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.

WIKISTIM.org: An On-Line Database of Published Neurostimulation Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Primary data reported in scientific publications provide guidance for improving patient care, expanding indications, identifying research gaps, educating patients, justifying reimbursement, and gaining regulatory approval. Finding and analyzing pertinent publications among the huge volume noted in databases such as PUBMED, however, costs time and effort. This situation demands innovative ways to locate citations of (and the possibility of abstracting data from) papers reporting primary findings. METHODS: We created WIKISTIM.org, a searchable easily navigated website, to meet this challenge in our field and devised a taxonomy of data categories specific for various stimulation targets for extracting and posting primary data. We included a discussion section unlimited by time or space to overcome limits posed by traditional letters to the editor. RESULTS: Registrants can download single or multiple citations from search results or from the list of papers (sortable by author, title, publication, and year) into a single table. The downloadable data category lists are used to submit completed data entry sheets for upload and for evidence-based comparison across studies as well as for study design, manuscript preparation, and peer review. Registration for WIKISTIM access continues to grow as do the curated citation lists, which are updated monthly and are comprehensive for deep brain stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation, gastric electric stimulation, spinal cord stimulation, and sacral nerve stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Most WIKISTIM entries are limited to citation information and links to published abstracts. As the number of completed datasheets and of stimulation target sections increase, the value of WIKISTIM will increase.

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

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

The cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare policy makers and payers require cost-effectiveness evidence to inform their treatment funding decisions. Thus, in 2008, the United Kingdom's National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence analyzed the cost effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) compared with conventional medical management (CMM) and with reoperation and recommended approval of SCS in selected patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). We present previously unavailable details of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence analysis and an analysis of the impact on SCS cost effectiveness of rechargeable implanted pulse generators (IPGs). METHODS: We used a decision analytic model to examine the cost effectiveness of SCS versus CMM and versus reoperation in patients with FBSS. We also modeled the impact of nonrechargeable versus rechargeable IPGs. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness of SCS compared with CMM was pound5624 per quality-adjusted life year, with 89% probability that SCS is cost effective at a willingness to pay threshold of pound20,000. Compared with reoperation, the incremental cost-effectiveness of SCS was pound6392 per quality-adjusted life year, with 82% probability of cost-effectiveness at the pound20,000 threshold. When the longevity of an IPG is 4 years or less, a rechargeable (and initially more expensive) IPG is more cost-effective than a nonrechargeable IPG. DISCUSSION: In selected patients with FBSS, SCS is cost effective both as an adjunct to CMM and as an alternative to reoperation. Despite their initial increased expense, rechargeable IPGs should be considered when IPG longevity is likely to be short.

The effects of spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain are sustained: a 24-month follow-up of the prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: After randomizing 100 failed back surgery syndrome patients to receive spinal cord stimulation (SCS) plus conventional medical management (CMM) or CMM alone, the results of the 6-month Prospective Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial of the Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation (i.e., PROCESS) showed that SCS offered superior pain relief, health-related quality of life, and functional capacity. Because the rate of crossover favoring SCS beyond 6 months would bias a long-term randomized group comparison, we present all outcomes in patients who continued SCS from randomization to 24 months and, for illustrative purposes, the primary outcome (>50% leg pain relief) per randomization and final treatment. METHODS: Patients provided data on pain, quality of life, function, pain medication use, treatment satisfaction, and employment status. Investigators documented adverse events. Data analysis included inferential comparisons and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: The 42 patients continuing SCS (of 52 randomized to SCS) reported significantly improved leg pain relief (P < 0.0001), quality of life (P

Spinal cord stimulation versus reoperation for failed back surgery syndrome: a cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis based on a randomized, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of treating failed back-surgery syndrome using spinal cord stimulation (SCS) versus reoperation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A disinterested third party collected charge data for the first 42 patients in a randomized controlled crossover trial. We computed the difference in cost with regard to success (cost-effectiveness) and mean quality-adjusted life years (cost-utility). We analyzed the patient-charge data with respect to intention to treat (costs and outcomes as a randomized group), treated as intended (costs as randomized; crossover failure assigned to a randomized group), and final treatment costs and outcomes. RESULTS: By mean 3.1-year follow-up, 13 of 21 patients (62%) crossed from reoperation versus 5 of 19 patients (26%) who crossed from SCS (P < 0.025) [corrected]. The mean cost per success was US $117,901 for crossovers to SCS. No crossovers to reoperation achieved success despite a mean per-patient expenditure of US $260,584. The mean per-patient costs were US $31,530 for SCS versus US $38,160 for reoperation (intention to treat), US $48,357 for SCS versus US $105,928 for reoperation (treated as intended), and US $34,371 for SCS versus US $36,341 for reoperation (final treatment). SCS was dominant (more effective and less expensive) in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental cost-utility ratios. A bootstrapped simulation for incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years confirmed SCS's dominance, with approximately 72% of the cost results occurring below US policymakers' "maximum willingness to pay" threshold. CONCLUSION: SCS was less expensive and more effective than reoperation in selected failed back-surgery syndrome patients, and should be the initial therapy of choice. SCS is most cost-effective when patients forego repeat operation. Should SCS fail, reoperation is unlikely to succeed.

Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome.

Patients with neuropathic pain secondary to failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) typically experience persistent pain, disability, and reduced quality of life. We hypothesised that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy in addition to conventional medical management (CMM) in this patient population. We randomised 100 FBSS patients with predominant leg pain of neuropathic radicular origin to receive spinal cord stimulation plus conventional medical management (SCS group) or conventional medical management alone (CMM group) for at least 6 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving 50% or more pain relief in the legs. Secondary outcomes were improvement in back and leg pain, health-related quality of life, functional capacity, use of pain medication and non-drug pain treatment, level of patient satisfaction, and incidence of complications and adverse effects. Crossover after the 6-months visit was permitted, and all patients were followed up to 1 year. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 6 months, 24 SCS patients (48%) and 4 CMM patients (9%) (p<0.001) achieved the primary outcome. Compared with the CMM group, the SCS group experienced improved leg and back pain relief, quality of life, and functional capacity, as well as greater treatment satisfaction (p

Prevention of percutaneous electrode migration in spinal cord stimulation by a modification of the standard implantation technique.

OBJECT: Percutaneous spinal cord stimulation (SCS) electrodes are prone to migration even after scar tissue encapsulation. The authors devised a simple technique to eliminate longitudinal migration. METHODS: In 99 patients who received implanted percutaneous electrodes, less than 0.1 cm3 of silicone elastomer adhesive was injected between the anchoring sleeve and the electrode. As a result, no patient required revision surgery due to longitudinal electrode migration over a mean follow-up period of 20.2 +/- 12.3 months (range 1.8-39.7 months). Postimplant SCS-related surgical procedures were required in 15 patients (15%) for the following indications: infection in three patients, expanded area of pain in four patients, lateral migration after the sutures eroded through the supraspinous ligament in one patient, postural changes in stimulation in one patient, receiver-site pain in two patients, technical failure in three patients, and inadequate pain relief in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: With modification of the standard technique for implantation of percutaneous SCS electrodes, no longitudinal migration of electrodes was noted in this series of 99 patients.

Spinal cord stimulation electrode design: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous with laminectomy electrodes: part II-clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation, in use for more than 30 years, has evolved into an easily implemented technique involving percutaneous or laminectomy electrode placement. In a randomized comparison of four-contact percutaneous and four-contact insulated laminectomy electrodes placed at the same level in the dorsal, epidural midline, quantitative measures of stimulator performance revealed significant technical advantages for the laminectomy electrodes. Our prospective, randomized, controlled trial compares clinical results in these same patients. METHODS: Impartial third parties followed our series of 24 patients with failed back surgery syndrome to gather clinical outcome data. We defined "success" as at least 50% sustained relief of pain and patient satisfaction with the result of treatment. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 1.9 years, 10 of 12 patients receiving the laminectomy electrode and 5 of 12 patients receiving the percutaneous electrode reported a successful outcome (P < 0.05). Follow-up at a mean of 2.9 years showed that this result was maintained in 5 of 12 patients with the laminectomy electrode and 3 of 12 with the percutaneous electrode (not statistically significant). Many patients reported improvements in most activities of daily living, and loss of function was rare. In addition, 9 patients with laminectomy electrodes and 4 with percutaneous electrodes reducted or eliminated analgesic intake (P < 0.05), and 2 returned to work. No electrode migration was observed. CONCLUSION: Laminectomy electrode placement, although more invasive than percutaneous placement, yields significantly better clinical results in patients with failed back surgery syndrome at mean 1.9 years follow-up. In our small sample, however, the statistical significance of this advantage disappeared at mean 2.9 years follow-up.

Spinal cord stimulation for axial low back pain: a prospective, controlled trial comparing dual with single percutaneous electrodes.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, controlled, clinical trial comparing single and dual percutaneous electrodes in the treatment of axial low back pain from failed back surgery syndrome. OBJECTIVES: To clarify technical requirements and test the hypothesis that placing two linear arrays in parallel, thereby doubling the number of contacts, improves outcome. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Technical improvements have enhanced outcomes of spinal cord stimulation for chronic axial low back pain. Dual, parallel electrodes reportedly improve these outcomes. METHODS: Acting as their own controls, 20 patients who passed screening with single, 4-contact electrodes received permanent dual, 4-contact electrodes with 7- or 10-mm intercontact distances at the same vertebral level(s). We quantified and compared the technical and clinical results of the single and dual electrodes, adjusting stimulation parameters to specific psychophysical thresholds. RESULTS: Single electrodes provided significant (P < 0.01) advantages in patient- and computer-calculated ratings of pain coverage by paresthesias and in the scaled amplitude necessary to cover the low back, compared with dual 7-mm electrodes. Slight advantages without statistical significance were observed for the single over the dual 10-mm electrodes. Amplitude requirements were significantly lower for the single electrode than for either dual electrode. At long-term follow-up, 53% of patients met the criteria for clinical success. CONCLUSIONS: While we observed disadvantages for dual electrodes in treating axial low back pain, we achieved technical success with single or dual electrodes in most patients and maintained this success clinically with dual electrodes in 53%.

Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomized, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Persistent or recurrent radicular pain after lumbosacral spine surgery is often associated with nerve root compression and is treated by repeated operation or, as a last resort, by spinal cord stimulation (SCS). We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to test our hypothesis that SCS is more likely than reoperation to result in a successful outcome by standard measures of pain relief and treatment outcome, including subsequent use of health care resources. METHODS: For an average of 3 years postoperatively, disinterested third-party interviewers followed 50 patients selected for reoperation by standard criteria and randomized to SCS or reoperation. If the results of the randomized treatment were unsatisfactory, patients could cross over to the alternative. Success was based on self-reported pain relief and patient satisfaction. Crossover to the alternative procedure was an outcome measure. Use of analgesics, activities of daily living, and work status were self-reported. RESULTS: Among 45 patients (90%) available for follow-up, SCS was more successful than reoperation (9 of 19 patients versus 3 of 26 patients, P <0.01). Patients initially randomized to SCS were significantly less likely to cross over than were those randomized to reoperation (5 of 24 patients versus 14 of 26 patients, P=0.02). Patients randomized to reoperation required increased opiate analgesics significantly more often than those randomized to SCS (P <0.025). Other measures of activities of daily living and work status did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: SCS is more effective than reoperation as a treatment for persistent radicular pain after lumbosacral spine surgery, and in the great majority of patients, it obviates the need for reoperation.

Automated, patient-interactive, spinal cord stimulator adjustment: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Programmable, multicontact, implanted stimulation devices represent an important advance in spinal cord stimulation for the management of pain. They facilitate the technical goal of covering areas of pain by stimulation-evoked paresthesiae. Adjustment after implantation requires major investments of time and effort, however, if the capabilities of these devices are to be used to full advantage. The objective of maximizing coverage should be met while using practitioners' time efficiently. METHODS: We have developed a patient-interactive, computerized system designed for greater ease and safety of operation, compared with the standard external devices used to control and adjust implanted pulse generators. The system automatically and rapidly presents to the patient the contact combinations and pulse parameters specified by the practitioner. The patient adjusts the amplitude of stimulation and then records drawings of stimulation paresthesiae (for comparison with pain drawings), followed by visual analog scale ratings for each setting. Test results are analyzed and sorted to determine the optimal settings. We compared the automated, patient-interactive system with traditional, practitioner-operated, manual programming methods in a randomized controlled trial at two study centers, with 44 patients. RESULTS: The automated, patient-interactive system yielded significantly (P < 0.0001) better technical results than did traditional manual methods, in achieving coverage of pain by stimulation paresthesiae (mean 100-point visual analog scale ratings of 70 and 46, respectively). The visual analog scale ratings were higher for automated testing for 38 patients, higher for manual testing for 0 patients, and equal (tied) for 6 patients. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the advantage of automated testing occurred independently of practitioner experience; the advantage was significantly greater, however, for experienced patients. The rate of testing (number of settings tested per unit time) was significantly (P < 0.0001) greater for the automated system, in comparison with the rate with a human operator using traditional, manual, programming methods (mean of 0.73 settings/min versus 0.49 settings/min). The automated system also identified settings with improved estimated battery life (and corresponding anticipated cost savings). No complications were observed with automated testing; one complication (transient discomfort attributable to excessive stimulation) occurred with manual testing. CONCLUSION: Automated, patient-interactive adjustment of implanted spinal cord stimulators is significantly more effective and more efficient than traditional manual methods of adjustment. It offers not only improved clinical efficacy but also potential cost savings in extending implanted battery life. It has the additional potential advantages of standardization, quality control, and record keeping, to facilitate clinical research and patient care. It should enhance the clinical application of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic intractable pain.

Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of spinal origin: a valuable long-term solution.

STUDY DESIGN: A literature review was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To review the indications and efficacy of spinal cord stimulation, particularly in reference to chronic pain of spinal origin. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The first spinal cord stimulation was implanted by Shealy in 1967 via a subarachnoid route. Early systems were plagued with a high rate of complications and technical problems. With the evolving technology, especially the advent of multichannel programmable systems and more precise epidural placement, the ability of spinal cord stimulation to treat various pain syndromes improved. This article reviews the literature on spinal cord stimulation from 1967 to the present. METHODS: The literature is reviewed, with a particular focus on recent studies investigating the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for low back pain. RESULTS: Most studies are limited by the same flaws, namely, retrospective study design. At this writing, the few published randomized prospective studies have suggested that spinal cord stimulation may be superior to repeat surgery. Complication rates have declined to approximately 8%, and reoperation is necessary in approximately 4% of patients. When current percutaneous techniques are used, a lead migration rate lower than 3% may be achieved. For certain topographies, laminotomy leads may be superior, particularly with regard to low back pain. CONCLUSIONS: The ultimate efficacy of spinal cord stimulation remains to be determined, primarily because of limitations associated with the published literature. However, on the basis of the current evidence, it may represent a valuable treatment option, particularly for patients with chronic pain of predominantly neuropathic origin and topographical distribution involving the extremities. The potential treatment of other pain topographies and etiologies by spinal cord stimulation continues to be studied.