Combination therapy with simultaneous delivery of spinal cord stimulation modalities: COMBO randomized controlled trial.

Aim: The Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of various spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities for chronic pain. Specifically, combination therapy (simultaneous use of customized sub-perception field and paresthesia-based SCS) versus monotherapy (paresthesia-based SCS) was evaluated. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled (key inclusion criterion: chronic pain for ≥6 months). Primary end point was the proportion with ≥50% pain reduction without increased opioids at the 3 month follow-up. Patients were followed for 2 years. Results: The primary end point was met (n = 89; p < 0.0001) in 88% of patients in the combination-therapy arm (n = 36/41) and 71% in the monotherapy arm (n = 34/48). Responder rates at 1 and 2 years (with available SCS modalities) were 84% and 85%, respectively. Sustained functional outcomes improvement was observed out to 2 years. Conclusion: SCS-based combination therapy can improve outcomes in patients with chronic pain. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03689920 (ClinicalTrials.gov), Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes (COMBO).

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a device-based therapy for chronic pain that delivers electrical impulses to the spinal cord, disrupting pain signals to the brain. Pain relief can be achieved using different SCS techniques that use or do not use paresthesia (stimulation that produces a tingling sensation). These approaches affect patients in different ways, suggesting that different biological processes are involved in enabling pain relief. Research also suggests that better long-term results occur when patients can choose the therapy that is best for their own needs. This clinical study compared pain relief and other functional activities in those receiving combination therapy (simultaneous use of SCS that does and does not produce tingling sensation) against those receiving monotherapy (only SCS therapy producing tingling sensation) for 3 months. In the study, 88% of those receiving combination therapy and 71% with monotherapy alone reported a 50% (or greater) decrease in overall pain (the 'responder rate') without an increased dose of opioid drugs at 3 months after the start of therapy. This responder rate was found to be 84% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years (with all SCS therapy options available). Analysis of functional activities or disability showed that patients improved from 'severely disabled' at study start to 'moderately disabled' after 2 years, indicating that effective long-term (2 year) improvement can be achieved using SCS-based combination therapy for chronic pain.

Cooled and traditional thermal radiofrequency ablation of genicular nerves in patients with chronic knee pain: a comparative outcomes analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation (GNRFA) is a minimally invasive intervention for patients with chronic knee pain (CKP) not responding to conservative treatments. Few investigations have compared treatment outcomes of cooled-RFA (c-RFA) and thermal-RFA (t-RFA), two common approaches of GNRFA. This study aims to investigate and compare outcomes, including probability of treatment success, between c-RFA and t-RFA in patients with CKP. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed a total of 208 propensity score matched patients, including 104 patients who received c-RFA and 104 patients who received t-RFA. The primary outcome was probability of pain relief after the procedure, defined as reduction in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain score of 2 or greater. The secondary outcomes were degree of NRS pain score reductions, duration of relief, and the probability of patients receiving TKA within 1 year of treatment. RESULTS: T-RFA was associated with a higher probability of pain relief within 1, 3, and 6 months after procedure when compared with c-RFA. Probabilities of pain relief from t-RFA and c-RFA were 62% (95% CI 51% to 71%) and 43% (95% CI 34% to 53%; p=0.01) within 1 month, 78% (95% CI 68% to 85%) and 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%; p<0.001) within 3 months, and 79% (95% CI 70% to 86%) and 59% (95% CI 49% to 68%; p<0.01) within 6 months, respectively. t-RFA was also associated with greater mean NRS pain score reduction at 1 month after procedure: -4.71 (95% CI -5.3 to -4.1) when compared with -3.59 (95% CI -4.3 to -2.9; p=0.02) from c-RFA. T-RFA and c-RFA were comparable in pain score reduction at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after procedure. Both groups demonstrated comparable duration of relief and probability of patients receiving TKA within 1 year. DISCUSSION: Both t-RFA and c-RFA effectively reduced NRS pain scores in most patients with CKP within the 1 year follow-up period. Genicular nerve t-RFA was associated with a higher probability of treatment success and a greater degree of pain relief at 1 month after the procedure when compared with c-RFA in propensity score matched patients with CKP.

