6. Persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS) refers to chronic axial pain and/or extremity pain. Two subtypes have been defined: PSPS-type 1 is chronic pain without previous spinal surgery and PSPS-type 2 is chronic pain, persisting after spine surgery, and is formerly known as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) or post-laminectomy syndrome. The etiology of PSPS-type 2 can be gleaned using elements from the patient history, physical examination, and additional medical imaging. Origins of persistent pain following spinal surgery may be categorized into an inappropriate procedure (eg a lumbar fusion at an incorrect level or for sacroiliac joint [SIJ] pain); technical failure (eg operation at non-affected levels, retained disk fragment, pseudoarthrosis), biomechanical sequelae of surgery (eg adjacent segment disease or SIJ pain after a fusion to the sacrum, muscle wasting, spinal instability); and complications (eg battered root syndrome, excessive epidural fibrosis, and arachnoiditis), or undetermined. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of PSPS-type 2 was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: There is low-quality evidence for the efficacy of conservative treatments including exercise, rehabilitation, manipulation, and behavioral therapy, and very limited evidence for the pharmacological treatment of PSPS-type 2. Interventional treatments such as pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the dorsal root ganglia, epidural adhesiolysis, and spinal endoscopy (epiduroscopy) might be beneficial in patients with PSPS-type 2. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be an effective treatment for chronic, intractable neuropathic limb pain, and possibly well-selected candidates with axial pain. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of PSPS-type 2 is based on patient history, clinical examination, and medical imaging. Low-quality evidence exists for conservative interventions. Pulsed radiofrequency, adhesiolysis and SCS have a higher level of evidence with a high safety margin and should be considered as interventional treatment options when conservative treatment fails.

Effectiveness of combined dorsal root ganglion and spinal cord stimulation: a retrospective, single-centre case series for chronic focal neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE: This case series retrospectively reviewed the outcomes in patients implanted with combined, synchronous dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) connected to a single implantable pulse generator (IPG) in a tertiary referral neuromodulation centre in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Twenty-six patients underwent a trial of DRGS+SCS for treating focal neuropathic pain between January 2016 and December 2019, with a follow-up in February 2022. A Transgrade approach was employed for DRGS. Patients were provided with 3 possible stimulation programs: DRGS-only, SCS-only, or DRGS+SCS. Patients were assessed for pain intensity, patients' global impression of change (PGIC), preferred lead(s) and complications. RESULTS: Twenty patients were successful and went on for full implantation. The most common diagnosis was Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. After an average of 3.1 years follow-up, 1 patient was lost to follow-up, and 2 were non-responders. Of the remaining 17 patients, 16 (94%) continued to report a PGIC of 7. The average pain intensity at Baseline was 8.5 on an NRS scale of 0-10. At the last follow-up, the average NRS reduction overall was 78.9% with no statistical difference between those preferring DRGS+SCS (n = 9), SCS-only (n = 3) and DRGS-only (n = 5). The combination of DRGS+SCS was preferred by 53% at the last follow-up. There were no serious neurological complications. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective case series demonstrates the potential effectiveness of combined DRGS+SCS with sustained analgesia observed at an average follow-up of over 3 years. Implanting combined DRGS+SCS may provide programming flexibility and therapeutic alternatives.

Radiographic lead migration in percutaneous spinal cord stimulator trials.

