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.

ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop SCS for the treatment of chronic pain: 36-month results of the EVOKE blinded randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The evidence for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been criticized for the absence of blinded, parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limited evaluations of the long-term effects of SCS in RCTs. The aim of this study was to determine whether evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled, closed-loop SCS (CL-SCS) is associated with better outcomes when compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) 36 months following implant. METHODS: The EVOKE study was a multicenter, participant-blinded, investigator-blinded, and outcome assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial that compared ECAP-controlled CL-SCS with fixed-output OL-SCS. Participants with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy were enrolled between January 2017 and February 2018, with follow-up through 36 months. The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 50% in overall back and leg pain. Holistic treatment response, a composite outcome including pain intensity, physical and emotional functioning, sleep, and health-related quality of life, and objective neural activation was also assessed. RESULTS: At 36 months, more CL-SCS than OL-SCS participants reported ≥50% reduction (CL-SCS=77.6%, OL-SCS=49.3%; difference: 28.4%, 95% CI 12.8% to 43.9%, p<0.001) and ≥80% reduction (CL-SCS=49.3%, OL-SCS=31.3%; difference: 17.9, 95% CI 1.6% to 34.2%, p=0.032) in overall back and leg pain intensity. Clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed at 36 months in both CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in all other patient-reported outcomes with greater levels of improvement with CL-SCS. A greater proportion of patients with CL-SCS were holistic treatment responders at 36-month follow-up (44.8% vs 28.4%), with a greater cumulative responder score for CL-SCS patients. Greater neural activation and accuracy were observed with CL-SCS. There were no differences between CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in adverse events. No explants due to loss of efficacy were observed in the CL-SCS group. CONCLUSION: This long-term evaluation with objective measurement of SCS therapy demonstrated that ECAP-controlled CL-SCS resulted in sustained, durable pain relief and superior holistic treatment response through 36 months. Greater neural activation and increased accuracy of therapy delivery were observed with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS than OL-SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

Retrospective Assessment of Salvage to 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in Patients Who Failed Traditional SCS Therapy: RESCUE Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A randomized clinical trial demonstrated that 10 kHz SCS (10kHz-SCS) therapy is superior to traditional low-frequency SCS (LF-SCS) at 12- and 24-month clinical follow-ups and led to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the therapy. The results of the study led our practices to trial 10kHz-SCS in patients who had not maintained pain relief with LF-SCS therapy. Here, we report a large set of data from two clinical sites to assess if 10kHz-SCS is an effective salvage modality when LF-SCS fails. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 120 patients across two clinical sites who had LF-SCS implants and were salvaged with 10kHz-SCS. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 105 patients between 28 and 90 years old (median 60) with chronic pain for 13.6 years. The mean duration of LF-SCS therapy was 4.66±3.9 years. The average Visual Analog Scale (VAS) decreased from 8.30±1.4 (median of 8) cm to 3.32±2.0 (median of 3) cm at 12 months and 3.36±2.0 (median of 3) cm at the most recent clinic visit (p<0.001) following salvage therapy. Pain relief of 50% or more was obtained in 85 out of 105 (81%) patients. Opioid usage decreased from 60.3±77.1 mg to 32.1±44.0 mg MSO4 equivalents (p = 0.001) at 12 months after salvage therapy. CONCLUSION: Eighty-one percent of patient cases reviewed, where LF-SCS had failed, achieved >50% pain relief with 10kHz-SCS, and almost all exhibited some clinical improvement. Therefore, 10kHz-SCS should be considered an appropriate option to rescue failed LF-SCS.

Therapy Habituation at 12 Months: Spinal Cord Stimulation Versus Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I and II.

