Durability of Evoked Compound Action Potential (ECAP)-Controlled, Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in a Real-World European Chronic Pain Population.

INTRODUCTION: Closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (CL-SCS) is a recently introduced system that records evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) from the spinal cord elicited by each stimulation pulse and uses this information to automatically adjust the stimulation strength in real time, known as ECAP-controlled SCS. This innovative system compensates for fluctuations in the distance between the epidural leads and the spinal cord by maintaining the neural response (ECAP) at a predetermined target level. This data collection study was designed to assess the performance of the first CL-SCS system in a real-world setting under normal conditions of use in multiple European centers. The study analyzes and presents clinical outcomes and electrophysiological and device data and compares these findings with those reported in earlier pre-market studies of the same system. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted in 13 European centers and aimed to gather electrophysiological and device data. The study focused on the real-world application of this system in treating chronic pain affecting the trunk and/or limbs, adhering to standard conditions of use. In addition to collecting and analyzing basic demographic information, the study presents data from the inaugural patient cohort permanently implanted at multiple European centers. RESULTS: A significant decrease in pain intensity was observed for overall back or leg pain scores (verbal numerical rating score [VNRS]) between baseline (mean ± standard error of the mean [SEM]; n = 135; 8.2 ± 0.1), 3 months (n = 93; 2.3 ± 0.2), 6 months (n = 82; 2.5 ± 0.3), and 12 months (n = 76; 2.5 ± 0.3). Comparison of overall pain relief (%) to the AVALON and EVOKE studies showed no significant differences at 3 and 12 months between the real-world data release (RWE; 71.3%; 69.6%) and the AVALON (71.2%; 73.6%) and EVOKE (78.1%; 76.7%) studies. Further investigation was undertaken to objectively characterize the physiological parameters of SCS therapy in this cohort using the metrics of percent time above ECAP threshold (%), dose ratio, and dose accuracy (µV), according to previously described methods. Results showed that a median of 90% (40.7-99.2) of stimuli were above the ECAP threshold, with a dose ratio of 1.3 (1.1-1.4) and dose accuracy of 4.4 µV (0.0-7.1), based on data from 236, 230, and 254 patients, respectively. Thus, across all three metrics, the majority of patients had objective therapy metrics corresponding to the highest levels of pain relief in previously reported studies (usage over threshold > 80%, dose ratio > 1.2, and error < 10 µV). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the real-world application of the ECAP-controlled CL-SCS system, highlighting its potential for maintaining effective pain relief and objective neurophysiological therapy metrics at levels seen in randomized control trials, and potential for quantifying patient burden associated with SCS system use via patient-device interaction metrics. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: In the Netherlands, the study is duly registered on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Trial NL7889). In Germany, the study is duly registered as NCT05272137 and in the United Kingdom as ISCRTN27710516 and has been reviewed by the ethics committee in both countries.

The Effect of Various Spinal Neurostimulation Paradigms on the Supraspinal Somatosensory Evoked Response: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal neurostimulation is a therapy for otherwise intractable chronic pain. Spinal neurostimulation includes stimulation of the spinal cord (SCS), dorsal root ganglion (DRGS), and dorsal root entry zone (DREZS). New paresthesia-free neurostimulation paradigms may rely on different mechanisms of action from those of conventional tonic neurostimulation. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the existing knowledge on the effect of spinal neurostimulation on somatosensory processing in patients with chronic pain. We therefore reviewed the existing literature on the effect of various spinal neurostimulation paradigms on the supraspinal somatosensory evoked response (SER). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple scientific data bases were searched for studies that assessed the effect of spinal neurostimulation on the supraspinal SER, evoked by painful or nonpainful peripheral stimuli in patients with chronic pain. We found 205 studies, of which 24 were included. Demographic data, study design, and study outcome were extracted. RESULTS: Of the 24 included studies, 23 used electroencephalography to assess the SER; one study used magnetoencephalography. Fifteen studies evaluated tonic SCS; six studies (also) evaluated paresthesia-free paradigms; three studies evaluated the effect of tonic DRGS or DREZS. Sixteen studies used nonpainful stimuli to elicit the SER, 14 observed a decreased SER amplitude. Ten studies used painful stimuli to elicit the SER, yielding mixed results. DISCUSSION: The included studies suggest that both paresthesia-based and paresthesia-free spinal neurostimulation paradigms can decrease (part of) the SER elicited by a nonpainful peripheral stimulus. The observed SER amplitude reduction likely is the effect of various spinal and supraspinal mechanisms of spinal neurostimulation that also contribute to pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal neurostimulation modulates the processing of a peripherally applied nonpainful stimulus. For painful stimuli, the results are not conclusive. It is not yet clear whether paresthesia-free neurostimulation affects the SER differently from paresthesia-based neurostimulation.

