A Definition of Neuromodulation and Classification of Implantable Electrical Modulation for Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Neuromodulation therapies use a variety of treatment modalities (eg, electrical stimulation) to treat chronic pain. These therapies have experienced rapid growth that has coincided with escalating confusion regarding the nomenclature surrounding these neuromodulation technologies. Furthermore, studies are often published without a complete description of the effective stimulation dose, making it impossible to replicate the findings. To improve clinical care and facilitate dissemination among the public, payors, research groups, and regulatory bodies, there is a clear need for a standardization of terms. APPROACH: We formed an international group of authors comprising basic scientists, anesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, and engineers with expertise in neuromodulation. Because the field of neuromodulation is extensive, we chose to focus on creating a taxonomy and standardized definitions for implantable electrical modulation of chronic pain. RESULTS: We first present a consensus definition of neuromodulation. We then describe a classification scheme based on the 1) intended use (the site of modulation and its indications) and 2) physical properties (waveforms and dose) of a neuromodulation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This framework will help guide future high-quality studies of implantable neuromodulatory treatments and improve reporting of their findings. Standardization with this classification scheme and clear definitions will help physicians, researchers, payors, and patients better understand the applications of implantable electrical modulation for pain and guide informed treatment decisions.

Durable multimodal and holistic response for physiologic closed-loop spinal cord stimulation supported by objective evidence from the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain patients may experience impairments in multiple health-related domains. The design and interpretation of clinical trials of chronic pain interventions, however, remains primarily focused on treatment effects on pain intensity. This study investigates a novel, multidimensional holistic treatment response to evoked compound action potential-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop spinal cord stimulation as well as the degree of neural activation that produced that treatment response. METHODS: Outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality and emotional function were derived from individual patient level data from the EVOKE multicenter, participant, investigator, and outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial with 24 month follow-up. Evaluation of holistic treatment response considered whether the baseline score was worse than normative values and whether minimal clinical important differences were reached in each of the domains that were impaired at baseline. A cumulative responder score was calculated to reflect the total minimal clinical important differences accumulated across all domains. Objective neurophysiological data, including spinal cord activation were measured. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to closed-loop (n=67) or open-loop (n=67). A greater proportion of patients with closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (49.3% vs 26.9%) were holistic responders at 24-month follow-up, with at least one minimal clinical important difference in all impaired domains (absolute risk difference: 22.4%, 95% CI 6.4% to 38.4%, p=0.012). The cumulative responder score was significantly greater for closed-loop patients at all time points and resulted in the achievement of more than three additional minimal clinical important differences at 24-month follow-up (mean difference 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.5, p=0.002). Neural activation was three times more accurate in closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (p<0.001 at all time points). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that closed-loop spinal cord stimulation can provide sustained clinically meaningful improvements in multiple domains and provide holistic improvement in the long-term for patients with chronic refractory pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

Holistic Treatment Response: An International Expert Panel Definition and Criteria for a New Paradigm in the Assessment of Clinical Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment response to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is focused on the magnitude of effects on pain intensity. However, chronic pain is a multidimensional condition that may affect individuals in different ways and as such it seems reductionist to evaluate treatment response based solely on a unidimensional measure such as pain intensity. AIM: The aim of this article is to add to a framework started by IMMPACT for assessing the wider health impact of treatment with SCS for people with chronic pain, a "holistic treatment response". DISCUSSION: Several aspects need consideration in the assessment of a holistic treatment response. SCS device data and how it relates to patient outcomes, is essential to improve the understanding of the different types of SCS, improve patient selection, long-term clinical outcomes, and reproducibility of findings. The outcomes to include in the evaluation of a holistic treatment response need to consider clinical relevance for patients and clinicians. Assessment of the holistic response combines two key concepts of patient assessment: (1) patients level of baseline (pre-treatment) unmet need across a range of health domains; (2) demonstration of patient-relevant improvements in these health domains with treatment. The minimal clinical important difference (MCID) is an established approach to reflect changes after a clinical intervention that are meaningful for the patient and can be used to identify treatment response to each individual domain. A holistic treatment response needs to account for MCIDs in all domains of importance for which the patient presents dysfunctional scores pre-treatment. The number of domains included in a holistic treatment response may vary and should be considered on an individual basis. Physiologic confirmation of therapy delivery and utilisation should be included as part of the evaluation of a holistic treatment response and is essential to advance the field of SCS and increase transparency and reproducibility of the findings.