Multi-waveform Spinal Cord Stimulation with High Frequency Electromagnetic Coupled (HF-EMC) Powered Implanted Electrode Array and Receiver for the Treatment of Chronic Back and Leg Pain (SURF Study).

BACKGROUND: Novel externally powered spinal cord stimulation technology can be fully implanted when trialing the effectiveness of the therapy, since no percutaneous leads are needed, and the trial period lasted 30 days. Multiple tests of different stimulation modalities and parameters are possible, thus improving the chances that the therapy will lead to effective pain reduction. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of the Freedom Spinal Cord Stimulator System (Stimwave LLC, Pompano Beach, FL) for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome due to postlaminectomy syndrome utilizing multiple waveforms. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective, single cohort study. Patients were enrolled and implanted with up to 2 permanent, 8-contact electrode arrays with receiver, controlled regularly during 6 months of follow-up after a one month trial period. Pain and overall improvement were evaluated at 3 months and 6 months following an initial one-month implanted trial period. SETTINGS: A variety of frequency stimulation waveforms (tonic as well as subthreshold) at frequencies of 10 Hz to 1500 Hz* and 50 to 800 µs pulse width, were provided. (*Note: While 1500 Hz was utilized in the study, Stimwave Technologies is currently only permitted to provide spinal cord stimulation therapy at frequencies below 1500 Hz, therefore pulse rates used in this study are not commercially available on Stimwave Technologies' products). METHODS: Endpoints evaluated included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain intensity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for functionality, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for overall health improvement, and quality of life as measured by the European Quality of Life 5 Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients completed the study. At 6 months, the responder rate (? 50% reduction VAS for back pain) was 33/39 = 85%. Mean VAS for back pain decreased 62%. The mean ODI decreased 46% from 54 to 29.2, indicating a reduction from severe to moderate disability. The median satisfaction as measured with the PGIC was 6 out of 7. The mean EQ-5D-5L utility score increased from 0.54 to 0.75. At the 6-months endpoint, 44% (17/39) of patients preferred tonic stimulation with a back pain per protocol responder rate of 82%; 41% (16/39) preferred surge with a responder rate of 56%; and 15% (6/39) preferred high density, with a responder rate of 83%. Fifteen patients reported 28 adverse events. Migration of the electrode array (n = 10) was the adverse event most reported. Two serious adverse events related to infection were reported. LIMITATIONS: This study had several limitations. Trial failures were excluded from the analysis, there was a small sample size, and there was a lack of blinding due to the suprathreshold nature of tonic stimulation. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that spinal cord stimulation with multiple stimulation patterns demonstrates clinical and functional efficacy when using an externally powered stimulation system.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC): Recommendations on Best Practices for Cervical Neurostimulation.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise with international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the use of neurostimulation in the cervical region to improve outcomes. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) project intends to provide evidence-based guidance for an often-overlooked area of neurostimulation practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors were chosen based upon their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when NACC last published guidelines) to the present. Identified studies were graded using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence was scant. RESULTS: The NACC examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC recommends best practices regarding the use of cervical neuromodulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be utilized as a guide to assist decision making when clinically appropriate.

Combined Bipolar and V-Shaped Lesions for Lumbar Facet Radiofrequency Ablation: A Technical Report.

