) were evaluated at a multidisciplinary pain clinic and did not receive SCS (Pain Clinic, n=39) or (2) received neither SCS nor pain clinic evaluation (Usual Care, n=68). Patients completed measures of pain, function, medication use, and work status at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months later. We also examined work time loss compensation over 24 months. Few (<10%) patients in any group achieved success at any follow-up on the composite primary outcome encompassing less than daily opioid use and improvement in leg pain and function. At 6 months, the SCS group showed modestly greater improvement in leg pain and function, but with higher rates of daily opioid use. These differences disappeared by 12 months. Patients who received a permanent spinal cord stimulator did not differ from patients who received some pain clinic treatment on the primary outcome at any follow-up (<10% successful in each group at each follow-up) and 19% had them removed within 18 months. Both trial and permanent SCS were associated with adverse events. In sum, we found no evidence for greater effectiveness of SCS versus alternative treatments in this patient population after 6 months.