Gradation of Clinical Holistic Response as New Composite Outcome to Evaluate Success in Spinal Cord Stimulation Studies for Pain.

INTRODUCTION: The most prominent outcome measurement in the field of neuromodulation is pain relief. Nevertheless, the number of studies that rely on composite outcomes has increased. The aims of this study are twofold: (1) to evaluate which measures are important to include in a composite outcome and (2) to develop this new composite outcome to evaluate the degree of being a clinical holistic responder with a corresponding minimal clinical important difference (MCID). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 treated with High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation (HD-SCS) were used. Pain intensity for low back and leg pain, disability, health-related quality of life, medication use, and patient satisfaction were measured at baseline and after 12 months of HD-SCS. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses were used to evaluate which measures should be included in the composite outcome. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were applied to determine the MCID of the newly developed outcome measurement. RESULTS: A three-factor model was the most appropriate for this data set, in which leg pain intensity, EQ5D VAS, and disability had the largest loading on these factors. A clinical holistic outcome was created with a total score ranging from 0 (=better [no pain, no disability, and perfect health status]) to 300 (=worse [maximal pain, maximal disability, and worst health status]). The MCID value based on an absolute change score from baseline up to 12 months of HD-SCS was 87.97. When calculating with percentage changes, a MCID value of 48.4% was revealed. CONCLUSIONS: This new composite outcome evaluating the degree of deviation from being a holistic responder is a step toward a meaningful, overall outcome assessment for patients who are treated with SCS. Further studies to evaluate the psychometric properties and the generalizability toward other patient populations still need to be performed.

High-dose spinal cord stimulation for patients with failed back surgery syndrome: a multicenter effectiveness and prediction study.

ABSTRACT: The use of high-dose spinal cord stimulation (HD-SCS) has increased drastically during the past few years, with positive results. However, there remains a deficit of real-world data of the effectiveness of HD-SCS. Therefore, the primary aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of HD-SCS in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). The second aim was to develop a prediction model for a holistic responder. One hundred ninety-four patients were recruited to a multicenter real-world registry. Self-reporting outcome variables were evaluated at baseline (before SCS) and at 1, 3, and 12 months of HD-SCS implant. Outcome measures were the mean pain intensity over time, sleep quality, disability, health-related quality of life, and medication use. Besides the effectiveness, logistic regression and decision tree analysis were performed to define a holistic responder (pain intensity reduction, medication reduction, Oswestry disability index reduction, and EQ5D improvement) after 12 months of HD-SCS. Of 185 FBSS patients who underwent a baseline visit, 75.13% had a successful HD trial. At 12 months, 92 patients were still receiving HD-SCS. Both low back and leg pain significantly decreased at 12 months. All outcome measures revealed a significant time-dependent effect from baseline to 12 months. Holistic responders could be predicted with a sensitivity and specificity of 90%. Clinically significant and sustained pain relief over a period of 12 months was achieved with HD-SCS in patients with FBSS. In addition, HD-SCS also achieved an improvement in sleep quality, functionality, and a decrease in pain medication.

Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Chronic Back Pain: Therapy Outcome Predictive Factors.