INTRODUCTION: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a demonstrated safe and effective treatment for chronic low back pain. RFA delivers high density electrical current near lumbar medial branch nerve. The success of RFA is contingent upon creating a lesion that overlaps the sensory nerve supplying the affected facet joint(s). Both bipolar-RFA and V-shaped active tip cannulas increase lesion size in experimental models. We describe successful application of concomitant bipolar and V-shaped lesions in a single patient with chronic low back pain caused by lumbar spondylosis. CASE PRESENTATION: An 81-year-old male with atrial fibrillation on chronic warfarin anticoagulation was previously treated with conventional monopolar lumbar facet RFA resulting in a 75% decrement in pain intensity exceeding eight months. Nine months after the procedure, his pain returned with similar pretreatment character and was unresponsive to additional physical therapy and acetaminophen. We elected to use a V-shaped cannula to maximize lesion diameter and lengthen intervals between anticoagulant abstinence to minimize the risk. Intraoperatively, a grounding-pad malfunction compelled us to convert to bipolar-RFA by placing a second adjacent V-shaped cannula, eliminating grounding-pad requirement. Bilateral bipolar medial branch RFA of L3-L4, L4-L5, L5-S1 nerves was performed between these two cannulas without further incident. The patient had sustained analgesia that lasted over twelve months resultant from treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We herein describe a technique of combined bipolar-RFA utilizing proximally adjacent V-shaped cannulas. Both bipolar and V-shaped cannulas create larger lesions in experiments. While both techniques purport theoretical advantages, the clinical superiority of a combined technique warrants continued clinical investigation.

Longevity and Utilization Cost of Rechargeable and Non-Rechargeable Spinal Cord Stimulation Implants: A Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite major advancements in features and capabilities of the implantable pulse generator (IPG), real-life longevity and cost-effectiveness studies to guide pain specialists to make the appropriate choice between rechargeable and non-rechargeable IPG are limited. Our study aimed to compare the longevity and cost effectiveness of rechargeable vs. non-rechargeable IPG and SCS systems. METHODS: Data were collected for all SCS implantations performed between 1994 and 2018. The primary goal was to determine IPG longevity, defined as the time interval between IPG implantation and elective replacement due to IPG end of life (EOL). On the other hand, SCS system longevity was defined as the time between SCS implantation and its removal or revision for any reason other than IPG EOL. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to assess IPG and SCS system longevities. Cost analysis was performed for cost effectiveness. RESULTS: The median IPG longevity was significantly higher for rechargeable SCS devices than for non-rechargeable SCS devices (7.20 years and 3.68 years, respectively). The median cost per day was similar for both IPGs, $13.90 and $13.81 for non-rechargeable and rechargeable, respectively. The median cost for SCS systems was higher for the rechargeable group ($60.70) compared with the non-rechargeable group ($31.38). CONCLUSIONS: Rechargeable IPG had increased longevity compared to their non-rechargeable counterparts, yet there was no significant difference in the actual longevity due to premature revisions or explantations between both SCS systems. Furthermore, non-rechargeable SCS systems were found to be the more cost-effective option when compared with rechargeable SCS systems.

Association Between Oral Pain Medications and Intrathecal Opioid Dose Escalation: A Retrospective Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Patients treated with intrathecal therapy frequently require opioid dose increases to maintain analgesia. The kinetics of intrathecal opioid dose escalation are poorly understood. We hypothesized that antidepressant use, antiepileptic use, and lower baseline oral opioid intake prior to intrathecal pump implantation will be protective against intrathecal opioid dose escalation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Targeted drug delivery medication doses were collected from patients who had an intrathecal pump implanted between 2007 and 2016. From a sample size of 136 patients, the association between antidepressant, antiepileptic, and oral opioid use with intrathecal dose escalation was assessed using statistical models. RESULTS: Individuals using an antiepileptic had an estimated ratio of means (97.5% CI) of opioid consumption of 0.91 (97.5% CI: [0.48, 1.73], p = 0.74) at six months, 0.83 ([0.43, 1.58], p = 0.51) at 12 months, and 0.77 ([0.40, 1.45], p = 0.36) at 24 months. Patients prescribed antidepressants had an estimated ratio of means (97.5% CI) of 1.43 ([0.77, 2.65], p = 0.19) at six months, 1.41 ([0.76, 2.63], p = 0.22) at 12 months, and 1.33 ([0.70, 2.51], p = 0.31) at 24 months. In our secondary analysis of pre-implant oral opioid use, patients treated with high oral opioid doses had a similar pattern of intrathecal dose escalation when compared to patients using low doses of oral opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Use of antiepileptics, antidepressants, or low oral opioid doses was not associated with attenuation of intrathecal dose escalation. Intrathecal opioid dose escalation was observed to occur similarly, regardless of baseline oral analgesics concomitantly employed.

