A Systematic Guideline by the ASPN Workgroup on the Evidence, Education, and Treatment Algorithm for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: SWEET.

Introduction: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a leading cause of pain and disability globally with a lack of consensus on the appropriate treatment of those suffering from this condition. Recent advancements in both pharmacotherapy and interventional approaches have broadened the treatment options for PDN. There exists a need for a comprehensive guideline for the safe and effective treatment of patients suffering from PDN. Objective: The SWEET Guideline was developed to provide clinicians with the most comprehensive guideline for the safe and appropriate treatment of patients suffering from PDN. Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations for PDN. A multidisciplinary group of international experts developed the SWEET guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Meeting Abstracts, and Scopus to identify and compile the evidence for diabetic neuropathy pain treatments (per section as listed in the manuscript) for the treatment of pain. Manuscripts from 2000-present were included in the search process. Results: After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN SWEET guideline was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades for most available treatments for PDN utilizing the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria. Conclusion: The ASPN SWEET Guideline represents the most comprehensive review of the available treatments for PDN and their appropriate and safe utilization.

Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review.

INTRODUCTION: Interventional treatment options for the lumbar degenerative spine have undergone a significant amount of innovation over the last decade. As new technologies emerge, along with the surgical specialty expansion, there is no manuscript that utilizes a review of surgical treatments with evidence rankings from multiple specialties, namely, the interventional pain and spine communities. Through the Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS), the purpose of this manuscript is to provide a balanced evidence review of available surgical treatments. METHODS: The PSPS Research Committee created a working group that performed a comprehensive literature search on available surgical technologies for the treatment of the degenerative spine, utilizing the ranking assessment based on USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Taskforce) and NASS (North American Spine Society) criteria. RESULTS: The surgical treatments were separated based on disease process, including treatments for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: There is emerging and significant evidence to support multiple approaches to treat the symptomatic lumbar degenerative spine. As new technologies become available, training, education, credentialing, and peer review are essential for optimizing patient safety and successful outcomes.

Prospective Six-Month Analysis of Multiarea Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Correlating Intraoperative Neuromonitoring With Postoperative Programming and Clinical Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: DeRidder burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown superior relief from overall pain to traditional tonic neurostimulation therapies and a reduction in back and leg pain. However, nearly 80% of patients have two or more noncontiguous pain areas. This affects the ability to effectively program stimulation and deliver long-term efficacy of the therapy. Multiple DeRidder burst region programming is an option to treat multisite pain by interleaving stimulation at multiple areas along the spinal cord. Previous intraoperative neuromonitoring studies have shown that DeRidder burst stimulation provides broader myotomal coverage at a lower recruitment threshold. The goal of this study is to correlate intraoperative electromyogram (EMG) threshold and postsynaptic excitability with postoperative paresthesia thresholds and optimal burst stimulation programming. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Neuromonitoring was performed during permanent implant of SCS leads in ten patients diagnosed with chronic intractable back and/or leg pain. Each patient underwent the surgical placement of a Penta Paddle electrode through laminectomy at the T8-T11 spinal levels. Subdermal electrode needles were placed into lower extremity muscle groups, in addition to the rectus abdominis muscles, for EMG recording. Evoked responses were compared across multiple trials of burst stimulation in which the number of independent burst areas was varied. After intraoperative data collection, all patients were programmed with single- and multiarea DeRidder burst. Intermittent dosing was delivered at 30:90, 120:360, 120:720, and 120:1440 (seconds ON/OFF) intervals. Numerical rating scale (NRS) and Patient Global Impression of Change scores were evaluated at one, two, three, four, and six months after permanent implant. RESULTS: The thresholds for EMG recruitment after DeRidder burst differed across all patients owing to anatomical and physiological variations. After a 30-second dose of stimulation, the average decrease in thresholds was 1.25 mA for two-area and 0.9 mA for four-area DeRidder burst. Furthermore, a 30-second dose of multisite DeRidder burst produced a 0.25 mA reduction in the postoperative paresthesia thresholds. Across all patients, the baseline NRS score was 6.5 ± 0.5, and the NRS score after single or multiarea DeRidder burst therapy was 2.87 ± 1.50. Eight of ten patients reported a ≥50% decrease in their pain scores through the six-month follow-up visit. Pain outcomes using intermittent multiarea stimulation with longer OFF times (120:360, 120:720, 120:1440) were comparable to those using single-area DeRidder burst at 30:90 up to six months after implant with patient preference being two-area DeRidder burst. CONCLUSIONS: This study aims to evaluate the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring to optimize stimulation programming for multisite pain and correlate it with postoperative programming and efficacy. These results suggest that multisite programming can be used to further customize DeRidder burst stimulation to each individual patient and improve outcomes and quality of life for patients receiving SCS therapy for multisite pain.