INTRODUCTION: Lead migration during spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trials is relatively neglected in the literature and presents a different set of challenges compared with fully implanted leads. There is no consensus on what constitutes a clinically significant amount of radiographic lead migration during SCS trials. We wished to evaluate the incidence and extent of radiographic lead migration during percutaneous SCS trials, to investigate the risk factors for lead migration and whether this has impacted on trial success. METHODS: This prospective observational study of percutaneous SCS trials took place in a tertiary referral center in the UK between April 2021 and January 2022. Radiographs of SCS lead position were taken at baseline and prior to lead removal. Lead migration ≥50% of a vertebral level was deemed significant. RESULTS: One hundred trials were included comprising 162 leads. Mean migration distance was 0.55 vertebral levels (SD 0.85) or 12.5 mm (SD 18.2) in a caudal direction. Significant radiographic migration occurred in 50% of all leads (81 of 162 leads), at least one lead in 62% of cases and all leads in 44% of cases. Radiographic lead migration was not found to be associated with reduced trial success. A single lead and mechanical anchors were associated with greater incidence of lead migration. CONCLUSION: Radiographic lead migration of approximately half of a vertebral level in a caudal direction can be expected during percutaneous SCS trials and this can be anticipated by siting leads half of a vertebral level higher to accommodate for this. Additional factors should be considered in the setting of radiographic lead migration to determine whether this can be considered clinically significant.

Best Practices from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) for Clinical Research During a Pandemic or Emergency.

The COVID-19 pandemic caught many areas of medicine in a state of unpreparedness for conducting research and completing ongoing projects during a global crisis, including the field of pain medicine. Waves of infection led to a disjointed ability to provide care and conduct clinical research. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Research Group has created guidance for pragmatic and ethical considerations for research during future emergency or disaster situations. This analysis uses governmental guidance, scientific best practices, and expert opinion to address procedure-based or device-based clinical trials during such times. Current literature offers limited recommendations on this important issue, and the findings of this group fill a void for protocols to improve patient safety and efficacy, especially as we anticipate the impact of future disasters and spreading global infectious diseases. We recommend local adaptations to best practices and innovations to enable continued research while respecting the stressors to the research subjects, investigator teams, health-care systems, and to local infrastructure.

Cerebrospinal fluid immune cells appear similar across neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain conditions.

Background: Microglia have been implicated in the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain. Here, we sought to investigate whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) might be used as a proxy-measure of microglial activation in human participants. Methods: We preformed fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) of CSF immune cell populations derived from individuals who experienced pain with neuropathic features. We sorted CD4+, CD8+ T cells and monocytes and analyzed their transcriptome using RNA sequencing. We also performed Cellular Indexing of Transcriptomes and Epitopes (CITE) sequencing to characterize the expression of all CSF immune cells in a patient with postherpetic neuralgia and in a patient with neuropathic pain after failed back surgery. Results: Immune cell numbers and phenotypes were not obviously different between individuals regardless of the etiology of their pain. This was true when examining our own dataset, as well as when comparing it to previously published single-cell RNA sequencing data of human CSF. In all instances, CSF monocytes showed expression of myeloid cell markers commonly associated with microglia ( P2RY12, TMEM119 and OLFML3), which will make it difficult to ascertain the origin of CSF proteins: do they derive directly from circulating CSF monocytes or could some originate in spinal cord microglia in the parenchyma? Conclusions: We conclude that it will not be straightforward to use CSF as a biomarker for microglial function in humans.

Safety and Efficacy of 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Refractory Chronic Migraine: A Prospective Long-Term Open-Label Study.

BACKGROUND: Refractory chronic migraine (rCM) is a highly disabling condition for which novel safe and effective treatments are needed. Safety and long-term efficacy of paresthesia-free high cervical 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) were here prospectively evaluated for the treatment of rCM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty adults with rCM (mean numbers of preventive treatments failed: 12.2 ± 3.1) were enrolled in this single-center, open-label, prospective study and implanted with a 10 kHz SCS system (Senza™ system, Nevro Corp), with the distal tip of the lead(s) positioned epidurally at the C2 vertebral level. Safety and effectiveness outcomes, such as adverse events, headache and migraine reductions, responder rates, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), and Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life (MSQ), were captured up to 52 weeks after implantation. RESULTS: Compared to baseline, at 52 weeks postimplantation, there was a significant reduction of mean monthly migraine days (MMD) by 9.3 days (p < 0.001). Sixty percent and 50% of patients obtained respectively at least 30% and at least 50% reduction in mean MMD. By week 52, 50% of patients' chronic pattern converted to an episodic pattern. The proportion of subjects classified with severe headache-related disability on the HIT-6, decreased from 100% to 60% at week 52. Meaningful improvements of headache-related quality of life measured by the MSQ scale were observed with mean gain of 24.9 ± 23.1 (p < 0.001) points at 52 weeks. No unanticipated adverse device effects occurred. No patients required any additional device surgical revision. CONCLUSION: 10 kHz SCS may a be safe and effective neurostimulation option for rCM patients. The paresthesia-free waveform constitutes an unprecedented advantage for future methodologically sound sham-controlled studies in headache neuromodulation.