Tanezumab for chronic low back pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, phase 3 study of efficacy and safety.

ABSTRACT: This randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study (56-week treatment; 24-week follow-up) assessed tanezumab in patients with chronic low back pain and history of inadequate response to standard-of-care analgesics (NCT02528253). Patients received placebo, subcutaneous tanezumab (5 or 10 mg every 8 weeks), or oral tramadol prolonged-release (100-300 mg/day). Primary endpoint was change in low back pain intensity (LBPI) at week 16 for tanezumab vs placebo. Key secondary endpoints were proportion of patients with ≥50% decrease in LBPI at week 16, change in Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire at week 16, and change in LBPI at week 2 for tanezumab vs placebo. Adverse events and joint safety were assessed through weeks 56 and 80, respectively. Tanezumab 10 mg met the primary endpoint by significantly improving LBPI at week 16 vs placebo; least squares (LS) mean (95% CI) difference = -0.40 (-0.76 to -0.04; P = 0.0281). Tanezumab 10 mg significantly improved all key secondary endpoints. Tanezumab 5 mg did not meet the primary endpoint (LS mean [95% CI] treatment difference vs placebo = -0.30 [-0.66 to 0.07; P = 0.1117]), preventing formal testing of key secondary endpoints for this dose. The proportion of patients with ≥50% improvement in LBPI at week 16 was 37.4% in the placebo group, 43.3% in the tanezumab 5 mg group (Odds ratio [95% CI] vs placebo = 1.28 [0.97 to 1.70; P = 0.0846]), and 46.3% in the tanezumab 10 mg group (Odds ratio [95% CI] vs placebo = 1.45 [1.09 to 1.91; P = 0.0101]). Prespecified joint safety events were more frequent with tanezumab 10 mg (2.6%) than tanezumab 5 mg (1.0%), tramadol (0.2%), or placebo (0%). Seven patients, all in the tanezumab 10 mg group (1.4%), underwent total joint replacement. In conclusion, tanezumab 10 mg significantly improved pain and function vs placebo in patients with difficult-to-treat chronic low back pain. Tanezumab was associated with a low rate of joint safety events, some requiring joint replacement.

A Systematic Literature Review of Spine Neurostimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for SCS. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year's duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded 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: SCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT). CONCLUSIONS: High-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

Choice of spinal cord stimulation versus targeted drug delivery in the management of chronic pain: a predictive formula for outcomes.

Contemporary nonmalignant pain treatment algorithms commence with conservative non-invasive strategies, later progressing from minimally invasive interventions to invasive techniques or implantable devices. The most commonly used implantable devices are spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems or targeted drug delivery (TDD) devices. Historically, SCS had been considered in advance of TDD, positioning TDD behind SCS failures. Following Institutional Review Board approval, data were extracted from electronic medical records of patients who underwent SCS trial in the Department of Pain Management at Cleveland Clinic from 1994 to 2013. The sample size was analyzed in two cohorts: those who succeeded with SCS and those who failed SCS and consequently proceeded to TDD. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed and a predictive formula for successful outcomes was created. 945 patients were included in the cohort of which 119 (12.6%) subjects achieved adequate pain relief with TDD after failure of SCS. Gender, age, depression and primary pain diagnosis were significantly different in this subgroup. Males were 52% less likely to experience pain relief with SCS. The odds of SCS success decreased as age increased by 6% per year. Patients with comorbid depression, interestingly, were 63% more likely to succeed with SCS. A logistic model was created to predict SCS success which was used to create a predictive formula. Older male patients diagnosed with spine-related pain were more likely to benefit from TDD than SCS. This observation potentially identifies a subgroup in whom consideration for TDD in advance of SCS failure could prove more efficient and cost effective. These retrospective findings warrant prospective comparative studies to validate this derived predictive formula.