OBJECTIVE: To identify variables that influence pain reduction following peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) in order to identify a potential responder profile. METHODS: Exploratory univariate and multivariate (random forest) analyses were performed separately on 2 randomized controlled trials and a registry; all included patients with chronic back pain, mainly failed back surgery syndrome. An international expert panel judged the clinical relevance of variables to identify responders by consensus. RESULTS: Variables identified that may help predict PNFS success in patients with back pain include patient and pain characteristics (age, time since onset of pain and spinal surgery, pain medication history, position and size of pain area, pain severity, mixed nociceptive/neuropathic pain, health-related quality of life, depression, functional disability, and leg pain status), implant procedure variables (the number and position of leads, paresthesia coverage, and amount of pain relief during the trial), and programming (number of programs, cathodes, and anodes; pulse rate; pulse width; and percentage of device usage). CONCLUSIONS: While these analyses are exploratory and restricted to a limited sample size, they suggest variables that may play a role in predicting a therapeutic response. These results, however, are informative only and should be cautiously interpreted. Future research to validate the variables in a clinical study is needed.

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.

Brain and spinal stimulation therapies for phantom limb pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although many treatments exist for phantom limb pain (PLP), the evidence supporting them is limited and there are no guidelines for PLP management. Brain and spinal cord neurostimulation therapies are targeted at patients with chronic PLP but have yet to be systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: To determine which types of brain and spinal stimulation therapy appear to be the best for treating chronic PLP. DESIGN: Systematic reviews of effectiveness and epidemiology studies, and a survey of NHS practice. POPULATION: All patients with PLP. INTERVENTIONS: Invasive interventions - deep brain stimulation (DBS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. Non-invasive interventions - repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Phantom limb pain and quality of life. DATA SOURCES: Twelve databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) and clinical trial registries were searched in May 2017, with no date limits applied. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full texts. Data extraction and quality assessments were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by another. A questionnaire was distributed to clinicians via established e-mail lists of two relevant clinical societies. All results were presented narratively with accompanying tables. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 30 non-comparative group studies, 18 case reports and 21 epidemiology studies were included. Results from a good-quality RCT suggested short-term benefits of rTMS in reducing PLP, but not in reducing anxiety or depression. Small randomised trials of tDCS suggested the possibility of modest, short-term reductions in PLP. No RCTs of invasive therapies were identified. Results from small, non-comparative group studies suggested that, although many patients benefited from short-term pain reduction, far fewer maintained their benefits. Most studies had important methodological or reporting limitations and few studies reported quality-of-life data. The evidence on prognostic factors for the development of chronic PLP from the longitudinal studies also had important limitations. The results from these studies suggested that pre-amputation pain and early PLP intensity are good predictors of chronic PLP. Results from the cross-sectional studies suggested that the proportion of patients with severe chronic PLP is between around 30% and 40% of the chronic PLP population, and that around one-quarter of chronic PLP patients find their PLP to be either moderately or severely limiting or bothersome. There were 37 responses to the questionnaire distributed to clinicians. SCS and DRG stimulation are frequently used in the NHS but the prevalence of use of DBS and MCS was low. Most responders considered SCS and DRG stimulation to be at least sometimes effective. Neurosurgeons had mixed views on DBS, but most considered MCS to rarely be effective. Most clinicians thought that a randomised trial design could be successfully used to study neurostimulation therapies. LIMITATION: There was a lack of robust research studies. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available studies of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neurostimulation treatments do not provide robust, reliable results. Therefore, it is uncertain which treatments are best for chronic PLP. FUTURE WORK: Randomised crossover trials, randomised N-of-1 trials and prospective registry trials are viable study designs for future research. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017065387. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Retrospective Case Series on the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy With Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation.