Quantitative Sensory Testing in Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Narrative Review.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitative sensory testing (QST) has been used for decades to study sensory abnormalities in multiple conditions in which the somatosensory system is compromised, including pain. It is commonly used in pharmacologic studies on chronic pain but less so in conjunction with neuromodulation. This review aims to assess the utility of QST in spinal cord stimulation (SCS) protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this narrative review, we searched PubMed for records of studies in which sensory testing has been performed as part of a clinical study on SCS from 1975 onward until October 2023. We focused on studies in which QST has been used to explore the effect of SCS on neuropathic, neuropathic-like, or mixed pain. RESULTS: Our search identified 22 useful studies, all small and exploratory, using heterogeneous methods. Four studies used the full battery of validated German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain QST. There is emerging evidence that assessment dynamic mechanical allodynia (eight studies), and mechanical/thermal temporal summation of pain (eight studies) may have a role in quantifying the response to various SCS waveforms. There also were sporadic reports of improvement of sensory deficits in a proportion of patients with neuropathic pain that warrant further study. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the adoption of QST into future clinical research protocols, using either the full QST protocol or a less time-demanding short-form QST.

How Do We Treat Children with Anterior Cutaneous Nerve Entrapment Syndrome and Is the Biopsychosocial Model Also Being Applied? A Scoping Review.

Background: Evidence-based guidelines for managing anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome (ACNES) in children are absent. The primary aim of this review was to scrutinize the evidence supporting currently used treatment interventions. In accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for managing chronic pain in children, these patients and their families and caregivers should be treated within the context of the biopsychosocial model; pain should not be treated purely as a biomedical problem. Therefore, our second aim was to evaluate whether these interventions are applied within the context of the biopsychosocial model, utilizing an inter- or multidisciplinary approach. Materials and Methods: A scoping review of the literature was conducted to explore treatment strategies for ACNES in children. To ensure a comprehensive overview of published literature on this topic, the search was not restricted based on study type. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts. After excluding records unrelated to children, full texts were screened for inclusion. Any discrepancies in judgement were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Results: Out of 35 relevant titles, 22 were included in this review. Only 4 articles provided information on long-term outcomes. The overall quality of the review was deemed low. The majority of reports did not address treatment or education within the psychological and social domains. A structural qualitative analysis was not feasible due to the substantial heterogeneity of the data. Conclusion: The evidence supporting current treatment strategies in children with ACNES is of low quality. More research is needed to establish an evidence-based treatment algorithm for patients with this challenging pain problem. In line with the WHO recommendation, greater emphasis should be placed on a biopsychosocial approach. The ultimate goal should be the development of a generic treatment algorithm outlining an approach to ACNES applicable to all professionals involved.

The efficacy of oral corticoids in treating complex regional pain syndrome: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: There is growing evidence supporting the role of inflammatory mechanisms in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Corticoids, as most effective anti-inflammatory drugs, are widely used in treating inflammation. The aim of this study was to retrospectively assess the efficacy of oral corticoid treatment in CRPS patients. METHODS: Patients treated at the center of pain medicine in the Erasmus University Medical Centre between January 2015 and January 2020 were approached to partake in this study. Medical records were screened for age, gender, medical history, duration of CRPS, and CRPS severity score. Also, treatment effect, dose and duration, pain scores (NRS), and side effects were extracted from medical records. In addition, global perceived effect was completed in patients treated with corticoids. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and January 2020, twenty-nine CRPS patients received corticoids and met the inclusion criteria. One extreme outlier was excluded and treatment effect was unknown for one patient. Average daily dose was 28.9 mg (range 10-30 mg) and the mean treatment duration was 10.5 days (7-21 days). Fourteen patients (51.9%) responded positively to treatment and thirteen (48.1%) did not respond. Side effects were reported in five patients (17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Corticoid treatment was effective in more than half of the patients. With only mild side effects reported the treatment also appears to be relatively safe. Further research is needed to investigate the efficacy of corticoids in treating (early) CRPS, preferably in an intervention study.