Redefining Spinal Cord Stimulation "Trials": A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Single-Stage Wireless Permanent Implantable Devices.

BACKGROUND: "Traditional" spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trials with percutaneous electrodes externalized to a pulse generator (PG) are typically limited in duration due to risk of infection. Newer miniaturized wireless SCS technology eliminates the percutaneous extension (as well as PGs implanted for chronic use), thus facilitating a single-stage implantation after which the device can remain indefinitely. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate fully implanted wireless SCS devices during a 30-day screening trial in subjects with chronic low back pain and leg pain and a history of lumbosacral spine surgery. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial of single-stage wireless SCS using a wireless percutaneous system, 99 subjects received either 10 kHz high frequency stimulation (HFS) or lower frequency stimulation (LFS) below 1500 Hz (Bolash R, Creamer M, Rauck R, et al. Wireless high frequency spinal cord stimulation (10 kHz) compared to multi-waveform low frequency spinal cord stimulation in the management of chronic pain in failed back surgery syndrome subjects: preliminary results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. Pain Med 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnz019). In this report, we assess the 30-day trial success rate (≥50% pain relief from baseline) and complications. RESULTS: The overall trial success rate was 88% (87/99): 92% (46/50) for HFS and 84% (41/49) for LFS (NS). The trial success rate in the 64 subjects with predominant low back pain was 92% (59/64) vs. 80% (28/35) in those with leg pain ≥ low back pain (NS). During the screening trial, one infection occurred (1%) and one subject withdrew and was explanted (1%). Electrode migrations were seen on routine follow-up x-rays in 10 cases (10%). CONCLUSION: Using wireless SCS devices that allow for an extended trial period and evaluation of various waveforms, we observed a high rate trial success rate with both HFS and LFS waveforms, with minimal incidence of infection. Long-term follow-up will address the cost-effectiveness and morbidity associated with this technology, which facilitates single-stage treatment.

Wireless High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation (10 kHz) Compared with Multiwaveform Low-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Management of Chronic Pain in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Subjects: Preliminary Results of a Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the wireless Freedom Spinal Cord Stimulator (WSCS) System for the treatment of chronic back and/or leg pain associated with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) refractory to standard medical treatment utilizing 10-kHz stimulation (high-frequency [HF]) in comparison with 10-1,500-Hz stimulation (low-frequency [LF]) waveforms. METHODS: Ninety-nine subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either HF or LF stimulation waveforms utilizing the same Freedom WSCS System. All subjects were implanted with two 8-electrode arrays in the exact same anatomical positions within the dorsal epidural spinal column, with the top electrode positioned at the T8 and T9 vertebrae levels, respectively, and the wireless receiver placed under the skin in a subcutaneous pocket. RESULTS: Seventy-two (HF: N = 38; LF: N = 34) subjects had completed the six-month follow-up after an initial 30-day trial period at the time of this report. For both the HF and LF arms, mean visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain decreased significantly: 77% and 76%, respectively, for the HF arm and 64% and 64%, respectively, for the LF arm. In addition, most subjects experienced significant improvements in VAS, Oswestry Disability Index, European Quality of Life 5 Dimension questionnaire, Patient Global Impression of Change, and sleep duration. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results demonstrate that WSCS devices can reduce FBSS chronic pain substantially with both LF and HF stimulation waveforms over a seven-month period (30-day trial period and six-month post-trial evaluation).

