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.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Facial Pain Using Wireless Devices.

Since its original introduction several decades ago, peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the craniofacial region has been traditionally performed using devices intended for spinal cord stimulation applications with inevitably high rate of technical challenges and procedural complications. The lower invasiveness of recently developed wireless neurostimulation systems makes them much better suited for craniofacial applications. Here, we discuss the preliminary clinical data from several published reports and the ongoing multicenter prospective study of wireless PNS in the craniofacial region. Advances in wireless transmission of electrical signals may make wireless neurostimulation even more attractive in the future. Since most of the evidence supporting PNS for facial pain comes from small subsets of the population, case series and case reports, there will need to be larger, randomized controlled trials with cost efficacy analyses in order to validate the role of wireless PNS as the standard of care.

Pain Management Best Practices from Multispecialty Organizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Public Health Crises.

BACKGROUND: It is nearly impossible to overestimate the burden of chronic pain, which is associated with enormous personal and socioeconomic costs. Chronic pain is the leading cause of disability in the world, is associated with multiple psychiatric comorbidities, and has been causally linked to the opioid crisis. Access to pain treatment has been called a fundamental human right by numerous organizations. The current COVID-19 pandemic has strained medical resources, creating a dilemma for physicians charged with the responsibility to limit spread of the contagion and to treat the patients they are entrusted to care for. METHODS: To address these issues, an expert panel was convened that included pain management experts from the military, Veterans Health Administration, and academia. Endorsement from stakeholder societies was sought upon completion of the document within a one-week period. RESULTS: In these guidelines, we provide a framework for pain practitioners and institutions to balance the often-conflicting goals of risk mitigation for health care providers, risk mitigation for patients, conservation of resources, and access to pain management services. Specific issues discussed include general and intervention-specific risk mitigation, patient flow issues and staffing plans, telemedicine options, triaging recommendations, strategies to reduce psychological sequelae in health care providers, and resource utilization. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 public health crisis has strained health care systems, creating a conundrum for patients, pain medicine practitioners, hospital leaders, and regulatory officials. Although this document provides a framework for pain management services, systems-wide and individual decisions must take into account clinical considerations, regional health conditions, government and hospital directives, resource availability, and the welfare of health care providers.

Electrical Stimulation of the Trigeminal Ganglion and Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for the Management of Corneal Neuropathic Pain.

PURPOSE: This case study reports on 2 novel neuromodulatory approaches in the management of a particularly recalcitrant case of corneal neuropathic pain. METHODS: Report of a case RESULTS: : A 32-year-old woman presented with intractable bilateral dry eye-like symptoms and corneal neuropathic pain after undergoing laser in situ keratomileusis surgery. Extensive ocular and systemic therapies were unsuccessful. Implantation of an electrode for the electrical stimulation of the trigeminal ganglion resulted in complete resolution of symptoms, but pain recurred after lead migration. Implantation of an intrathecal infusion system for fentanyl and bupivacaine delivery at the C1-C2 level resulted in control of her symptoms with excellent pain relief for more than 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Electrical stimulation of the trigeminal ganglion and a high cervical intrathecal pain pump can be used in the management of corneal neuropathic pain unresponsive to ocular and systemic approaches.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Patients With Medically Refractory Occipital Neuralgia: Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Occipital neuralgia (ON) is a disorder characterized by sharp, electrical, paroxysmal pain, originating from the occiput and extending along the posterior scalp, in the distribution of the greater, lesser, and/or third occipital nerve. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) constitutes a promising therapy for medically refractory ON because it is reversible with minimal side effects and has shown continued efficacy with long-term follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review and provide treatment recommendations for the use of ONS for the treatment of patients with medically refractory ON. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed database and the Cochrane Library to locate articles published between 1966 and April 2014 using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to ONS as a means to treat ON. A second literature search was conducted using the PubMed database and the Cochrane Library to locate articles published between 1966 and June 2014 using MeSH headings and keywords relevant to interventions that predict response to ONS in ON. The strength of evidence of each article that underwent full text review and the resulting strength of recommendation were graded according to the guidelines development methodology of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons Joint Guidelines Committee. RESULTS: Nine studies met the criteria for inclusion in this guideline. All articles provided Class III Level evidence. CONCLUSION: Based on the data derived from this systematic literature review, the following Level III recommendation can be made: the use of ONS is a treatment option for patients with medically refractory ON.

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.