Neurophysiological outcomes that sustained clinically significant improvements over 3 years of physiologic ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain.

INTRODUCTION: A novel, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system with a physiologic closed-loop (CL) feedback mechanism controlled by evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) enables the optimization of physiologic neural dose and the accuracy of the stimulation, not possible with any other commercially available SCS systems. The report of objective spinal cord measurements is essential to increase the transparency and reproducibility of SCS therapy. Here, we report a cohort of the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial treated with CL-SCS for 36 months to evaluate the ECAP dose and accuracy that sustained the durability of clinical improvements. METHODS: 41 patients randomized to CL-SCS remained in their treatment allocation and were followed up through 36 months. Objective neurophysiological data, including measures of spinal cord activation, were analyzed. Pain relief was assessed by determining the proportion of patients with ≥50% and ≥80% reduction in overall back and leg pain. RESULTS: The performance of the feedback loop resulted in high-dose accuracy by keeping the elicited ECAP within 4µV of the target ECAP set on the system across all timepoints. Percent time stimulating above the ECAP threshold was >98%, and the ECAP dose was ≥19.3µV. Most patients obtained ≥50% reduction (83%) and ≥80% reduction (59%) in overall back and leg pain with a sustained response observed in the rates between 3-month and 36-month follow-up (p=0.083 and p=0.405, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that a physiological adherence to supra-ECAP threshold therapy that generates pain inhibition provided by ECAP-controlled CL-SCS leads to durable improvements in pain intensity with no evidence of loss of therapeutic effect through 36-month follow-up.

Early Functional Outcomes in Low Back Pain Subjects with a Novel Interspinous Fusion Device: REFINE Study 6-Month Results.

Purpose: Lumbar interlaminar decompression with interspinous fixation is an established safe and effective treatment for spinal stenosis. Early maintenance of improvements in pain intensity and function are critical for durability of symptom relief. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of minimally invasive treatments for low back pain during the early period after treatment and their utility in setting the course for longer term success. Patients and Methods: This study utilized patient evaluations at 3- and 6-months following treatment and is part of an actively enrolling, institutional review board (IRB) approved, single-arm, multicenter, prospective, open-label 12-month study. Clinical efficacy was assessed primarily using the change from baseline in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of the back and leg pain during walking and standing, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and secondarily using the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 29 v2.1. The safety endpoints were the adverse events and reoperations or revisions at the index level(s). Results: At 6-month post-op, 76%, 62%-64%, and 64% of patients demonstrated clinical meaningful, and statistically significant improvement in their pain as defined by ZCQ, VAS (back and leg), and ODI, respectively. In addition, 78% of patients noted improvement in PGIC. Two procedure-related adverse events were noted which fully resolved without surgical intervention. Conclusion: This 6-month interim analysis at 42% enrollment of patients was conducted to determine prolonged safety and efficacy of the interspinous fusion device. Our analysis showed a sustained improvement in clinical efficacy, and safety endpoints, when compared to the 3-months evaluations, across both interventional pain and neurosurgery specialties.

Drug-Free Noninvasive Thermal Nerve Block: Validation of Sham Devices.