BACKGROUND: The dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has been identified as an important neural structure in the development and maintenance of chronic pain. We present a retrospective case series of patients with refractory painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) that underwent electrical stimulation of the DRG and report on changes in their overall perceived pain and complication rates. METHODS: Ten diabetic males (mean age 65.2 [SD 8.8] years) with painful symptoms of the lower limbs were enrolled and trialed with up to four quadripolar percutaneous DRG stimulation leads between L2 and L5 spinal levels. Patients received a fully implantable neurostimulation system (Abbott Laboratories, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) immediately or after a successful trial period (>50% reduction in pain). Overall perceived pain was measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline, one-week postimplantation and one-, three-, six-, and twelve-month follow-up (n = 5). RESULTS: Ten patients were included in this retrospective study. Seven of these subjects received permanent stimulator implants after successful externalized or intraoperative trials. Two of those patients subsequently required explantation, due to failure to capture primary pain area (n = 1) and personal reasons (n = 1). For the five subjects that proceeded to clinical follow-ups, baseline VAS was reduced by an average of 63.90% (SD 21.39; p < 0.001) postimplantation. For four patients with available 12-month follow-up data, mean relative reduction in overall perceived pain averaged 64.16% (SD 35.8; p< 0.001). CONCLUSION: Early findings from this small retrospective case series, suggest DRG is a safe and effective neuromodulation modality to improve painful symptoms in PDPN patients. Future prospective trials are required to further investigate the use of DRG stimulation for this clinical indication.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) Safety Guidelines for the Reduction of Severe Neurological Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Neurostimulation involves the implantation of devices to stimulate the brain, spinal cord, or peripheral or cranial nerves for the purpose of modulating the neural activity of the targeted structures to achieve specific therapeutic effects. Surgical placement of neurostimulation devices is associated with risks of neurologic injury, as well as possible sequelae from the local or systemic effects of the intervention. The goal of the Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) is to improve the safety of neurostimulation. METHODS: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) is dedicated to improving neurostimulation efficacy and patient safety. Over the past two decades the INS has established a process to use best evidence to improve care. This article updates work published by the NACC in 2014. NACC authors were chosen based on nomination to the INS executive board and were selected based on publications, academic acumen, international impact, and diversity. In areas in which evidence was lacking, the NACC used expert opinion to reach consensus. RESULTS: The INS has developed recommendations that when properly utilized should improve patient safety and reduce the risk of injury and associated complications with implantable devices. CONCLUSIONS: On behalf of INS, the NACC has published recommendations intended to reduce the risk of neurological injuries and complications while implanting stimulators.

Complications of Spinal Cord Stimulation and Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Techniques: A Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord and peripheral neurostimulation techniques have been practiced since 1967 for the relief of pain, and some techniques are also used for improvement in organ function. Neuromodulation has recognized complications, although very rarely do these cause long-term morbidity. The aim of this article is to present a review of complications observed in patients treated with neurostimulation techniques. METHODS: A review of the major recent publications in the literature on the subjects of spinal cord, occipital, sacral, and peripheral nerve field stimulation was conducted. RESULTS: The incidence of complications reported varies from 30% to 40% of patients affected by one or more complications. Adverse events can be subdivided into hardware-related complications and biological complications. The commonest hardware-related complication is lead migration. Other lead related complications such as failure or fracture have also been reported. Common biological complications include infection and pain over the implant. Serious biological complications such as dural puncture headache and neurological damage are rarely observed. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal cord and peripheral neurostimulation techniques are safe and reversible therapies. Hardware-related complications are more commonly observed than biological complications. Serious adverse events such as neurological damage are rare.

Dorsal Root Ganglion (DRG) Stimulation in the Treatment of Phantom Limb Pain (PLP).

OBJECTIVES: Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a neuropathic condition in which pain is perceived as arising from an amputated limb. PLP is distinct from, although associated with, pain in the residual limb and nonpainful phantom sensations of the missing limb. Its treatment is extremely challenging; pharmaceutical options, while commonly employed, may be insufficient or intolerable. Neuromodulatory interventions such as spinal cord stimulation have generated mixed results and may be limited by poor somatotopic specificity. It was theorized that dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neuromodulation may be more effective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients trialed a DRG neurostimulation system for their PLP and were subsequently implanted if results were positive. Retrospective chart review was completed, including pain ratings on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Across eight patients, the average baseline pain rating was 85.5 mm. At follow-up (mean of 14.4 months), pain was rated at 43.5 mm. Subjective ratings of quality of life and functional capacity improved. Some patients reduced or eliminated pain medications. Patients reported precise concordance of the paresthesia with painful regions, including in their phantom limbs; in one case, stimulation eliminated PLP as well as nonpainful phantom sensations. Three patients experienced a diminution of pain relief, despite good initial outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: DRG neuromodulation may be an effective tool in treating this pain etiology. Clinical outcomes in this report support recent converging evidence suggesting that the DRG may be the site of PLP generation and/or maintenance. Further research is warranted to elucidate mechanisms and optimal treatment pathways.