Spinal cord stimulation: a review.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a safe and effective treatment of a variety of chronic pain conditions. As our understanding of the mechanisms of action and potential uses of SCS has evolved, clinical and technological advancements have followed. This review provides an overview of potential mechanisms of action of SCS, evidence for its effectiveness, potential complications, and highlights of developing areas of interest.

Technical aspects of spinal cord stimulation for managing chronic visceral abdominal pain: the results from the national survey.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND, OBJECTIVES, AND METHODS: A few recent reports suggested that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) effectively suppresses chronic abdominal pain. However, there is no consensus on patient selection or technical aspects of SCS for such pain. That is why we conducted national survey and collected 76 case reports. There were six incompletely filled reports, so we analyzed 70 cases. RESULTS: There were 43 female and 27 male patients. SCS was trialed in an average of 4.7 days (median of 4 days). In most patients, the leads were positioned for the SCS trial with their tips at the level of the T5 vertebral body (26 patients) or T6 vertebral body (15 patients). Four patients failed SCS trial: their average baseline visual analog scale (VAS) pain score was 7 +/- 2.4 cm and did not improve at the conclusion of the trial (6.5 +/- 1.9 cm; P = 0.759). Pain relief exceeded 50% in 66 of 70 patients reported. Among those, VAS pain score before the trial averaged 7.9 +/- 1.8 cm. During the trial VAS pain scores decreased to 2.45 +/- 1.45 cm (P < 0.001). The opioid use decreased from 128 +/- 159 mg of morphine sulfate equivalents a day to 79 +/- 112 mg (P < 0.017). During permanent implantation most of the physicians used two octrode leads and were positioned midline at T5-6 levels. The average patient follow-up was 84 weeks. VAS pain scores before an implant were 8 +/- 1.9 cm, while after the implant 2.49 +/- 1.9 cm. The opioid use before an implant was 158 +/- 160 mg and at the last office visit after the implant 36 +/- 49 mg. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, it seems that the SCS for the treatment of the abdominal visceral pain may provide a positive patient long-term experience, significant improvements in pain scores and a decrease in opioid use.

Occipital neurostimulation-induced muscle spasms: implications for lead placement.

BACKGROUND: For many headache types, occipital peripheral nerve stimulation (ONS) provides significant relief of chronic, frequent, and severe headaches. Though rarely reported, ONS may cause painful muscle spasms that make stimulator use impractical. The classic description of the technique advocates placement of the leads transversely at the level of the arch of C1 or at C1-2. At that level, the greater occipital nerve (GON) infrequently pierces the superficial fascia of the neck muscles to become superficial. However, important anatomic variability exists. OBJECTIVE: To report placement of leads higher at the nuchal line rather than the classically recommended C1 level to avoid ONS-induced muscle spasm. METHODS: Four interventional pain physicians independently revised ONS leads due to painful muscle stimulation. Five case reports of surgical ONS lead revision for management of ONS-induced muscle spasms are described and discussed. RESULTS: Placement of peripheral neurostimulator leads at or above the nuchal line in these 5 cases provided good paresthesiae without causing neck muscle spasm. CONCLUSION: Lead placement at the level of C1 or C1-2 may cause some patients to have intolerable neck/occipital spasm during neurostimulation. This is the first known published report of technical variation in the location of lead placement, at the nuchal line in a transverse fashion, for ONS. Placing ONS leads at the level of the occipital protuberance appears to eliminate ONS-induced muscle spasm while allowing good paresthesia coverage. LIMITATIONS: Stimulation parameters vary, thus posting parameters may be misleading as muscle spasms occurred despite multiple reprogramming attempts and were a function of lead position, not program settings.

Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain are described here to provide recommendations for clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. DESIGN: Systematic assessment of the literature. METHODS: Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. OUTCOMES: Short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting at least 6 months and long-term relief was defined as longer than 6 months, except for intradiscal therapies, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal infusion systems, wherein up to one year relief was considered as short-term. RESULTS: The indicated evidence for accuracy of diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is Level I or II-1 in the diagnosis of lumbar, thoracic, and cervical facet joint pain. The evidence for lumbar and cervical provocation discography and sacroiliac joint injections is Level II-2, whereas it is Level II-3 for thoracic provocation discography. The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is Level I for caudal epidural steroid injections in managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The evidence is Level I or II-1 for percutaneous adhesiolysis in management of pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for therapeutic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks; for caudal epidural injections in managing pain of post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis, for cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical pain (Level II-1); for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; and spinal cord stimulation for post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The indicated evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), mechanical disc decompression with automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), and percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy (PLDD) is Level II-2. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of the literature, lack of updates, and conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines by various organizations. CONCLUSION: The indicated evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is variable from Level I to III. These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Further, these guidelines also do not represent "standard of care."