A prospective open label 2-8 year extension of the randomised controlled ICON trial on the long-term efficacy and safety of occipital nerve stimulation in medically intractable chronic cluster headache.

BACKGROUND: We demonstrated in the randomised controlled ICON study that 48-week treatment of medically intractable chronic cluster headache (MICCH) with occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is safe and effective. In L-ICON we prospectively evaluate its long-term effectiveness and safety. METHODS: ICON participants were enrolled in L-ICON immediately after completing ICON. Therefore, earlier ICON participants could be followed longer than later ones. L-ICON inclusion was stopped after the last ICON participant was enrolled in L-ICON and followed for ≥2 years by completing six-monthly questionnaires on attack frequency, side effects, subjective improvement and whether they would recommend ONS to others. Primary outcome was the change in mean weekly attack frequency 2 years after completion of the ICON study compared to baseline. Missing values for log-transformed attack-frequency were imputed for up to 5 years of follow-up. Descriptive analyses are presented as (pooled) geometric or arithmetic means and 95% confidence intervals. FINDINGS: Of 103 eligible participants, 88 (85%) gave informed consent and 73 (83%) were followed for ≥2 year, 61 (69%) ≥ 3 year, 33 (38%) ≥ 5 years and 3 (3%) ≥ 8.5 years. Mean (±SD) follow-up was 4.2 ± 2.2 years for a total of 370 person years (84% of potentially 442 years). The pooled geometric mean (95% CI) weekly attack frequency remained considerably lower after one (4.2; 2.8-6.3), two (5.1; 3.5-7.6) and five years (4.1; 3.0-5.5) compared to baseline (16.2; 14.4-18.3). Of the 49/88 (56%) ICON ≥50% responders, 35/49 (71%) retained this response and 15/39 (38%) ICON non-responders still became a ≥50% responder for at least half the follow-up period. Most participants (69/88; 78% [0.68-0.86]) reported a subjective improvement from baseline at last follow-up and 70/88 (81% [0.70-0.87]) would recommend ONS to others. Hardware-related surgery was required in 44/88 (50%) participants in 112/122 (92%) events (0.35 person-year-1 [0.28-0.41]). We didn't find predictive factors for effectiveness. INTERPRETATION: ONS is a safe, well-tolerated and long-term effective treatment for MICCH. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health, the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and Medtronic.

Is there an association between serum soluble interleukin-2 receptor levels and syndrome severity in persistent Complex Regional Pain Syndrome?

OBJECTIVE: A potentially useful biomarker for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is the serum soluble interleukin-2 receptor (sIL-2R) level, which is a marker for T-cell activation. Elevated serum sIL-2R levels have been described in CRPS patients compared to healthy controls. In T-cell mediated inflammatory diseases such as sarcoidosis and rheumatoid arthritis, the serum sIL-2R levels correlate with disease severity. In this study, we investigate whether an association exists between serum sIL-2R levels in CRPS patients and CRPS severity. METHODS: A cross-sectional cohort study was conducted in a tertiary pain referral center in the Netherlands. Adult CRPS patients diagnosed by the IASP criteria were included between October 2018 until October 2022. The main study parameters were serum sIL-2R levels and the CRPS severity score. RESULTS: Fifty-three CRPS patients were included with a mean syndrome duration of 84 months (Q3 - Q1:180 - 48). The majority had persistent CRPS with a syndrome duration >1 year (n = 52, 98%). The median pain Numerical Rating Score (NRS) was 7 (Q3 - Q1: 8 - 5) and the mean CRPS severity score was 11 (SD ± 2.3). The median serum sIL-2R level was 330 U/mL (Q3 - Q1:451 - 256). No statistically significant correlation was observed between serum sIL-2R levels and the CRPS severity score (rs = 0.15, P = .28). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that serum sIL-2R levels cannot be used as a biomarker for syndrome severity in persistent CRPS (syndrome duration >1 year). Serial measurements of serum sIL-2R from early CRPS to persistent CRPS are needed to investigate whether serum sIL-2R levels can be used to monitor T-cell mediated inflammatory syndrome activity.

Effectiveness of Infliximab in Patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Case Series.