Comparison of Paresthesia Mapping With Anatomic Placement in Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Long-Term Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover CRISP Study.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for chronic intractable pain. Conventional SCS involves electrode placement based on intraoperative paresthesia mapping; however, newer paradigms like burst may allow for anatomic placement of leads. Here, for the first time, we report the one-year safety and efficacy of burst SCS delivered using a lead placed with conventional, paresthesia mapping, or anatomic placement approach in subjects with chronic low back pain (CLBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects with CLBP were implanted with two leads. The first lead was placed to cross the T8/T9 disc and active contacts for this lead were chosen through paresthesia mapping. The second lead was placed at the T9/T10 spinal anatomic landmark. Subjects initially underwent a four-week, double-blinded, crossover trial with a two-week testing period with burst SCS delivered through each lead in a random order. At the end of trial period, subjects expressed their preference for one of the two leads. Subsequently, subjects received burst SCS with the preferred lead and were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months. Pain intensity (visual analog scale), quality-of-life (EuroQol-5D instrument), and disability (Oswestry Disability Index) were evaluated at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-three subjects successfully completed the trial. Twenty-one preferred the paresthesia mapping lead and 21 preferred the anatomic placement lead. Anatomic placement lead was activated in one subject who had no preference. The pain scores (for back and leg) significantly improved from baseline for both lead placement groups at all follow-up time points, with no significant between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that equivalent clinical benefits could be achieved with burst SCS using either paresthesia mapping or anatomic landmark-based approaches for lead placement. Nonparesthesia-based approaches, such as anatomic landmark-based lead placement investigated here, have the potential to simplify implantation of SCS and improve current surgical practice.

A Call to Action Toward Optimizing the Electrical Dose Received by Neural Targets in Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy for Neuropathic Pain.

Spinal cord stimulation has seen unprecedented growth in new technology in the 50 years since the first subdural implant. As we continue to grow our understanding of spinal cord stimulation and relevant mechanisms of action, novel questions arise as to electrical dosing optimization. Programming adjustment - dose titration - is often a process of trial and error that can be time-consuming and frustrating for both patient and clinician. In this report, we review the current preclinical and clinical knowledge base in order to provide insights that may be helpful in developing more rational approaches to spinal cord stimulation dosing. We also provide key conclusions that may help in directing future research into electrical dosing, given the advent of newer waveforms outside traditional programming parameters.

The Effect of Spinal Cord Stimulation Frequency on the Neural Response and Perceived Sensation in Patients With Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: The effect of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) amplitude on the activation of dorsal column fibres has been widely studied through the recording of Evoked Compound Action Potentials (ECAPs), the sum of all action potentials elicited by an electrical stimulus applied to the fibres. ECAP amplitude grows linearly with stimulus current after a threshold, and a larger ECAP results in a stronger stimulus sensation for patients. This study investigates the effect of stimulus frequency on both the ECAP amplitude as well as the perceived stimulus sensation in patients undergoing SCS therapy for chronic back and/or leg pain. METHODS: Patients suffering with chronic neuropathic lower-back and/or lower-limb pain undergoing an epidural SCS trial were recruited. Patients were implanted according to standard practice, having two 8-contact leads (8 mm inter-electrode spacing) which overlapped 2-4 contacts around the T9/T10 interspace. Both lead together thus spanning about three vertebral levels. Neurophysiological recordings were taken during the patient's trial phase at two routine follow-ups using a custom external stimulator capable of recording ECAPs in real-time from all non-stimulating contacts. Stimulation was performed at various vertebral levels, varying the frequency (ranging from 2 to 455 Hz) while all other stimulating variables were kept constant. During the experiments subjects were asked to rate the stimulation-induced sensation (paraesthesia) on a scale from 0 to 10. RESULTS: Frequency response curves showed an inverse relationship between stimulation sensation strength and ECAP amplitude, with higher frequencies generating smaller ECAPs but stronger stimulation-induced paraesthesia (at constant stimulation amplitude). Both relationships followed logarithmic trends against stimulus frequency meaning that the effects on ECAP amplitude and sensation are larger for smaller frequencies. CONCLUSION: This work supports the hypothesis that SCS-induced paraesthesia is conveyed through both frequency coding and population coding, fitting known psychophysics of tactile sensory information processing. The inverse relationship between ECAP amplitude and sensation for increasing frequencies at fixed stimulus amplitude questions common assumptions of monotonic relationships between ECAP amplitude and sensation strength.

