Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation as a Salvage Therapy Following Failed Spinal Cord Stimulation.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can provide long-term pain relief for various chronic pain conditions, but some patients have no relief with trial stimulation or lose efficacy over time. To "salvage" relief in patients who do not respond or have lost efficacy, alternative stimulation paradigms or anatomical targets can be considered. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) has a different mechanism of action and anatomical target than SCS. OBJECTIVES: We assessed DRG-S salvage therapy outcomes in patients who did not respond to SCS or had lost SCS efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively included consecutive patients from 2016 to 2020 who were salvaged with DRG-S after failed SCS trials (<50% pain reduction) or who had lost efficacy after permanent SCS. We compared numerical rating scale (NRS) pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), health-related quality of life (EuroQol five-dimensions five-level), and oral morphine equivalent (OME) opioid requirements before DRG-S salvage and at patients' last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients who had failed SCS were salvaged with DRG-S. The mean age was 56 ± 12 years, and the most common diagnoses were complex regional pain syndrome (n = 24) and failed back surgery syndrome (n = 24). The most common failed modalities included tonic (n = 32), Burst (n = 18), and high-frequency (n = 10) SCS. The median follow-up duration of salvage DRG-S was 34 months. With DRG-S, NRS decreased (8.7 ± 1.2 to 3.8 ± 2.1), and OME declined (median 23 mg to median 15 mg), whereas EuroQol 5D scores increased (0.40 ± 0.15 to 0.71 ± 0.15), and ODI improved (64 ± 14% to 31 ± 18%) (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: DRG-S can be used in patients with chronic pain who have previously failed to receive persistent benefit from SCS.

A Systematic Literature Review of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for PNS. METHODS: An international interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for PNS. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meaningful clinical outcomes that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, had less than two months of follow-up, or existed only as abstracts. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: Peripheral nerve stimulation was studied in 14 RCTs for a variety of painful conditions (headache, shoulder, pelvic, back, extremity, and trunk pain). Moderate to strong evidence supported the use of PNS to treat pain. CONCLUSION: Peripheral nerve stimulation has moderate/strong evidence. Additional prospective trials could further refine appropriate populations and pain diagnoses.

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Case Series and Technical Report on a Novel Lead Configuration.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is an elusive and complex neuropathic condition that is notoriously recalcitrant to treatment. The term "CPP" encompasses a number of treatment-resistant conditions like pudendal neuralgia, interstitial cystitis, coccygodynia, vulvodynia. CPP has been presented neuromodulators attempting to utilize conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS), with constant frustration and high explant rates. Contrary to SCS, dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) delivers targeted target to focal areas, does not rely on paresthesias, and is able to reliably capture body parts like the pelvis making it an ideal modality for the treatment of CPP. We present seven patients with intractable CPP, resistant to conventional treatment methods, all successfully treated with DRGS. METHODS: The case series includes seven patients with severe, CPP who failed to respond to a variety interventional treatments, and in some cases SCS. All seven patients were successfully trialed with DRGS utilizing leads placed over the bilateral L1 and S2 DRG's-to our knowledge, no publications describing either this particular lead configuration, or utilizing DRG stimulation on CPP, exist. RESULTS: Following treatment, all seven patients experienced significant pain relief as well as reduction in opioid consumption and some cases improvement with sexual function and urination. Four of these patients have been implanted and continue to self-report sustained pain relief with high-satisfaction and functional improvement. To date no explants or instances of loss of efficacy have occurred (>1 year since implant). CONCLUSION: Like most neuropathic pain states, CPP is resilient, difficult to manage, and typically unresponsive to the traditional therapeutics and SCS. Our case series demonstrates no only that DRGS is potentially effective, long-term treatment modality for CPP, but that the L1/S2 lead placement is the configuration of choice despite distinct differences in etiologies of pain and location.

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation as a Salvage Treatment for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Refractory to Dorsal Column Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Case Series.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of traditional spinal cord stimulation (t-SCS) tends to decay over time in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). While it has been shown that dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation is extremely effective in t-SCS-naïve patients with CRPS, its efficacy in patients who had previously failed t-SCS is unknown. Given that DRG-SCS and t-SCS target different spinal pathways, a failure with t-SCS should not automatically preclude a patient from attempting DRG-SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two patients with lower extremity CRPS, previously implanted with t-SCS systems, experienced relapses in the pain despite exhaustive reprogramming. Both patients were offered DRG stimulation as a means to salvage treatment. RESULTS: Patient 1 reported 90% pain reduction with significant gait improvement during the DRG stimulation trial. The patient subsequently proceeded to implant and have the t-SCS implantable pulse generator explanted. Patient 2 was unable to undergo a trial with DRG-SCS because of health insurance constraints, so she elected to undergo a surgical revision of her existing system whereby a DRG-SCS system was added to the existing t-SCS to create a hybrid system with two implantable pulse generators. The patient reported an immediate improvement in pain because of the introduction of the DRG-SCS. Additionally, she was instructed to document her pain scores with each system on individually, as well as with both on-her pain scores were at the lowest with the DRG-SCS on by itself. At eight-month follow-up, both patients reported sustained pain improvement and retained their functional gains. CONCLUSIONS: Our case series demonstrates that a failure of t-SCS is not necessarily a failure of neurostimulation as a whole. The efficacy of DRG-SCS is independent of prior t-SCS therapy outcomes in these two patients and a history of t-SCS failure serves no predictive value in these two patients for future DRG stimulation success. Therefore, DRG-SCS can be considered as a reasonable next-step to salvage patients with CRPS who had failed other SCS treatments.