Headache is a leading cause of disability and suffering. One major challenge in developing device treatments is demonstrating their efficacy given devices' often-high placebo rate. This paper reviews the importance of validating sham devices as part of finalizing the design for larger-scale prospective randomized controlled trials in patients with chronic headache as well as the results of a prospective, single-blind trial to validate two potential sham noninvasive thermal nerve block devices. Study participants were trained to self-administer thermal nerve block treatment using sham devices in an office visit. Two different sham systems with different temperature profiles were assessed. Devices were offered for patients to use daily at-home for one week to assess the durability of sham placebo effects before participants were given active treatment in a second office visit followed by another optional week of self-administered active treatment at-home use. Sham treatments reduced pain scores by an average of 31% from 6.0 ± 2.3 to 4.3 ± 3.3, including two participants who fell asleep during the in-office treatment and woke up with no pain, but whose pain recurred after returning home during at-home use of the sham system. In-office active treatments reduced pain scores by 52% from 6.7 ± 2.1 to 3.3 ± 2.9 with sustained pain relief during optional at-home use. Successful blinding for the study was confirmed with an ideal Bang's Blinding Index of 0 and an ideal James' Blinding Index of 1. Both the sham and active treatments were viewed by participants as highly credible, and credibility increased from the beginning to end of sham treatments on average.

Treatment of Refractory Low Back Pain Using Passive Recharge Burst in Patients Without Options for Corrective Surgery: Findings and Results From the DISTINCT Study, a Prospective Randomized Multicenter Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective for relieving chronic intractable pain conditions. The Dorsal spInal cord STImulatioN vs mediCal management for the Treatment of low back pain study evaluates the effectiveness of SCS compared with conventional medical management (CMM) in the treatment of chronic low back pain in patients who had not undergone and were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were randomized to passive recharge burst therapy (n = 162) or CMM (n = 107). They reported severe pain and disability for more than a decade and had failed a multitude of therapies. Common diagnoses included degenerative disc disease, spondylosis, stenosis, and scoliosis-yet not to a degree amenable to surgery. The six-month primary end point compared responder rates, defined by a 50% reduction in pain. Hierarchical analyses of seven secondary end points were performed in the following order: composite responder rate (numerical rating scale [NRS] or Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), NRS, ODI, Pain Catastrophizing Scale responder rate, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) responder rate, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System-29 in pain interference and physical function. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis showed a significant difference in pain responders on NRS between SCS (72.6%) and CMM (7.1%) arms (p < 0.0001). Of note, 85.2% of those who received six months of therapy responded on NRS compared with 6.2% of those with CMM (p < 0.0001). All secondary end points indicated the superiority of burst therapy over CMM. A composite measure on function or pain relief showed 91% of subjects with SCS improved, compared with 16% of subjects with CMM. A substantial improvement of 30 points was observed on ODI compared with a

ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop SCS for the treatment of chronic pain: 36-month results of the EVOKE blinded randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The evidence for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been criticized for the absence of blinded, parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limited evaluations of the long-term effects of SCS in RCTs. The aim of this study was to determine whether evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled, closed-loop SCS (CL-SCS) is associated with better outcomes when compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) 36 months following implant. METHODS: The EVOKE study was a multicenter, participant-blinded, investigator-blinded, and outcome assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial that compared ECAP-controlled CL-SCS with fixed-output OL-SCS. Participants with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy were enrolled between January 2017 and February 2018, with follow-up through 36 months. The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 50% in overall back and leg pain. Holistic treatment response, a composite outcome including pain intensity, physical and emotional functioning, sleep, and health-related quality of life, and objective neural activation was also assessed. RESULTS: At 36 months, more CL-SCS than OL-SCS participants reported ≥50% reduction (CL-SCS=77.6%, OL-SCS=49.3%; difference: 28.4%, 95% CI 12.8% to 43.9%, p<0.001) and ≥80% reduction (CL-SCS=49.3%, OL-SCS=31.3%; difference: 17.9, 95% CI 1.6% to 34.2%, p=0.032) in overall back and leg pain intensity. Clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed at 36 months in both CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in all other patient-reported outcomes with greater levels of improvement with CL-SCS. A greater proportion of patients with CL-SCS were holistic treatment responders at 36-month follow-up (44.8% vs 28.4%), with a greater cumulative responder score for CL-SCS patients. Greater neural activation and accuracy were observed with CL-SCS. There were no differences between CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in adverse events. No explants due to loss of efficacy were observed in the CL-SCS group. CONCLUSION: This long-term evaluation with objective measurement of SCS therapy demonstrated that ECAP-controlled CL-SCS resulted in sustained, durable pain relief and superior holistic treatment response through 36 months. Greater neural activation and increased accuracy of therapy delivery were observed with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS than OL-SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