Purpose: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a multi-mechanism disease, with an exaggerated inflammatory response as an important underlying mechanism. Auto-inflammation can theoretically be combated by anti-inflammatories, such as TNF-α inhibitors. This study's aim was to assess the effectiveness of intravenous infliximab, a TNF-α inhibitor, in patients with CRPS. Patients and Methods: CRPS patients treated with infliximab between January 2015 and January 2022 were approached to participate in this retrospective study. Medical records were screened for age, gender, medical history, CRPS duration, and CRPS severity score. Additionally, treatment effect, dose and duration, and side effects were extracted from medical records. Patients who still receive infliximab completed a short global perceived effect survey. Results: Eighteen patients received infliximab, and all but two gave consent. Trial treatment with three sessions of 5 mg/kg intravenous infliximab was completed in 15 patients (93.7%). Eleven patients (73.3%) were categorized as responders with a positive treatment effect. Treatment was continued in nine patients, and seven patients are currently treated. Infliximab dose is 5 mg/kg, and frequency is every four to six weeks. Seven patients completed a global perceived effect survey. All patients reported improvement (median 2, IQR 1-2) and treatment satisfaction (median 1, IQR 1-2). One patient described side effects such as itching and rash. Conclusion: Infliximab proved effective in 11 out of 15 CRPS patients. Seven patients are still being treated. Further research is needed on the role of infliximab in the treatment of CRPS and possible predictors of response to treatment.

Evidence-based consensus guidelines on patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.

Intermittent versus continuous esketamine infusions for long-term pain modulation in complex regional pain syndrome: protocol of a randomized controlled non-inferiority study (KetCRPS-2).

BACKGROUND: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition of an extremity. While achieving pain relief in CRPS is challenging, esketamine infusions can accomplish pain relief for several weeks post-infusion in a subgroup of CRPS patients. Unfortunately, CRPS esketamine protocols are very heterogeneous in advice on dosage, administration and treatment setting. Currently, no trials are available that study differences between intermittent and continuous esketamine infusions for CRPS. With the current situation of bed shortages, it is difficult to admit patients for several consecutive days for inpatient esketamine treatments. In this study, we investigate whether 6 intermittent outpatient esketamine treatments are not inferior to a continuous 6-day inpatient esketamine treatment in establishing pain relief. In addition, several secondary study parameters will be assessed in order to investigate mechanisms responsible for pain relief by esketamine infusions. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness will be analyzed. METHODS: In this RCT, the primary objective is to demonstrate that an intermittent esketamine dosing regimen is non-inferior to a continuous esketamine dosing regimen at 3 months follow-up. We will include 60 adult CRPS patients. The inpatient treatment group receives a continuous intravenous esketamine infusion for 6 consecutive days. The outpatient treatment group receives a 6-hour intravenous esketamine infusion every 2 weeks for 3 months. Esketamine dose will be individually tailored and is started at 0.05 mg/kg/h and can be increased to a maximum of 0.2 mg/kg/h. Each patient will be followed for 6 months. The primary study parameter is perceived pain intensity, measured by an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale. Secondary study parameters are conditioned pain modulation, quantitative sensory testing, adverse events, thermography, blood inflammatory parameter, questionnaires about functionality, quality of life and mood and costs per patient. DISCUSSION: If our study reveals non-inferiority between intermittent and continuous esketamine infusions, these findings can be beneficial to increase the availability and flexibility of esketamine infusions through outpatient treatments. Furthermore, the costs of outpatient esketamine infusions could be lower than inpatient esketamine infusions. In addition, secondary parameters may predict response to esketamine treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05212571 , date of registration 01-28-2022. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 3, February 2022.

Mapping Oswestry Disability Index Responses to EQ-5D-3L Utility Values: Are Cost-Utility Results Valid?