The ACCURATE randomized, controlled trial compared outcomes of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation versus tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in 152 subjects with chronic lower extremity pain due to complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I or II. This ACCURATE substudy was designed to evaluate whether therapy habituation occurs with DRG stimulation as compared to SCS through 12-months. A modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed to assess percentage pain relief (PPR) and responder rates at follow-up visits (end-of-trial, 1, 3, 6, 9, 12-months postpermanent implant) for all subjects that completed trial stimulation (DRG:N = 73, SCS:N = 72). For both groups, mean PPR was significantly greater at end-of-trial (DRG = 82.2%, SCS =0 77.0%) than all other follow-ups. Following permanent DRG system implantation, none of the time points were significantly different from one another in PPR (range = 69.3-73.9%). For the SCS group, PPR at 9-months (58.3%) and 12-months (57.9%) was significantly less than at 1-month (66.9%). The responder rate also decreased for the SCS group from 1-month (68.1%) to 12-months (61.1%). After stratifying by diagnosis, it was found that only the CRPS-I population had diminishing pain relief with SCS. DRG stimulation resulted in more stable pain relief through 12-months, while tonic SCS demonstrated therapy habituation at 9- and 12-months. Trial Registration: The ACCURATE study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with Identifier NCT01923285. PERSPECTIVE: This article reports on an ACCURATE substudy, which found that long-term therapy habituation occurred at 12-months with SCS, but not DRG stimulation, in patients with CRPS. The underlying mechanisms of action for these results remain unclear, although several lines of inquiry are proposed.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain: Prospective Case Series With 1 Year of Sustained Relief Following Short-Term Implant.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) provides an opportunity to relieve chronic low back pain and reduce opioid analgesic consumption as an alternative to radiofrequency ablation and permanently implanted neurostimulation systems. Traditionally, the use of neurostimulation earlier in the treatment continuum has been limited by its associated risk, invasiveness, and cost. METHODS: Percutaneous PNS leads (SPRINT MicroLead) were placed bilaterally to target the medial branches of the dorsal rami nerves under image guidance. The percutaneous leads were connected to miniature wearable stimulators (SPRINT PNS System) for the 1-month therapy period, after which the leads were removed. Pain and disability were assessed long-term up to 12 months after lead removal. RESULTS: Substantial, clinically significant reductions in average pain intensity (≥50% reduction as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form) were experienced by a majority of subjects (67%) at end of treatment compared to baseline (average 80% reduction among responders; P < 0.05, analysis of variance; n = 9). Twelve months after the end of PNS treatment, a majority of subjects who completed the long-term follow-up visits experienced sustained, clinically significant reductions in pain and/or disability (67%, n = 6; average 63% reduction in pain intensity and 32-point reduction in disability among responders). No serious or unanticipated adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study challenges the long-held notion that a positive trial of PNS should be followed by a permanent implant in responders. Percutaneous PNS may serve as an effective neurostimulation therapy for patients with chronic low back pain and should be considered earlier in the treatment continuum as a motor-sparing means of avoiding opioids, denervation, and permanently implanted neurostimulation systems.

10 kHz SCS therapy for chronic pain, effects on opioid usage: Post hoc analysis of data from two prospective studies.

Chronic pain, including chronic low back and leg pain are prominent causes of disability worldwide. While patient management aims to reduce pain and improve daily function, prescription of opioids remains widespread despite significant adverse effects. This study pooled data from two large prospective trials on 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (10 kHz SCS) in subjects with chronic low back pain and/or leg pain and performed post hoc analysis on changes in opioid dosage 12 months post 10 kHz SCS treatment. Patient-reported back and leg pain using the visual analog scale (VAS) and opioid dose (milligrams morphine equivalent/day, MME/day) were compared at 12 months post-10 kHz SCS therapy to baseline. Results showed that in the combined dataset, 39.3% of subjects were taking >90 MME dose of opioids at baseline compared to 23.0% at 12 months post-10 kHz SCS therapy (p = 0.007). The average dose of opioids in >90 MME group was significantly reduced by 46% following 10 kHz SCS therapy (p < 0.001), which was paralleled by significant pain relief (P < 0.001). In conclusion, current analysis demonstrates the benefits of 10 kHz SCS therapy and offers an evidence-based, non-pharmaceutical alternative to opioid therapy and/or an adjunctive therapy to facilitate opioid dose reduction whilst delivering significant pain relief. Healthcare providers involved in management of chronic non-cancer pain can include reduction or elimination of opioid use as part of treatment plan when contemplating 10 kHz SCS.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Pain Following Amputation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain and reduced function are significant problems for Military Service members and Veterans following amputation. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is a promising therapy, but PNS systems have traditionally been limited by invasiveness and complications. Recently, a novel percutaneous PNS system was developed to reduce the risk of complications and enable delivery of stimulation without surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Percutaneous PNS was evaluated to determine if stimulation provides relief from residual and phantom limb pain following lower-extremity amputation. PNS leads were implanted percutaneously to deliver stimulation to the femoral and/or sciatic nerves. Patients received stimulation for up to 60 days followed by withdrawal of the leads. RESULTS: A review of recent studies and clinical reports found that a majority of patients (18/24, 75%) reported substantial (≥50%) clinically relevant relief of chronic post-amputation pain following up to 60 days of percutaneous PNS. Reductions in pain were frequently associated with reductions in disability and pain interference. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous PNS can durably reduce pain, thereby enabling improvements in quality of life, function, and rehabilitation in individuals with residual or phantom limb pain following amputation. Percutaneous PNS may have additional benefit for Military Service members and Veterans with post-surgical or post-traumatic pain.

Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic neuropathic postamputation pain: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Chronic neuropathic pain is a common challenging condition following amputation. Recent research demonstrated the feasibility of percutaneously implanting fine-wire coiled peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) leads in proximity to the sciatic and femoral nerves for postamputation pain. A multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study collected data on the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous PNS for chronic neuropathic pain following amputation. METHODS: Twenty-eight lower extremity amputees with postamputation pain were enrolled. Subjects underwent ultrasound-guided implantation of percutaneous PNS leads and were randomized to receive PNS or placebo for 4 weeks. The placebo group then crossed over and all subjects received PNS for four additional weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint evaluated the proportion of subjects reporting ≥50% pain reduction during weeks 1-4. RESULTS: A significantly greater proportion of subjects receiving PNS (n=7/12, 58%, p=0.037) demonstrated ≥50% reductions in average postamputation pain during weeks 1-4 compared with subjects receiving placebo (n=2/14, 14%). Two subjects were excluded from efficacy analysis due to eligibility changes. Significantly greater proportions of PNS subjects also reported ≥50% reductions in pain (n=8/12, 67%, p=0.014) and pain interference (n=8/10, 80%, p=0.003) after 8 weeks of therapy compared with subjects receiving placebo (pain: n=2/14, 14%; pain interference: n=2/13, 15%). Prospective follow-up is ongoing; four of five PNS subjects who have completed 12-month follow-up to date reported ≥50% pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates that percutaneous PNS therapy may provide enduring clinically significant pain relief and improve disability in patients with chronic neuropathic postamputation pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01996254.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Pain Reduction and Improvements in Functional Outcomes in Chronic Low Back Pain.

Chronic low back pain represents one of the most common sources of disability and a significant healthcare burden for the U.S. military. Present treatments for chronic back pain are often ineffective, poorly tolerated, invasive, destructive, and/or associated with complications and lead to the progression to invasive surgical procedures. There have been multiple calls for the development of a minimally invasive system that is effective without the risks or complications of existing surgical therapies, which could prevent the need for surgery and the recurrence of pain. The goal of this study was to evaluate a novel, minimally invasive approach using a percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) system designed to provide pain relief without surgery, to reduce complications, and provide a less-invasive treatment option. In nine subjects, percutaneous PNS improved participants' function, as evidenced by clinically and statistically significant reductions in pain, disability, and pain interference. Subjects also experienced reductions in opioid and non-opioid analgesic medication usage and reported improvements in quality of life with treatment. There were no serious or unanticipated adverse events. These results demonstrate the potential of percutaneous PNS as a non-surgical therapy to treat chronic back pain without opioids.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain Provides Sustained Relief.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP). Percutaneous PNS offers the potential to provide an effective neuromodulation therapy using a system and fine-wire leads designed specifically for percutaneous use with history of an excellent safety profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects with chronic axial LBP received percutaneous PNS leads targeting the medial branch of the dorsal ramus in the region of LBP. Lead placement was guided using ultrasound and confirmed by selective activation of the lumbar multifidus and patient-reported sensations. The percutaneous fine-wire leads remained in place for the 30-day therapy. RESULTS: A majority of subjects reported statistically and clinically significant reductions in both average pain intensity (BPI-5) and worst pain intensity (BPI-3) scores with PNS treatment, which continued long term at the four-month follow-up visit. Subject-reported reductions in pain intensity were substantiated by concomitant and sustained reductions in analgesic medication usage. Subjects also reported clinically significant reductions in patient-centric outcomes of disability (Oswestry Disability Index), pain interference (BPI-9), and patient global impression of change (PGIC). CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates the potential value of percutaneous PNS for the treatment of chronic LBP. Improvements in pain, medication, and patient-centric outcomes, which were sustained long term after the removal of PNS leads, demonstrate the significance of this innovative approach to treat chronic LBP.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: Two Clinical Case Reports of Sustained Pain Relief.