Multicentre, clinical trial of burst spinal cord stimulation for neck and upper limb pain NU-BURST: a trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established therapy for chronic neuropathic pain and most frequently utilised for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS). BurstDR™ also known as DeRidder Burst-SCS, a novel waveform, has demonstrated superiority to conventional tonic stimulation of the thoracic spine in FBSS. There are case reports of an improvement in multidimensional pain outcomes using DeRidder Burst-SCS in the cervical spine for chronic neck and cervical radicular pain. The safety and efficacy of cervical DeRidder Burst-SCS stimulation still however remain undetermined. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicentre feasibility trial evaluating the safety and therapeutic efficacy of DeRidder Burst-SCS stimulation for the treatment of chronic intractable neck pain with or without radiation to the arm, shoulder, and upper back. After baseline evaluation, subjects will undergo an SCS trial using the Abbott Invisible Trial system according to standard clinical procedures. During the trial phase, SCS leads will be implanted in the cervical epidural space. At the end of the SCS trial, subjects experiencing at least 50% pain relief will be considered for permanent implant. Pain intensity, medication usage, and other multidimensional pain outcomes will be collected. The timing of these will be at baseline, end of the SCS trial and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month visits. Incidence of adverse events will be collected throughout the study duration. DISCUSSION: The results of this feasibility study will validate the efficacy and safety of DeRidder Burst-SCS stimulation in the cervical spine. The results obtained in this study will potentially be used to generate a level 1 evidence-based study with formal statistical hypotheses testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03159169.

Cascade Programming for 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Single Center Case Series of 114 Patients With Neuropathic Back and Leg Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Ten kilohertz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is usually initiated in a single-bipolar configuration over the radiological reference point T9/T10 intervertebral disc space for neuropathic back and leg pain. Cascade is a duty-cycled, multi-bipolar contact configuration across an entire eight-contact lead. Potential advantages by using a broader area of SCS coverage include mitigation against minor lead migration and a reduction in the need for reprogramming. We report here the results of a retrospective case series of 114 patients using Cascade. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective data were collected over two years. We selected patients with neuropathic back with or without/leg pain who had a trial of SCS. Pain assessments using Numerical Rating Scales (NRS) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores were collected at baseline, six months, and last follow-up beyond 12 months (mean 15.1 months). Patients were programmed with 10 kHz SCS using Cascade during the trial, which was continued unless reporting inadequate pain relief. Morbidity and deviations from Cascade programming were also obtained. RESULTS: At six months, 87 of 97 (90.6%) patients with active devices were using Cascade and 58 of 72 (81%) patients at the last follow-up >12 months. There was a significant reduction in back NRS (8.3 vs. 3.9 [p < 0.0001], N = 97) and leg pain (7.53 vs. 3.83 [p < 0.0001], N = 77) at 6 months and last follow-up >12 months back (8.3 vs. 3.95 [p < 0.0001] N = 72), leg (7.53 vs. 3.534 [p < 0.0001], N = 58). The PGIC score was 6 of 7 or all of 7 in 72% of patients (70/97) at six months and in 68% (49/72) of patients at the last follow-up beyond 12 months. CONCLUSION: Cascade is an effective programming methodology that may have benefits over a single-bipole configuration for 10 kHz SCS, particularly during a trial of stimulation. Results from this study suggest it is a durable program for patients with neuropathic back and leg pain.