Interventional Pain Physician Burnout During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The study sought to assess the prevalence of physician burnout among interventional pain physicians in 2022. RECENT FINDINGS: Physician burnout is major psychosocial and occupational health issue. Prior to the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, over 60% of physicians reported emotional exhaustion and burnout. Physician burnout was reported to become more prevalent in multiple medical specialties during the COVID-19 pandemic. An 18-question survey was distributed electronically to all ASPN members (n = 7809) in the summer of 2022 to assess demographics, burnout characteristics (e.g., Have you felt burned out due to COVID?), and strategies to cope with burnout and stress (e.g., reached out for mental health assistance). Members were able to complete the survey once and were unable to make changes to their responses once submitted. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the prevalence and severity of physician burnout within the ASPN community. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences in burnout by provider characteristics (age, gender, years practicing, and practice type) with p-values less than 0.05 indicating statistical significance. There were 7809 ASPN members that received the survey email, 164 of those members completed the survey, a response rate of 2.1%. The majority of respondents were male (74.1%, n = 120), 94% were attending physicians (n = 152), and 26% (n = 43) have been in practice for twenty years or longer. Most respondents expressed having experienced burnout during the COVID pandemic (73.5%, n = 119), 21.6% of the sample reported reduced hours and responsibilities during the pandemic, and 6.2% of surveyed physicians quit or retired due to burnout. Nearly half of responders reported negative impacts to their family and social lives as well as personal physical and mental health. A variety of negative (e.g., changes in diet, smoking/vaping) and positive coping strategies (e.g., exercise and training, spiritual enrichment) were employed in response to stress and burnout; 33.5% felt they should or had reached out for mental health assistance and suicidal ideations were expressed in 6.2% due to burnout. A high percentage of interventional pain physicians continue to experience mental symptoms that may lead to risk for significant issues going forward. Our findings should be interpreted with caution based on the low response rate. Evaluation of burnout should be incorporated into annual assessments given issues of survey fatigue and low survey response rates. Interventions and strategies to address burnout are warranted.

Cost-utility Analysis of Evoke Closed-loop Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of Evoke closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (CL-SCS), a novel modality of neurostimulation, has been demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The objective of this cost-utility analysis was to develop a de novo economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Evoke CL-SCS when compared with open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) for the management of chronic back and leg pain. METHODS: A decision tree followed by a Markov model was used to estimate the costs and outcomes of Evoke CL-SCS versus OL-SCS over a 15-year time horizon from the UK National Health Service perspective. A "high-responder" health state was included to reflect improved levels of SCS pain reduction recently reported. Results are expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to assess uncertainty in the model inputs. RESULTS: Evoke CL-SCS was estimated to be the dominant treatment strategy at ~5 years postimplant (ie, it generates more QALYs while cost saving compared with OL-SCS). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that Evoke CL-SCS has a 92% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000/QALY. Results were robust across a wide range of scenario and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: The results indicate a strong economic case for the use of Evoke CL-SCS in the management of chronic back and leg pain with or without prior spinal surgery with dominance observed at ~5 years.

Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines for Occipital Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Patients With Medically Refractory Occipital Neuralgia: Update.

BACKGROUND: The Guidelines Task Force conducted a systematic review of the relevant literature on occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) for occipital neuralgia (ON) to update the original 2015 guidelines to ensure timeliness and accuracy for clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature and update the evidence-based guidelines on ONS for ON. METHODS: The Guidelines Task Force conducted another systematic review of the relevant literature, using the same search terms and strategies used to search PubMed and Embase for relevant literature. The updated search included studies published between 1966 and January 2023. The same inclusion/exclusion criteria as the original guideline were also applied. Abstracts were reviewed, and relevant full text articles were retrieved and graded. Of 307 articles, 18 were retrieved for full-text review and analysis. Recommendations were updated according to new evidence yielded by this update . RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the original guideline, reporting the use of ONS as an effective treatment option for patients with medically refractory ON. An additional 6 studies were included in this update. All studies in the original guideline and this current update provide Class III evidence. CONCLUSION: Based on the availability of new literature, the current article is a minor update only that does not result in modification of the prior recommendations: Clinicians may use ONS as a treatment option for patients with medically refractory ON.