As the leading cause of disability among U.S. adults, chronic low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent and challenging musculoskeletal conditions. Neuromodulation provides an opportunity to reduce or eliminate the use of opioids to treat chronic LBP, but the cost and invasiveness of existing methods have limited its broad adoption, especially earlier in the treatment continuum. The present case report details the results of a novel method of short-term percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) in 2 subjects with chronic LBP. At the end of the 1-month therapy, stimulation was discontinued and the leads were withdrawn. PNS produced clinically significant improvements in pain (62% average reduction in Brief Pain Inventory Question #5, average pain), and functional outcomes (73% reduction in disability, Oswestry Disability Index; 83% reduction in pain interference, Brief Pain Inventory). Both subjects reduced nonopioid analgesic use by 83%, on average, and the one subject taking opioids ceased using all opioids. The only adverse event was minor skin irritation caused by a topical dressing. The clinically significant improvements were sustained at least 4 months after start of therapy (79% average reduction in pain; both reported minimal disability; 100% reduction in opioids; 74% reduction nonopioids). The results reveal the utility of this novel, short-term approach and its potential as a minimally invasive neuromodulation therapy for use earlier in the treatment continuum to produce sustained pain relief and reduce or eliminate the need for analgesic medications, including opioids, as well as more expensive and invasive surgical or therapeutic alternatives.

Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Pain: Mode of Action.

STUDY DESIGN: Literature review. OBJECTIVE: A review of the literature that presents a perspective on mechanisms of actions behind spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy for chronic pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SCS is an effective therapeutic alternative for the treatment of intractable chronic pain. Its application has been mostly based on the gate control theory of pain. Computational models have been fundamental on the understanding of clinical observations and the design of therapies that provide optimal neuromodulation. Research has provided insight into the involvement of specific neurotransmitters that support segmental and supraspinal mechanisms of action. METHODS: A literature review was performed with emphasis on mechanisms of action for SCS including the effects of electrical fields on spinal cord structures based on computational models and preclinical and clinical explorations. RESULTS: This review provides background on the development of SCS, which has been driven around a paresthesia-based paradigm as a result of the gate control theory. A review of computational models emphasizes their importance on our current understanding of the mechanism of action and clinical optimization of therapy. Electrophysiology and molecular biology have provided a closer, yet narrow, view of the effect of SCS on neurotransmitters and their receptors, which have led to the formulation of segmental and supraspinal mechanisms. Literature supporting the involvement of glial cells in chronic pain and their characteristic response to electrical fields should motivate further investigation of mechanisms involving neuroglia. Finally, a review of recent results paresthesia-free strategies should encourage research on mechanisms of action. CONCLUSION: The mechanisms of SCS have been extensively studied and several consistent phenomena have emerged. The activation of A-beta fibers to induce paresthesia also involve neurotransmitter release via segmental and supraspinal pathways. Despite advancements, much remains to be understood, particularly as new stimulation strategies are developed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N /A.

Twelve-Month Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Intradiscal Biacuplasty to Conventional Medical Management for Discogenic Lumbar Back Pain.

Objective: This report conveys 12-month outcomes of subjects treated with intradiscal biacuplasty (IDB) and conservative medical management (CMM) for chronic low back pain of discogenic origin, and results for subjects who elected to receive IDB + CMM 6 months after CMM-alone. Methods: Sixty-three subjects were originally randomized to the IDB + CMM group (N = 29) or CMM-alone (N = 34). Six months following continuous CMM-alone treatment, participants in this study group were permitted to "cross-over" to IDB + CMM (N = 25), and followed for an additional 6 months. The original IDB + CMM study subjects were followed for a total of 12 months (N = 22). Results: Pain reduction at 12 months was statistically significant and clinically meaningful in the original IDB + CMM group compared to baseline. Functional and disability outcomes were also improved statistically and clinically. Fifty-five percent of the IDB + CMM patients responded to treatment with a mean VAS reduction of 2.2 points at 12 months. Furthermore, 50% and 64% of subjects reported clinically significant improvements in SF36-PF and in ODI, respectively. There was a 1.7-point reduction (improvement) on a 7-point PGIC scale, and a 0.13-point increase (improvement) in the EQ-5D Health Index. Fifty-percent of cross-over subjects responded to IDB + CMM intervention. Mean outcome scores for cross-over subjects were similar to those of the originally-treated subjects, and functional and disability endpoints were improved statistically and clinically compared to respective baseline values. Conclusions: The study demonstrated long-term clinical effectiveness of IDB + CMM for treating chronic lumbar discogenic pain. Furthermore, the cross-over study subjects experienced similar improvements in pain, function, disability, and satisfaction.