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate approaches for mapping Oswestry Disability Index responses to 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values and to evaluate the impact of using mapped utility values on cost-utility results compared with published regression models. METHODS: Three response mapping approaches were developed in a random sample of 70% of 18 692 patients with low back pain: nonparametric approach (Non-p), nonparametric approach excluding logical inconsistencies (Non-peLI), and ordinal logistic regression (OLR). Performance was assessed in the remaining 30% using R-square (R2), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean absolute error (MAE). To evaluate whether MAEs and their 95% limits of agreement (LA) were clinically relevant, a minimally clinically important difference of 0.074 was used. Probabilities of cost-effectiveness estimated using observed and mapped utility values were compared in 2 economic evaluations. RESULTS: The Non-p performed the best (R2 = 0.43; RMSE = 0.22; MAE = 0.03; 95% LA = -0.40 to 0.47) compared with the Non-peLI (R2 = 0.07; RMSE = 0.29; MAE = -0.15; 95% LA = -0.63 to 0.34) and OLR (R2 = 0.22; RMSE = 0.26; MAE = 0.02; 95% LA = -0.49 to 0.53). MAEs were lower than the minimally clinically important difference for the Non-p and OLR but not for the Non-peLI. Differences in probabilities of cost-effectiveness ranged from 1% to 4% (Non-p), 0.1% to 9% (Non-peLI), and 0.1% to 20% (OLR). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the developed response mapping approaches are not valid for estimating individual patients' 3-level version of EQ-5D utility values, and-depending on the approach-may considerably affect cost-utility results. The developed approaches did not perform better than previously published regression-based models and are therefore not recommended for use in economic evaluations.

Heterogeneous Cortical Effects of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: The understanding of the cortical effects of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remains limited. Multiple studies have investigated the effects of SCS in resting-state electroencephalography. However, owing to the large variation in reported outcomes, we aimed to describe the differential cortical responses between two types of SCS and between responders and nonresponders using magnetoencephalography (MEG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted 5-minute resting-state MEG recordings in 25 patients with chronic pain with active SCS in three sessions, each after a one-week exposure to tonic, burst, or sham SCS. We extracted six spectral features from the measured neurophysiological signals: the alpha peak frequency; alpha power ratio (power 7-9 Hz/power 9-11 Hz); and average power in the theta (4-7.5 Hz), alpha (8-12.5 Hz), beta (13-30 Hz), and low-gamma (30.5-60 Hz) frequency bands. We compared these features (using nonparametric permutation t-tests) for MEG sensor and cortical map effects across stimulation paradigms, between participants who reported low (< 5, responders) vs high (≥ 5, nonresponders) pain scores, and in three representative participants. RESULTS: We found statistically significant (p < 0.05, false discovery rate corrected) increased MEG sensor signal power below 3 Hz in response to burst SCS compared with tonic and sham SCS. We did not find statistically significant differences (all p > 0.05) between the power spectra of responders and nonresponders. Our data did not show statistically significant differences in the spectral features of interest among the three stimulation paradigms or between responders and nonresponders. These results were confirmed by the MEG cortical maps. However, we did identify certain trends in the MEG source maps for all comparisons and several features, with substantial variation across participants. CONCLUSIONS: The considerable variation in cortical responses to the various SCS treatment options necessitates studies with sample sizes larger than commonly reported in the field and more personalized treatment plans. Studies with a finer stratification between responders and nonresponders are required to advance the knowledge on SCS treatment effects.

A Review of Effects of Spinal Cord Stimulation on Spectral Features in Resting-State Electroencephalography.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for patients with refractory chronic pain syndromes. Although studies have shown that SCS has both spinal and supraspinal effects, the current understanding of cortical effects is still limited. Neuroimaging techniques, such as magnetoencephalography (MEG) and electroencephalography (EEG), combined here as M/EEG, can reveal modulations in ongoing resting-state cortical activity. We aim to provide an overview of available literature on resting-state M/EEG in patients with chronic pain who have been treated with SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched multiple online data bases for studies on SCS, chronic pain, and resting-state M/EEG. Primary outcome measures were changes in spectral features, combined with brain regions in which these changes occurred. RESULTS: We included eight studies reporting various SCS paradigms (tonic, burst, high-dose, and high-frequency stimulation) and revealing heterogeneity in outcome parameters. We summarized changes in cortical activity in various frequency bands: theta (4-7 Hz), alpha (7-12 Hz), beta (13-30 Hz), and gamma (30-44 Hz). In multiple studies, the somatosensory cortex showed modulation of cortical activity under tonic, burst, and high-frequency stimulation. Changes in connectivity were found in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, and parahippocampus. CONCLUSIONS: The large heterogeneity observed in outcome measures is probably caused by the large variety in study designs, stimulation paradigms, and spectral features studied. Paresthesia-free paradigms have been compared with tonic stimulation in multiple studies. These studies suggest modulation of medial, lateral, and descending pathways for paresthesia-free stimulation, whereas tonic stimulation predominantly modulates lateral and descending pathways. Moreover, multiple studies have reported an increased alpha peak frequency, increased alpha power, and/or decreased theta power when SCS was compared with baseline, indicating modulation of thalamocortical pathways. Further studies with well-defined groups of responders and nonresponders to SCS are recommended to independently study the cortical effects of pain relief and SCS.