Systematic review of diagnostic utility and therapeutic effectiveness of cervical facet joint interventions.

BACKGROUND: Chronic, recurrent neck pain is common and is associated with high pain intensity and disability, which is seen in 14% of the adult general population. Controlled studies have supported the existence of cervical facet or zygapophysial joint pain in 36% to 67% of these patients. However, these studies also have shown false-positive results in 27% to 63% of the patients with a single diagnostic block. There is also a paucity of literature investigating therapeutic interventions of cervical facet joint pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of cervical facet joint interventions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks and the effectiveness of cervical facet joint interventions. METHODS: Medical databases and journals were searched to locate all relevant literature from 1966 through December 2008 in the English language. A review of the literature of the utility of facet joint interventions in diagnosing and managing facet joint pain was performed according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for diagnostic studies and observational studies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: The level of evidence was defined as Level I, II, or III based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). OUTCOME MEASURES: For diagnostic interventions, studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks which achieve at minimum 80% relief of pain and the ability to perform previously painful movements. For therapeutic interventions, the primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief up to 6 months and long-term relief greater than 6 months) with secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. RESULTS: Based on the utilization of controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, the evidence for the diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain is Level I or II-1. The indicated evidence for therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks is Level II-1. The indicated evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy in the cervical spine is Level II-1 or II-2, whereas the evidence is lacking for intraarticular injections. LIMITATIONS: A systematic review of cervical facet joint interventions is hindered by the paucity of published literature and lack of literature for intraarticular cervical facet joint injections. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks is Level I or II-1. The indicated evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is Level II-1 for medial branch blocks, and Level II-1 or II-2 for radiofrequency neurotomy.

Systematic assessment of diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic utility of lumbar facet joint interventions.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar facet joints are a well recognized source of low back pain and referred pain in the lower extremity in patients with chronic low back pain. Conventional clinical features and other non-invasive diagnostic modalities are unreliable in diagnosing lumbar zygapophysial joint pain. Controlled diagnostic studies have shown the prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in 27% to 40% of the patients with chronic low back pain without disc displacement or radiculitis, with a false-positive rate of 27% to 47% with a single diagnostic block. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical utility of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain of facet joint origin. METHODS: Review of the literature for clinical studies on efficacy and utility of facet joint interventions in diagnosing and managing facet joint pain was performed according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for diagnostic studies and observational studies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of Medline and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2008 and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Analysis results were performed for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions separately. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: The level of evidence was defined as Level I, II, or III with 3 subcategories in Level II based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for therapeutic interventions. OUTCOME MEASURES: For diagnostic interventions, studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks. Pain relief was categorized as at least 80% pain relief from baseline pain and ability to perform previously painful movements. For therapeutic interventions, the primary outcome measure was pain relief with secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. For therapeutic interventions, short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting 6 months or less and long-term relief as longer than 6 months. RESULTS: Based on USPSTF criteria, evidence showed Level I or II-1 for diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. Based on the review of included therapeutic studies, Level II-1 to II-2 evidence was indicated for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with indicated level of evidence of Level II-2 to II-3 for lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy. LIMITATIONS: The shortcoming of this systematic review of lumbar facet joint interventions is the paucity of published literature. CONCLUSION: The evidence for diagnosis of lumbar facet joint pain with controlled local anesthetic blocks is Level I or II-1. The indicated level of evidence for therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions is Level II-1 or II-2 for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, Level II-2 or II-3 evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy, and Level III (limited) evidence for intraarticular injections.

Implanted occipital nerve stimulators.