Chronic Low Back Pain: Restoration of Dynamic Stability.

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

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.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: avoidance and treatment of complications of neurostimulation therapies for the treatment of chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has determined that there is a need for guidance regarding safety and risk reduction for implantable neurostimulation devices. The INS convened an international committee of experts in the field to explore the evidence and clinical experience regarding safety, risks, and steps to risk reduction to improve outcomes. METHODS: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) reviewed the world literature in English by searching MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar to evaluate the evidence for ways to reduce risks of neurostimulation therapies. This evidence, obtained from the relevant literature, and clinical experience obtained from the convened consensus panel were used to make final recommendations on improving safety and reducing risks. RESULTS: The NACC determined that the ability to reduce risk associated with the use of neurostimulation devices is a valuable goal and possible with best practice. The NACC has recommended several practice modifications that will lead to improved care. The NACC also sets out the minimum training standards necessary to become an implanting physician. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC has identified the possibility of improving patient care and safety through practice modification. We recommend that all implanting physicians review this guidance and consider adapting their practice accordingly.

Assessing the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of subcutaneous nerve stimulation in patients with predominant back pain due to failed back surgery syndrome (SubQStim study): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic radicular pain can be effectively treated with spinal cord stimulation, but this therapy is not always sufficient for chronic back pain. Subcutaneous nerve stimulation (SQS) refers to the placement of percutaneous leads in the subcutaneous tissue within the area of pain. Case series data show that failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients experience clinically important levels of pain relief following SQS and may also reduce their levels of analgesic therapy and experience functional well-being. However, to date, there is no randomized controlled trial evidence to support the use of SQS in FBSS. METHODS/DESIGN: The SubQStim study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing SQS plus optimized medical management ('SQS arm') versus optimized medical management alone ('OMM arm') in patients with predominant back pain due to FBSS. Up to 400 patients will be recruited from approximately 33 centers in Europe and Australia and will be randomized 1:1 to the SQS or OMM arms. After 9 months, patients who fail to reach the primary outcome will be allowed to switch treatments. Patients will be evaluated at baseline (prior to randomization) and at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months after randomization. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients at 9 months with a ≥50% reduction in back pain intensity compared to baseline. The secondary outcomes are: back and leg pain intensity score, functional disability, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, patient global impression of change, healthcare resource utilization/costs, cost-effectiveness analysis and adverse events. Outcomes arms will be compared between SQS and OMM arms at all evaluation points up to and including 9 months. After the 9-month assessment visit, the main analytic focus will be to compare within patient changes in outcomes relative to baseline. DISCUSSION: The SubQStim trial began patient recruitment in November 2012. Recruitment is expected to close in late 2014. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01711619.

Prospective analysis of the trial period for spinal cord stimulation treatment for chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patient preferences regarding the duration of trial period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients were given a trial of spinal cord stimulation. They were questioned daily if they would like to proceed to a permanent implant. Three consecutive affirmative answers implied a successful trial; three negative replies implied a failed trial. Patients rated daily the pain from the surgery, original pain, satisfaction with the stimulator, and the duration of the use of the stimulator. RESULTS: The trial duration varied from 3 to 15 days. Patients with a failed trial took longer to make a decision and also experienced prolonged surgical pain. The majority of patients with a successful trial experienced more than 50% pain reduction. The rate of infection was 7.5%, which has reduced to 2.8% after changing the dressing protocol. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, all patients could make a decision in 15 days, with successful trials requiring a shorter duration. The conversion rate was similar to rates in literature despite patients making a decision without physician input.