Long-term safety of spinal cord stimulation systems in a prospective, global registry of patients with chronic pain.

Aim: The availability of long-term (>2 years) safety outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remains limited. We evaluated safety in a global SCS registry for chronic pain. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled globally at 79 implanting centers and followed out to 3 years after device implantation. Results: Of 1881 participants enrolled, 1289 received a permanent SCS implant (1776 completed trial). The annualized rate of device explant was 3.5% (all causes), and 1.1% due to inadequate pain relief. Total incidence of device explantation >3 years was 7.6% (n = 98). Of these, 32 subjects (2.5%) indicated inadequate pain relief as cause for removal. Implant site infection (11 events) was the most common device-related serious adverse event (<1%). Conclusion: This prospective, global, real-world study demonstrates a high-level of safety for SCS with low rate of explant/serious adverse events. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01719055 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) Trial Outcomes After Conversion to a Multiple Waveform SCS System.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic intractable pain is typically delivered in pulses, classically programmed between approximately 20 and 100 Hz. Though some recent studies suggest that better pain relief is obtained, with only 10 kHz stimulation, other studies show that single-therapy trials do not always lead to permanent implantation. We evaluated SCS outcomes in subjects given trials with multiple waveforms who did not experience satisfactory trial relief with 10 kHz stimulation only. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, real-world, observational study conducted in the United States, subjects reporting <50% pain relief with 10 kHz stimulation (i.e., failed the screening trial) received a stimulator capable of delivering multiple waveforms and/or field shapes. Pain relief and patient device preference data were collected. RESULTS: Twenty-two subjects were analyzed. Of the 16 who failed the 10 kHz trial and had numerical rating scale, visual analog scale, or percent pain relief scores available, 63% (n = 10) reported ≥50% relief with multiple waveform SCS. Additionally, 80% of subjects with ≥50% relief using multiple waveform SCS had experienced no relief with 10 kHz SCS. Among all subjects, 68% preferred multiple waveform SCS, none preferred 10 kHz SCS, and 32% had no preference. DISCUSSION: Subjects with failed SCS trials at 10 kHz experienced ≥50% relief after switching to a multiple waveform system. These results suggest that providing multiple waveforms during trials may overcome limitations of providing only 10 kHz stimulation. Thus, chronic pain's variable nature across patients and over time lends itself to variable treatment options.

Multicenter Retrospective Study of Neurostimulation With Exit of Therapy by Explant.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices are cost effective and improve function as well as quality of life. Despite the demonstrated benefits of SCS, some patients have the device explanted. We are interested in exploring the patient characteristics of those explanted. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of neurostimulation patients who underwent explantation at 18 centers across the United States within the previous five years. RESULTS: Data from 352 patients were collected and compiled. Failed Back Surgery syndrome was the most common diagnosis (38.9%; n = 136/350) and over half of the patients reported numerical rating scale (NRS) scores ≥8 prior to implant (64.3%; n = 207/322). All patients reported changes in NRS scores across time, with an initial decrease after implant followed by a pre-explant increase (F (2, 961) = 121.7, p < 0.001). The most common reason for device explant was lack or loss of efficacy (43.9%; 152/346) followed by complications (20.2%; 70/346). Eighteen percent (18%; 62/343) of patients were explanted by a different physician than the implanting one. Rechargeable devices were explanted at a median of 15 months, whereas primary cell device explants occurred at a median of 36 months (CI 01.434, 2.373; median endpoint time ratio = 2.40). DISCUSSION: Loss or lack of efficacy and complications with therapy represent the most frequent reasons for neurostimulation explantation. Of the devices that were explanted, therapy was terminated earlier when devices were rechargeable, when complications occurred, or when pain relief was not achieved or maintained. Furthermore, in nearly 20% of the cases, a different provider than the implanting physician performed device removal. CONCLUSIONS: SCS is largely a safe and efficacious strategy for treating select chronic refractory pain syndromes. Further prospective data and innovation are needed to improve patient selection, maintain SCS therapeutic efficacy and reduce the reasons that lead to device explant.

Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) with Anatomically Guided (3D) Neural Targeting Shows Superior Chronic Axial Low Back Pain Relief Compared to Traditional SCS-LUMINA Study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether spinal cord stimulation (SCS) using 3D neural targeting provided sustained overall and low back pain relief in a broad routine clinical practice population. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label observational study with an observational arm and retrospective analysis of a matched cohort. After IPG implantation, programming was done using a patient-specific, model-based algorithm to adjust for lead position (3D neural targeting) or previous generation software (traditional). Demographics, medical histories, SCS parameters, pain locations, pain intensities, disabilities, and safety data were collected for all patients. RESULTS: A total of 213 patients using 3D neural targeting were included, with a trial-to-implant ratio of 86%. Patients used seven different lead configurations, with 62% receiving 24 to 32 contacts, and a broad range of stimulation parameters utilizing a mean of 14.3 (±6.1) contacts. At 24 months postimplant, pain intensity decreased significantly from baseline (ΔNRS = 4.2, N = 169, P < 0.0001) and even more in in the severe pain subgroup (ΔNRS = 5.3, N = 91, P < 0.0001). Axial low back pain also decreased significantly from baseline to 24 months (ΔNRS = 4.1, N = 70, P < 0.0001, on the overall cohort and ΔNRS = 5.6, N = 38, on the severe subgroup). Matched cohort comparison with 213 patients treated with traditional SCS at the same centers showed overall pain responder rates of 51% (traditional SCS) and 74% (neural targeting SCS) and axial low back pain responder rates of 41% and 71% in the traditional SCS and neural targeting SCS cohorts, respectively. Lastly, complications occurred in a total of 33 of the 213 patients, with a 1.6% lead replacement rate and a 1.6% explant rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that 3D neural targeting SCS and its associated hardware flexibility provide effective treatment for both chronic leg and chronic axial low back pain that is significantly superior to traditional SCS.

Use of a newly developed delivery device for percutaneous introduction of multiple lead configurations for spinal cord stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: The Epiducer lead delivery system is a novel lead delivery device that can be used to percutaneously implant S-Series paddle leads (St. Jude Medical, Plano, TX, USA) as well as multiple percutaneous leads obviating the need for laminectomy and/or multiple needle sticks, respectively. This study evaluates the safety and usage of the Epiducer lead delivery system. METHODS: An Institutional Review Board-approved observational data collection study was conducted to evaluate usage patterns of the Epiducer system. In addition to the number and frequency of different lead configurations, the following procedural aspects of the surgery were recorded during the evaluation: angle of entry, distance from entry to final lead placement, and physician feedback. Descriptive statistics on adverse events, procedural aspects, and patient outcomes were compiled. RESULTS: Data were collected from 163 patients across 25 investigational sites. Physicians successfully implanted patients using the Epiducer during 89% of the procedures. Seven possible lead configurations were implanted. There were 96% and 92% of physicians "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with accessing the epidural space and placing multiple leads with the Epiducer delivery system, respectfully. Eighty-nine percent of physicians were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with implanting an S-Series paddle lead using the Epiducer delivery system. Ninety-five percent of physicians were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the Epiducer delivery system overall. Ten patients (6%) experienced adverse events. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the Epiducer delivery system allows for the safe and successful percutaneous implantation of paddle leads and/or multiple lead configurations. Furthermore, physicians are satisfied with the Epiducer delivery system.

Effectiveness of cervical spinal cord stimulation for the management of chronic pain.

INTRODUCTION: Scientific evidence supports spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a cost-effective treatment option that, for many disease states, should be employed earlier in the treatment continuum. Reimbursement for SCS in the cervical spine has recently been challenged based on supposed lack of clinical literature. To refute this assumption, we analyzed data from an international registry to support the use of cervical SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following outcomes were collected as part of an institutional review board-approved, prospective, multicenter, international registry: pain relief, Pain Disability Index (PDI) score, quality of life (QoL), and satisfaction at 3, 6, and 12 months post-implantation. Descriptive statistics are provided for all measures. Changes from baseline in PDI scores were analyzed using Tukey's pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients underwent implantation of SCS leads in the cervical spine at 16 study sites in the United States and 3 international study sites. Direct patient report of percentage of pain relief was 54.2%, 60.2%, and 66.8% at 3, 6, and 12 months post-implantation, respectively. Pain relief was categorized as excellent/good by 61.6% of patients at 3 months, with similar results observed at 6 and 12 months. PDI scores were significantly reduced at all time points. At 3 months post-implantation, 92.4% of patients indicated they were very satisfied/satisfied with the SCS device. No patients indicated that they were dissatisfied. Overall QoL was reported as improved/greatly improved by 73.1% of patients at 3 months. Similar results for QoL and satisfaction were reported at 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the use of SCS in the cervical spine is a medically effective method of pain management that satisfies and improves the QoL of most patients. The use of SCS can reduce the high cost of direct medical treatment of pain, as well as increasing the productivity of patients, and therefore should be reimbursed in appropriately selected patients.

Osteitis pubis: an important pain generator in women with lower pelvic or abdominal pain: a case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Osteitis pubis is an aseptic painful inflammatory condition of the symphysis pubis, surrounding muscles, and tendons. It was first described in 1924 in patients who had suprapubic surgery. Inflammation and trauma have been attributed to be causative factors in previous individual case reports and small case series. Osteitis pubis is frequently misdiagnosed and is difficult to treat once it becomes chronic. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Osteitis pubis is often a missed entity although pelvic x-ray, scintigraphy, or a diagnostic/therapeutic steroid and anesthetic injection into the symphyseal plate can be implemented to diagnose and treat it.