BACKGROUND: Chronic headache represents a very significant public health and economic issue. One treatment modality for chronic refractory headache involves the use of subcutaneous implanted neurostimulator leads in the occipital region. Varied types of headache etiologies including migraine, transformed migraine, chronic daily headache, cluster headache, hemicrania continua, occipital neuralgia, and cervicogenic headache have been studied with peripheral nerve field stimulation and found responsive to stimulation of the suboccipital region, known commonly as occipital nerve stimulation (ONS). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the strength of evidence that occipital nerve stimulation is an effective treatment of benign headache. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of occipital nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic headache. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature through EMBASE and PubMed/Medline for clinical studies was performed. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria was utilized to assess the evidence regarding occipital nerve stimulators and arrives at conclusions as to their efficacy in the treatment of headache. Studies were also graded using AHRQ criteria. The overall body of evidence was then graded on a 5 level scale from Level I (conclusive), Level II (strong), Level III (moderate), Level IV (limited) to Level V (indeterminate). RESULTS: Ten observational studies, of which 4 were prospective, and a number of case series, case reports, and reviews were identified. No randomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified. All of the articles reported positive outcomes including improved pain relief, reduced frequency, intensity, and duration of headaches with reduced medication consumption. ONS was reportedly successful for 70 - 100% of patients. Reduction of pain in patients with occipital headaches and transformed migraine is significant and rapid; for cluster patients the improvement may be less dramatic and it may take several months of occipital stimulation to achieve relief. No long-term adverse events occurred. Several short-term incidents occurred including infection, lead displacement, and battery depletion. The body of evidence as a whole is a level of strength of IV, limited. CONCLUSION: ONS is a useful tool in the treatment of chronic severe headaches with at least Level IV (limited) evidence based on multiple positive studies.

Intradiscal thermal annuloplasty versus intradiscal radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of discogenic pain: a prospective matched control trial.

OBJECTIVE: Two minimally invasive techniques have been used more recently as a possible treatment for painful internal disk disruption (IDD). Intradiscal thermal annuloplasty (IDTA), known as IDET, has already shown promising results in pain reduction and functional restoration. The second technique, radiofrequency posterior annuloplasty (RFA), is used in many interventional pain practices, although studies on the technique's efficacy are lacking. This study compares the effectiveness of those two methods. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: We matched 42 patients (21 had IDTA and 21 radiofrequency annuloplasty) for age, sex, weight, smoking history, manual labor, and number of intervertebral disks treated. Enrolled patients completed pain disability index (PDI) questionnaires before receiving either IDTA or RFA; at 2 weeks; and 2, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months following either treatment. RESULTS: From the third to the twelfth month after the procedure, the IDTA group had significantly lower mean pain scores than the RFA group. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores decreased from 6.6 +/- 2.0 before to 4.4 +/- 2.4 at 1 year after radiofrequency annuloplasty (P = 0.001), while in the IDTA group the average VAS pain score decreased from 7.4 +/- 1.9 before IDTA to 1.4 +/- 1.9 at 1 year follow-up. Similarly, PDI scores in the IDTA group had a significantly larger improvement than those for patients who received radiofrequency annuloplasty. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows significant improvement in pain scores and patients' PDI following IDTA but not after RFA of the intervertebral disks. IDTA appears to be more efficacious than RFA based on PDI and VAS scores measured at 1 year following procedure.

Occipital nerve electrical stimulation via the midline approach and subcutaneous surgical leads for treatment of severe occipital neuralgia: a pilot study.

Persistent occipital neuralgia can produce severe headaches that may not be controllable by conservative or surgical approaches. We describe a case series of 6 patients who had chronic headaches over an average of 4.9 yr who underwent occipital nerve electrical stimulation lead implantation using a modified midline approach. The patients had received conservative and surgical therapies in the past including oral antidepressants, membrane stabilizers, opioids, occipital nerve blocks, and radiofrequency ablations. Significant decreases in pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores and drastic improvement in functional capacity were observed during the occipital stimulation trial and during the 3-mo follow-up after implantation. The mean VAS score changed from 8.66 +/- 1.0 to 2.5 +/- 1.3 whereas pain disability index improved from 49.8 +/- 15.9 to 14.0 +/- 7.4. Our midline approach has several advantages compared with the submastoid approach used elsewhere. There is only one small midline incision over the upper neck and the strain on the lead extension occurs only with flexion and is minimal with lateral flexion and rotation, which contributes to overall stability of this system.

Decreased insulin requirements with spinal cord stimulation in a patient with diabetes.

UNLABELLED: We describe a case of type-2 diabetes mellitus with significant improvement in blood glucose control and significant decrease in insulin requirements after initiation of spinal cord stimulation. We believe that spinal cord stimulation may provide additional beneficial effects in patients with chronic pain and diabetes. IMPLICATIONS: Spinal cord stimulation when used for control of chronic pain in diabetics may provide additional benefits of improving glycemic control and insulin requirements.