Explant rates of electrical neuromodulation devices in 1177 patients in a single center over an 11-year period.

INTRODUCTION: The publication of explant rates has established risk factors and a definitive objective outcome of failure for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) treating neuropathic pain. We present a UK study analyzing explants of electrical neuromodulation devices for different conditions over 11 years in a single center specializing in neuromodulation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using a departmental database between 2008 and 2019. Explants were analyzed according to condition, mode of stimulation and other demographics using logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier graphs with log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test. RESULTS: Out of a total of 1177 patients, the explant rate was 17.8% at 5 years and 25.2% at 10 years. Loss of efficacy was the most frequent reason for explant 119/181 (65%). Multivariant regression analysis indicated patients with back pain without prior surgery had a reduced risk of explant (p=0.03). Patients with SCS systems that had 10 kHz, options of multiple waveforms, and rechargeable batteries also had a decreased risk of explant (p<0.001). None of these findings were confirmed when comparing Kaplan-Meier graphs, however. Contrary to other studies, we found gender and age were not independent variables for explant. CONCLUSION: These data contribute to a growing list of explant data in the scientific literature and give indications of what factors contribute to long-term utilization of electrical neuromodulation devices.

A Systematic Literature Review of Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for DRG stimulation. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for DRG stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, too small, 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: DRG stimulation has Level II evidence (moderate) based upon one high-quality pivotal randomized controlled trial and two lower-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-level evidence supports DRG stimulation for treating chronic focal neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome.

Cortical Mechanisms of Single-Pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Migraine.

Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (sTMS) of the occipital cortex is an effective migraine treatment. However, its mechanism of action and cortical effects of sTMS in migraine are yet to be elucidated. Using calcium imaging and GCaMP-expressing mice, sTMS did not depolarise neurons and had no effect on vascular tone. Pre-treatment with sTMS, however, significantly affected some characteristics of the cortical spreading depression (CSD) wave, the correlate of migraine aura. sTMS inhibited spontaneous neuronal firing in the visual cortex in a dose-dependent manner and attenuated L-glutamate-evoked firing, but not in the presence of GABAA/B antagonists. In the CSD model, sTMS increased the CSD electrical threshold, but not in the presence of GABAA/B antagonists. We first report here that sTMS at intensities similar to those used in the treatment of migraine, unlike traditional sTMS applied in other neurological fields, does not excite cortical neurons but it reduces spontaneous cortical neuronal activity and suppresses the migraine aura biological substrate, potentially by interacting with GABAergic circuits.

Comparison of Paresthesia Mapping to Anatomical Placement in Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Initial Trial Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Crossover, CRISP Study.

INTRODUCTION: In this prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, crossover study, we compared the therapeutic efficacy of burst SCS delivered using a lead implanted with the paresthesia mapping approach to a lead implanted with an anatomic placement approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects with chronic low back pain were implanted with two leads, one using paresthesia-mapping approach (PM) and the second using anatomical placement procedure (AP). Stimulation contacts were chosen using the standard intraoperative paresthesia-testing procedure for the paresthesia-mapped lead or an activated bipole overlapping the T9-T10 junction for the anatomical lead. Amplitude for either lead was selected such that no sensory percepts were generated. Subjects were assessed at baseline and after a trial period during which they tested each lead for two weeks in random order. Eligible subjects had the option to receive permanent implants using their preferred AP or PM approach at end-of-trial. RESULTS: Of the 53 subjects who completed both trial periods, 43 (81.1%) experienced at least 50% back pain relief with at least one lead. Nearly half of these (20; 46.5%) were profound responders who experienced at least 80% back pain relief with either leads. Primary and secondary outcomes, at the end of trial, showed significant improvements for both AP and PM leads from baseline yet were not significantly different from each other. DISCUSSION: The trial results of this study suggest that similar clinical outcomes can be achieved in burst SCS when performing lead placement either using paresthesia mapping or anatomical placement with imaging references.