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation yielded higher treatment success rate for complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia at 3 and 12 months: a randomized comparative trial.

Animal and human studies indicate that electrical stimulation of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons may modulate neuropathic pain signals. ACCURATE, a pivotal, prospective, multicenter, randomized comparative effectiveness trial, was conducted in 152 subjects diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome or causalgia in the lower extremities. Subjects received neurostimulation of the DRG or dorsal column (spinal cord stimulation, SCS). The primary end point was a composite of safety and efficacy at 3 months, and subjects were assessed through 12 months for long-term outcomes and adverse events. The predefined primary composite end point of treatment success was met for subjects with a permanent implant who reported 50% or greater decrease in visual analog scale score from preimplant baseline and who did not report any stimulation-related neurological deficits. No subjects reported stimulation-related neurological deficits. The percentage of subjects receiving ≥50% pain relief and treatment success was greater in the DRG arm (81.2%) than in the SCS arm (55.7%, P < 0.001) at 3 months. Device-related and serious adverse events were not different between the 2 groups. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation also demonstrated greater improvements in quality of life and psychological disposition. Finally, subjects using DRG stimulation reported less postural variation in paresthesia (P < 0.001) and reduced extraneous stimulation in nonpainful areas (P = 0.014), indicating DRG stimulation provided more targeted therapy to painful parts of the lower extremities. As the largest prospective, randomized comparative effectiveness trial to date, the results show that DRG stimulation provided a higher rate of treatment success with less postural variation in paresthesia intensity compared to SCS.

Novel 10-kHz High-frequency Therapy (HF10 Therapy) Is Superior to Traditional Low-frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Back and Leg Pain: The SENZA-RCT Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for chronic pain have limited effectiveness and commonly known side effects. Given the prevalence and burden of intractable pain, additional therapeutic approaches are desired. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) delivered at 10 kHz (as in HF10 therapy) may provide pain relief without the paresthesias typical of traditional low-frequency SCS. The objective of this randomized, parallel-arm, noninferiority study was to compare long-term safety and efficacy of SCS therapies in patients with back and leg pain. METHODS: A total of 198 subjects with both back and leg pain were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a treatment group across 10 comprehensive pain treatment centers. Of these, 171 passed a temporary trial and were implanted with an SCS system. Responders (the primary outcome) were defined as having 50% or greater back pain reduction with no stimulation-related neurological deficit. RESULTS: At 3 months, 84.5% of implanted HF10 therapy subjects were responders for back pain and 83.1% for leg pain, and 43.8% of traditional SCS subjects were responders for back pain and 55.5% for leg pain (P < 0.001 for both back and leg pain comparisons). The relative ratio for responders was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.5) for back pain and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9) for leg pain. The superiority of HF10 therapy over traditional SCS for leg and back pain was sustained through 12 months (P < 0.001). HF10 therapy subjects did not experience paresthesias. CONCLUSION: HF10 therapy promises to substantially impact the management of back and leg pain with broad applicability to patients, physicians, and payers.

Treatment of post-amputation pain with peripheral nerve stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Present treatment methods are often unsatisfactory in reducing post-amputation pain. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) could reduce the pain, but it is rarely used because present methods require invasive surgical access and precise placement of the leads in close proximity (≤ 2 mm) with the nerve. METHODS: The present study investigated the feasibility of delivering PNS to patients with moderate-to-severe post-amputation pain in the lower extremity using a fine-wire lead placed percutaneously under ultrasound guidance a remote distance (0.5-3.0 cm) away from the sciatic and/or femoral nerves. RESULTS: Fourteen of the 16 subjects who completed in-clinic testing responded to stimulation, reported ≥ 75% paresthesia coverage, obtained clinically significant pain relief, and proceeded to a two-week home trial with a percutaneous PNS system. Two of the 14 responders had their leads removed early because of accidental dislodgement (N = 2), two had temporary discomfort near the lead (N = 2), and one had return of post-amputation pain despite stimulation (N = 1) and did not complete the home trial. The nine responders who completed the home trial reported reductions in their mean daily worst post-amputation pain (56 ± 26%, 56 ± 26%, N = 9), average residual limb pain (72 ± 28%, 42 ± 27%, N = 7), average phantom limb pain (81 ± 28%, 47 ± 48%, N = 7), residual limb pain interference (81 ± 27%, 53 ± 17%, N = 6), phantom limb pain interference (83 ± 31%, 56 ± 46%, N = 7), and Pain Disability Index (70 ± 38%, 55 ± 32%, N = 9) during the second week of stimulation and four weeks after the end of stimulation, respectively. All nine responders rated their change in quality of life as improved at the end of stimulation and at the end of the four-week follow-up period. Subjects reported minor decreases in the Beck Depression Inventory scores (43 ± 51%, 32 ± 57%, N = 9). Most subjects had no substantial changes other than minor decreases (N = 3) in pain medication. CONCLUSION: Achievement of significant pain relief and improvements in quality of life with a minimally invasive method of PNS holds promise for providing relief of post-amputation pain.