Long-term Outcomes Using Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: Providing durable long-term pain control for patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is challenging. A multidisciplinary approach focused on physical therapy is frequently prescribed, with opioids and invasive procedures reserved for those challenged by functional progression. In this study, we examined the long-term efficacy of intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) in patients with CRPS at our institution. METHODS: Patients with CRPS implanted with an IDDS between 2000 and 2013 who had four or more years of continuous follow-up were included in the analysis. The outcome variables of interest were pain intensity and oral opioid intake. The primary predictor of interest was dose of intrathecal opioids, with ziconotide, bupivacaine, and clonidine characterized as binary secondary predictors. RESULTS: Of the 1,653 IDDS identified, 62 were implanted primarily for CRPS-related pain. Of these, 26 had four or more years of complete follow-up data. Pain scores did not significantly decrease over time, and we observed no correlation between pain intensity and use of any intrathecal medication. Although oral opioid intake decreased over time, intrathecal opioid dose did not affect oral opioid consumption. Ziconotide was associated with a hastening of the decrease in oral opioid intake, whereas the presence of bupivacaine paradoxically increased oral opioid intake. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that intrathecal opioid dose was not associated with long-term decreases in oral opioid intake. Additionally, ziconotide was associated with a decrease in oral opioid intake over the four-year follow-up, and bupivacaine was associated with an increase in oral opioid intake. Our study examines the long-term effectiveness of intrathecal medications in managing pain in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. We present a detailed follow-up over four years for 26 patients, tracking oral opiate intake, pain scores, and intrathecal pump settings. Our findings suggest that intrathecal opiates may not be effective in reducing oral opiate intake, ziconotide may hasten a decrease in intake, and bupivacaine may lead to an increase in intake.

Rhomboid Intercostal and Subserratus Plane Block: A Cadaveric and Clinical Evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Fascial plane blocks are rapidly emerging to provide safe, feasible alternatives to epidural analgesia for thoracic and abdominal pain. We define a new option for chest wall and upper abdominal analgesia, termed the rhomboid intercostal and subserratus plane (RISS) block. The RISS tissue plane extends deep to the erector spinae muscle medially and deep to the serratus anterior muscle laterally. We describe a 2-part proof-of-concept study to validate the RISS block, including a cadaveric study to evaluate injectate spread and a retrospective case series to assess dermatomal coverage and analgesic efficacy. METHODS: For the cadaveric portion of the study, bilateral ultrasound-guided RISS blocks were performed on 6 fresh cadavers with 30 mL of 0.5% methylcellulose with india ink. For the retrospective case series, we present 15 patients who underwent RISS block or RISS catheter insertion for heterogeneous indications including abdominal surgery, rib fractures, chest tube-associated pain, or postoperative incisional chest wall pain. RESULTS: In the cadaveric specimens, we identified staining of the lateral branches of the intercostal nerves from T3 to T9 reaching the posterior primary rami deep to the erector spinae muscle medially. In the clinical case series, dermatomal coverage was observed in the anterior hemithorax with visual analog pain scores less than 5 in patients who underwent both single-shot and continuous catheter infusions. CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary cadaveric and clinical data suggest that RISS block anesthetizes the lateral cutaneous branches of the thoracic intercostal nerves and can be used in multiple clinical settings for chest wall and upper abdominal analgesia.

Efficacy of a Targeted Drug Delivery on-Demand Bolus Option for Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Intrathecal targeted drug delivery systems historically required physician office visits for dose adjustment to manage fluctuating pain. A wireless device now enables patients to supplement their basal intrathecal infusion with a programmed on-demand bolus dose. We sought to quantify the change in oral breakthrough opioid need associated with the use of an intrathecal bolus in comparison to those treated with the basal infusion alone. METHODS: Demographic, dosage, bolus usage and longevity data were extracted from the historical medical record of 69 patients (18/51 bolus/nonbolus) followed continuously at our center. Medication consumption and Pain Disability Index measures were obtained at baseline and most recent follow-up. RESULTS: Among patients with the bolus option, only 2 (11%; confidence interval [CI] 0% to 26%) continued to require oral opiates to manage breakthrough pain compared to 29 (57%; CI 43% to 71%) without the bolus option. The Pain Disability Index score decreased by 19% in patients with the bolus option and by 25% in those with the basal infusion. Total daily intrathecal opioid intake was 34% lower in the group with the bolus device. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing an intrathecal bolus to treat incident pain was a safe way to manage unpredictable breakthrough pain and may represent a cost-saving opportunity by eliminating the need for oral analgesic medications.

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.