Comparing the Efficacy of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation With Conventional Medical Management in Patients With Chronic Postsurgical Inguinal Pain: Post Hoc Analyzed Results of the SMASHING Study.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 10% of patients who undergo inguinal hernia repair or Pfannenstiel incision develop chronic (> three months) postsurgical inguinal pain (PSIP). If medication or peripheral nerve blocks fail, a neurectomy is the treatment of choice. However, some patients do not respond to this treatment. In such cases, stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) appears to significantly reduce chronic PSIP in selected patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized controlled study, DRG stimulation was compared with conventional medical management (CMM) (noninvasive treatments, such as medication, transcutaneous electric neurostimulation, and rehabilitation therapy) in patients with PSIP that was resistant to a neurectomy. Patients were recruited at a tertiary referral center for groin pain (SolviMáx, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) between March 2015 and November 2016. Suitability for implantation was assessed according to the Dutch Neuromodulation Association guidelines. The sponsor discontinued the study early owing to slow enrollment. Of 78 planned patients, 18 were randomized (DRG and CMM groups each had nine patients). Six patients with CMM (67%) crossed over to DRG stimulation at the six-month mark. RESULTS: Fifteen of the 18 patients met the six-month primary end point with a complete data set for a per-protocol analysis. Three patients with DRG stimulation had a negative trial and were lost to follow-up. The average pain reduction was 50% in the DRG stimulation and crossover group (from 6.60 ± 1.24 to 3.28 ± 2.30, p = 0.0029). Conversely, a 13% increase in pain was observed in patients with CMM (from 6.13 ± 2.24 to 6.89 ± 1.24, p = 0.42). Nine patients with DRG stimulation experienced a total of 19 adverse events, such as lead dislocation and pain at the implantation site. CONCLUSIONS: DRG stimulation is a promising effective therapy for pain relief in patients with PSIP resistant to conventional treatment modalities; larger studies should confirm this. The frequency of side effects should be a concern in a new study. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02349659.

Allodynia, Hyperalgesia, (Quantitative) Sensory Testing and Conditioned Pain Modulation in Patients With Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Before and After Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic debilitating disease characterized by sensory abnormalities. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for CRPS, but few studies have investigated the effects of SCS therapy on sensory characteristics. Therefore, this study investigated the effect of SCS on allodynia, hyperalgesia, electrical quantitative sensory testing (QST) parameters, and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) effect. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 36655259). Patients with CRPS in one extremity and eligible for SCS were included. The outcome parameters allodynia (symptom and sign), hyperalgesia (symptom), sensory thresholds with QST, CPM effect, and pain scores were tested before and after three months of SCS (40-Hz tonic SCS). Both the CRPS-affected extremity and the contralateral, clinically unaffected extremity were used to test three sensory thresholds with electrical QST: current perception threshold (CPT), pain perception threshold (PPT), and pain tolerance threshold (PTT). The PTT also was used as a test stimulus for the CPM paradigm both before and after the conditioning ice-water test. Nonparametric testing was used for all statistical analyses. RESULTS: In total, 31 patients were included for analysis. Pain, allodynia (sign and symptom), and hyperalgesia (symptom) were all significantly reduced after SCS therapy. On the unaffected side, none of the QST thresholds (CPT, PPT, and PTT) was significantly altered after SCS therapy. However, the CPT on the CRPS-affected side was significantly increased after SCS therapy. A CPM effect was present both before and after SCS. CONCLUSIONS: Standard 40-Hz tonic SCS significantly reduces pain, hyperalgesia, and allodynia in patients with CRPS. These findings suggest that SCS therapy should not be withheld from patients who suffer from allodynia and hyperalgesia, which contradicts previous findings derived from retrospective analysis and animal research. ISRCTN Registry: The ISRCTN registration number for the study is ISRCTN 36655259.