Peripheral nerve stimulation for the treatment of postamputation pain--a case report.

Many amputees suffer from postamputation pain, which can be extremely debilitating, decrease quality of life, increase the risk of depression, and negatively affect interpersonal relationships and the ability to work. Present methods of treatment, including medications, are often unsatisfactory in reducing postamputation pain. Electrical stimulation of the nerve innervating the painful area could reduce the pain, but peripheral nerve stimulation is rarely used to treat postamputation pain because present methods require invasive surgical access and precise placement of the leads in close proximity (≤ 2 mm) with the nerve. The present study investigated a novel approach to peripheral nerve stimulation in which a lead was placed percutaneously a remote distance (> 1 cm) away from the femoral nerve in a patient with severe residual limb pain (RLP) 33 years following a below-knee amputation. Electrical stimulation generated ≥ 75% paresthesia coverage, reduced RLP by > 60%, and improved quality of life outcomes as measured by the pain interference scale of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (100% reduction in pain interference), Pain Disability Index (74% reduction in disability), and the Patient Global Impression of Change (very much improved) during a 2-week home trial. There were no adverse events. The ability to generate significant paresthesia coverage and pain relief with a single lead inserted percutaneously and remotely from the target nerve holds promise for providing relief of postamputation pain.

Spinal cord stimulation for visceral pain from chronic pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may reduce pain scores and improve function in patients with various chronic abdominal pain syndromes including chronic pancreatitis. Here described is a large clinical experience in SCS for severe chronic pancreatitis. METHODS: SCS was trialed in 30 patients with chronic pancreatitis. SCS trials lasted 7-14 days (median 9 days). SCS lead tips were mostly positioned at the T5 (N= 10) or T6 (N= 10) vertebral level. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (80%) reported at least 50% pain relief on completion of the trial. Among these, pre-trial visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores averaged 8 ± 1.6 (standard deviation) and opioid use averaged 165 ± 120 mg morphine sulfate equivalents. During the trial, VAS pain scores decreased to 3.67 ± 2 cm (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney Rank Sum Test) and opioid use decreased to 105 ± 101 mg morphine equivalent a day. Six patients failed the trial; one was lost to follow-up; in three patients after the implantation, the system had to be removed due to infection or lead migration; and 20 were followed for the whole year. For 20 patients followed for the whole year, VAS pain scores remained low (3.6 ± 2 cm; p < 0.001) at one year, as did opioid use (48.6 ± 58 mg morphine equivalents). CONCLUSIONS: SCS may be a useful therapeutic option for patients with severe visceral pain from chronic pancreatitis. Prospective trial is warranted.

Peripheral nerve stimulation for occipital neuralgia: surgical leads.

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been used for the treatment of various neuropathic pain disorders, including occipital neuralgia, for the patients who failed less-invasive therapeutic approaches. Several different mechanisms of pain relief were proposed when PNS is used to treat occipital neuralgia and clinical studies using various types of electrical leads suggested largely positive clinical responses in patients with mostly refractory, severe neuropathic pain. With advancements in cylindrical lead design for PNS and placement/implantation techniques, there are very few clear indications where 'paddle' (surgical) leads could be advantageous. Those include patients who experienced repeated migration of cylindrical lead as paddle lead may provide greater stability, who are experiencing unpleasant recruitment of surrounding muscle and/or motor nerve stimulation and for cases where skin erosions were caused by a cylindrical lead. However, disregarding the type of lead used, multiple clinical advantages of this minimally invasive, easily reversible approach include relatively low morbidity and a high treatment efficacy.