Spinal Cord Stimulation With Additional Peripheral Nerve/Field Stimulation Versus Spinal Cord Stimulation Alone on Back Pain and Quality of Life in Patients With Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) or failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) refers to new or persistent pain following spinal surgery for back or leg pain in a subset of patients. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a neuromodulation technique that can be considered in patients with predominant leg pain refractory to conservative treatment. Patients with predominant low back pain benefit less from SCS. Another neuromodulation technique for treatment of chronic low back pain is subcutaneous stimulation or peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS). We investigated the effect of SCS with additional PNFS on pain and quality of life of patients with PSPS compared with that of SCS alone after 12 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a comparative study of patients with PSPS who responded to treatment with either SCS + PNFS or SCS only following a multicenter randomized clinical trial protocol. In total, 75 patients completed the 12-month follow-up: 21 in the SCS-only group and 54 in the SCS + PNFS group. Outcome measures were pain (visual analog scale), quality of life (36-Item Short Form Survey [SF-36]), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), overall health (EuroQol Five-Dimension [EQ-5D]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and pain assessed by the McGill questionnaire. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Both groups showed a significant reduction in back and leg pain at 12 months compared with baseline measurements. No significant differences were found between the groups in effect on both primary (pain) and secondary parameters (SF-36, HADS, EQ-5D, ODI, and McGill pain). CONCLUSION: In a subgroup of patients with chronic back and leg pain, SCS alone provided similar long-term pain relief and quality-of-life improvement as PNFS in addition to SCS. In patients with refractory low back pain not responding to SCS alone, adding PNFS should be recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT01776749.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation as Add-On Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Presently, there is only limited evidence about the cost-effectiveness of peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) and no evidence to date on the cost-effectiveness of PNFS as an add-on therapy to spinal cord stimulation (SCS). In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, PNFS as add-on therapy to SCS demonstrated clinical effectiveness in treating chronic low back pain in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients. We report here the cost-effectiveness of PNFS as additional therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a health-care perspective using the general principles of cost-utility analysis, using empirical data from our multicenter randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of hybrid SCS + PNFS on low back pain in FBSS patients, who were back pain non-responders to initial SCS-therapy, over a time-horizon of three months. Outcome measures were costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost and QALYs were integrated using the net monetary benefit (NMB). Differences in costs, effects, and NMB were analyzed using multilevel regression. Uncertainty surrounding the NMB was presented by cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients implanted with both SCS and PNFS, randomly assigned to a group with PNFS either activated or inactive, completed the controlled part of the study. With mean total costs for the SCS + active PNFS group of €1813.86 (SD €109.78) versus €1103.64 (SD €123.43) for the SCS + inactive PNFS group at three months, we found an incremental cost-utility ratio of €25.311 per QALY gained and a probability being cost-effective of more than 80% given a willingness to pay for a QALY of about €40.000. CONCLUSIONS: From a Dutch national health-care context, when the willingness to pay threshold is up to 60.000 Euros per QALY, PNFS as an add-on therapy to SCS for the treatment of low back pain in FBSS patients has a high probability of being cost-effective.

Long-Term Effect of Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation as Add-On Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation to Treat Low Back Pain in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients: A 12-Month Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVE: Different approaches in neuromodulation have been used to treat chronic low back pain in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients. We previously randomized 52 FBSS patients to be treated with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and additional peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) or SCS alone. At three months, we found a significant reduction of back pain in the PNFS-SCS group compared to the SCS group. In the subsequent open phase part of the study, all patients received optimal SCS and PNFS simultaneously. Here, we present the 12-month follow-up data on back and leg pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data regarding back and leg pain, function, quality of life, patient satisfaction, anxiety and depression, and use of medication were collected by analyzing patients' questionnaires at 12 months and compared with data collected at baseline. Data were analyzed using multilevel regression models. RESULTS: A combined group of 50 subjects completed the 12-month follow-up. Back pain, measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), significantly decreased over this period by 30.0 mm (95% CI: [-37.7/-22.4]; p < 0.001), while leg pain decreased by 43.7 mm (95% CI: [-51.5/-36.2]; p < 0.001). We observed statistically significant improvement in almost all secondary outcome measurements. CONCLUSIONS: At 12-month follow-up, PNFS in addition to SCS continues to provide a statistically significant and clinically relevant relief of low back pain in FBSS patients in whom SCS alone is effective for relief of leg pain only.

Subcutaneous Stimulation as ADD-ON Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation Is Effective in Treating Low Back Pain in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Suppression of back pain with traditional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in failed back surgery syndrome patients is often insufficient. The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of subcutaneous stimulation (SubQ) as ADD-ON therapy to SCS in treating back pain in failed back surgery syndrome patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a minimal pain score of 50 on a 100 mm visual analog scale for both leg and back pain were eligible. If pain reduction after trial SCS was ≥50% for the leg but <50% for the back, patients received additional SubQ leads and were randomized in a 1:1 ratio in a study arm with subcutaneous leads switched on (SubQ ADD-ON) and an arm with subcutaneous leads switched off (Control). The primary outcome was the percentage of the patients, at three months since implantation, with ≥50% reduction of back pain. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients were treated with SCS for leg and back pain. Of these, 52 patients were randomized and allocated to the Control group (n = 24) or to the SubQ ADD-ON group (n = 28). The percentage of patients with ≥50% reduction of back pain was significantly higher in the SubQ ADD-ON group (42.9%) compared to the Control group (4.2%). Mean visual analog scale for back pain, at three months, was a statistically significant 28.1 mm lower in the SubQ ADD-ON group compared to the Control group. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous stimulation as an ADD-ON therapy to SCS is effective in treating back pain in failed back surgery syndrome patients where SCS is only effective for pain in the leg.