Sphenopalatine Ganglion Pulsed Radiofrequency for the Treatment of Refractory Chronic SUNCT and SUNA: A Prospective Case Series.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of sphenopalatine ganglion pulsed radiofrequency (SPG-PRF) for the treatment of patients with refractory chronic short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT) and with cranial autonomic symptoms (SUNA). BACKGROUND: SPG-PRF is a minimally invasive, non-neurodestructive procedure already tested in refractory chronic cluster headache with mixed outcomes. However, no data have been produced in SUNCT/SUNA. METHODS: This was a prospective clinical audit of outcomes. Consecutive patients with chronic SUNCT/SUNA refractory to medical treatments and treated with SPG-PRF, were included in the analysis. The SPG-PRF was performed percutaneously via a lateral, infra-zygomatic approach. Responders were defined as patients with a reduction in number and/or severity of headache episodes by ≥30% for ≥3 months. Responders to the first procedure were offered to have the treatment repeated. RESULTS: Nine patients (6 female) were analyzed. After a median follow-up of 30 months (range 2-30), 7 patients were considered responders to the treatment (77.8%) for a median of 6 months (range: 4-10), 1 patient obtained 40% improvement for 2 months, and 1 patient did experience any improvement. No procedure-related immediate or delayed side effects were reported. Three patients (33.3%) experienced a worsening of the head pain for 2-4 weeks immediately after the procedure. Four responders had SPG-PRF repeated; a reproducible response was obtained in two of them. CONCLUSIONS: In our small series of patients with refractory chronic SUNCT/SUNA, SPG-PRF was a safe and effective treatment modality. The potential reproducible positive effect of subsequent treatments may prevent or delay the use of more invasive and costly interventions for at least a proportion of these patients.

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.

Multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial of 10 khz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for chronic neuropathic low back pain (MODULATE-LBP): a trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic neuropathic low back pain (CNLBP) is a debilitating condition in which established medical treatments seldom alleviate symptoms. Evidence demonstrates that high-frequency 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) reduces pain and improves health-related quality of life in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), but evidence of this effect is limited in individuals with CNLBP who have not had surgery. The aim of this multicentre randomised trial is to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of 10 kHz SCS for this population. METHODS: This is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial with a parallel economic evaluation. A total of 96 patients with CNLBP who have not had spinal surgery will be implanted with an epidural lead and a sham lead outside the epidural space without a screening trial. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to 10 kHz SCS plus usual care (intervention group) or to sham 10 kHz SCS plus usual care (control group) after receiving the full implant. The SCS devices will be programmed identically using a cathodal cascade. Participants will use their handheld programmer to alter the intensity of the stimulation as per routine practice. The primary outcome will be a 7-day daily pain diary. Secondary outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index, complications, EQ-5D-5 L, and health and social care costs. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline (pre-randomisation) and at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after device activation. The primary analyses will compare primary and secondary outcomes between groups at 6 months, while adjusting for baseline outcome scores. Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) will be calculated at 6 months and over the lifetime of the patient. DISCUSSION: The outcomes of this trial will inform clinical practice and healthcare policy on the role of high-frequency 10 kHz SCS for use in patients with CNLBP who have not had surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03470766. Registered on 20 March 2018. DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The NIHR had no role in the study design, writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit for publication. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: AK, SP, DP, SW, RST, AC, SE, LM, RD and JF all contributed to the trial design and to securing trial funding. AK, JR, SP, DP, and SE are involved in the recruitment, the intervention and the follow-up. SW will perform data collection and analysis. RST will be responsible for the statistical analysis, and RD will be responsible for the health economic analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.