Pain Catastrophizing Does Not Predict Spinal Cord Stimulation Outcomes: A Cohort Study of 259 Patients With Long-Term Follow-Up.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an important treatment modality used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. However, reported success rates of 26%-70% entail an increased focus on patient selection. An area of core interest is psychological evaluation, often using scales such as the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). The aim of this study was to assess the relation between baseline PCS scores obtained before implantation and SCS outcomes defined as (1) Rating on Patients' Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC), (2) Pain relief on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), (3) Cessation of pain medication, and (4) Risk of permanent explantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using records from the Neurizon Neuromodulation Database, we performed a multicenter open cohort study of 259 permanently implanted SCS patients. Follow-up ranged from six months to nine years (median = three years). For each of the defined SCS outcomes, patients were grouped according to their latest follow-up registration. Subsequently, we used a one-way ANOVA and exact t-tests to compare mean baseline PCS scores between groups. RESULTS: No difference in mean baseline PCS scores was found between PGIC groups. Baseline PCS scores was not associated with the probability of obtaining 30% or 50% pain relief on latest registration. Baseline PCS scores of patients able to cease all usage of tricyclic antidepressants, antiepileptics, or opioids during SCS treatment did not differ from baseline scores of continuous users. We found no association between baseline PCS scores and risk of permanent explantation. CONCLUSION: This study did not demonstrate any associations between baseline PCS scores and SCS outcomes.

Implanter's Integrated Information (I3) System: An Aid for Spinal Cord Stimulation Procedures.

OBJECTIVES: In spinal cord stimulation (SCS), the electrical stimulation of the spinal cord with an implanted lead evokes a tingling peripheral sensation known as paresthesias. Newer stimulation paradigms allow paresthesia-free treatment, but during the implantation of the lead, paresthesias must cover the painful area to achieve optimal treatment effect. The localization of the evoked paresthesias can be difficult to accurately describe for the patient, and furthermore depends on a complex and only partially predictable set of parameters that includes the anatomical localization and the programming of the electrical field. We aimed to optimize SCS implantation procedures by devising a way to aid the patient in making useful descriptions of the evoked paresthesias, then to visually convey the full set of information-anatomical position of the lead, programming parameters, and evoked paresthesias-directly to the implanting physician. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To aid the patient in making accurate descriptions of the evoked paresthesia, we use an app dedicated to creating pain drawings on a tablet. We used Chromecast and Apple TV to project the information from the pain drawing tablet and the programming device to two monitors placed in the implanter's field of vision, right next to the fluoroscopy monitor. RESULTS: The three monitors combined provide a direct visual representation of the dynamic dataset used during SCS implantation: Position, Programming, and Paresthesias, essentially creating the equivalent of the dashboard of a car. CONCLUSIONS: We present an Implanter's Integrated Information (I3) system; a simple, inexpensive solution for gathering, integrating, and conveying the complex set of information necessary for a successful SCS procedure.