Different Types of Pain in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Require a Personalized Treatment Strategy.

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a debilitating painful state of an extremity that can develop after trauma. CRPS is diagnosed by the new International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) diagnostic criteria for CRPS. The syndrome is characterized by continuing regional pain with abnormal sensory, motor, sudomotor, vasomotor, edema, and/or trophic signs. The clinical presentation of CRPS can be very heterogeneous because CRPS is a multi-mechanism syndrome. Therefore, mechanism-based subgroups have been suggested to personalize treatment for CRPS. Additionally, the presentation of symptom pain may also be able to identify different subgroups of CRPS. In this review, the types of pain recognized by the IASP-nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain-will be discussed as possible subgroups for CRPS. Each pain type should be identified in CRPS patients, with a thorough history taking, physical examination, and diagnostic tests or (novel) biomarkers to optimize treatment effectiveness. Over the course of the syndrome, patients with CRPS probably experience more than one distinct pain type. Therefore, pain specialists should be alert to not only adjust their treatment if underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms tend to change but also to personalize the treatment of the associated type of pain in the CRPS patient.

Glucocorticoid treatment in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The pathophysiology of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is multifactorial, with an exaggerated inflammatory response being the most prominent. Treatment for CRPS is carried out according to the presenting pathophysiological mechanism. Anti-inflammatory treatment with glucocorticoids is therefore an option. The aim of this study was to systematically review the efficacy of glucocorticoids in CRPS. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched for articles focusing on glucocorticoid treatment and CRPS. Screening based on title and abstract was followed by full-text reading (including reference lists) to determine the final set of relevant articles. Bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias-tool for randomized trials (Rob2). RESULTS: Forty-one studies were included, which reported on 1208 CRPS patients. A wide variety of glucocorticoid administration strategies were applied, with oral being the most frequently chosen. Additionally, researchers found great heterogeneity in outcome parameters, including clinical symptoms, pain relief and range of motion. The use of glucocorticoids caused an improvement of parameters in all but two studies. In particular, improvement in pain relief and range of motion were reported. Using glucocorticoids in CRPS of longer duration (i.e. more than 3 months) appears to be less effective. CONCLUSION: Based on the present review, there is evidence to support glucocorticoid treatment in CRPS. However, the ideal administration route and dose remain unclear. We therefore recommend future research via an intervention study, as well as studies on the aetiological mechanisms and corresponding optimal treatment because CRPS pathogenesis is only partially understood. SIGNIFICANCE: Several studies point towards CRPS being an inflammatory response after tissue or nerve damage, with higher levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in serum, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid and artificial skin blisters. Inflammation provides a possible role for glucocorticoids in treating CRPS. This systematic review provides a structured overview of glucocorticoid treatment in patients with CRPS. Improvement in pain and range of motion is shown. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO-CRD42020144671.

Development and validation of a multivariable prediction model for early prediction of chronic postsurgical pain in adults: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of patients at risk of developing chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is an essential step in reducing pain chronification in postsurgical patients. We aimed to develop and validate a prognostic model for the early prediction of CPSP including pain characteristics indicating altered pain processing within 2 weeks after surgery. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients undergoing orthopaedic, vascular, trauma, or general surgery between 2018 and 2019. Multivariable logistic regression models for CPSP were developed using data from the University Medical Centre (UMC) Utrecht and validated in data from the Erasmus UMC Rotterdam, The Netherlands. RESULTS: In the development (n=344) and the validation (n=150) cohorts, 28.8% and 21.3% of patients reported CPSP. The best performing model (area under the curve=0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.87) included preoperative treatment with opioids (odds ratio [OR]=4.04; 95% CI, 2.13-7.70), bone surgery (OR=2.01; 95% CI, 1.10-3.67), numerical rating scale pain score on postoperative day 14 (OR=1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.83), and the presence of painful cold within the painful area 2 weeks after surgery (OR=4.85; 95% CI, 1.85-12.68). Predictive performance was confirmed by external validation. CONCLUSIONS: As only four easily obtainable predictors are necessary for reliable CPSP prediction, the models are useful for the clinician to be alerted to further assess and treat individual patients at risk. Identification of the presence of painful cold within 2 weeks after surgery as a strong predictor supports altered pain processing as an important contributor to CPSP development.