Core patient-reported outcome measures for chronic pain patients treated with spinal cord stimulation or dorsal root ganglia stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Neurostimulation is a highly effective therapy for the treatment of chronic Intractable pain, however, due to the complexity of pain, measuring a subject's long-term response to the therapy remains difficult. Frequent measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to reflect multiple aspects of subjects' pain is a crucial step in determining therapy outcomes. However, collecting full-length PROs is burdensome for both patients and clinicians. The objective of this work is to identify the reduced set of questions from multiple validated PROs that can accurately characterize chronic pain patients' responses to neurostimulation therapies. METHODS: Validated PROs were used to capture pain, physical function and disability, as well as psychometric, satisfaction, and global health metrics. PROs were collected from 509 patients implanted with Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) or Dorsal Root Ganglia (DRG) neurostimulators enrolled in the prospective, international, post-market REALITY study (NCT03876054, Registration Date: March 15, 2019). A combination of linear regression, Pearson's correlation, and factor analysis were used to eliminate highly correlated questions and find the minimal meaningful set of questions within the predefined domains of each scale. RESULTS: The shortened versions of the questionnaires presented almost identical accuracy for classifying the therapy outcomes as compared to the validated full-length versions. In addition, principal component analysis was performed on all the PROs and showed a robust clustering of pain intensity, psychological factors, physical function, and sleep across multiple PROs. A selected set of questions captured from multiple PROs can provide adequate information for measuring neurostimulation therapy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PROs are important subjective measures to evaluate the physiological and psychological aspects of pain. However, these measures are cumbersome to collect. These shorter and more targeted PROs could result in better patient engagement, and enhanced and more frequent data collection processes for digital health platforms that minimize patient burden while increasing therapeutic benefits for chronic pain patients.

Objective wearable measures and subjective questionnaires for predicting response to neurostimulation in people with chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Neurostimulation is an effective therapy for treating and management of refractory chronic pain. However, the complex nature of pain and infrequent in-clinic visits, determining subject's long-term response to the therapy remains difficult. Frequent measurement of pain in this population can help with early diagnosis, disease progression monitoring, and evaluating long-term therapeutic efficacy. This paper compares the utilization of the common subjective patient-reported outcomes with objective measures captured through a wearable device for predicting the response to neurostimulation therapy. METHOD: Data is from the ongoing international prospective post-market REALITY clinical study, which collects long-term patient-reported outcomes from 557 subjects implanted by Spinal Cord Stimulator (SCS) or Dorsal Root Ganglia (DRG) neurostimulators. The REALITY sub-study was designed for collecting additional wearables data on a subset of 20 participants implanted with SCS devices for up to six months post implantation. We first implemented a combination of dimensionality reduction algorithms and correlation analyses to explore the mathematical relationships between objective wearable data and subjective patient-reported outcomes. We then developed machine learning models to predict therapy outcome based on the subject's response to the numerical rating scale (NRS) or patient global impression of change (PGIC). RESULTS: Principal component analysis showed that psychological aspects of pain were associated with heart rate variability, while movement-related measures were strongly associated with patient-reported outcomes related to physical function and social role participation. Our machine learning models using objective wearable data predicted PGIC and NRS outcomes with high accuracy without subjective data. The prediction accuracy was higher for PGIC compared with the NRS using subjective-only measures primarily driven by the patient satisfaction feature. Similarly, the PGIC questions reflect an overall change since the study onset and could be a better predictor of long-term neurostimulation therapy outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The significance of this study is to introduce a novel use of wearable data collected from a subset of patients to capture multi-dimensional aspects of pain and compare the prediction power with the subjective data from a larger data set. The discovery of pain digital biomarkers could result in a better understanding of the patient's response to therapy and their general well-being.

Regional Coverage Differences With Single- and Multi-Area Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation for Treatment of Chronic Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown superior relief from overall pain and a reduction in back and leg pain compared with traditional tonic neurostimulation therapies. However, nearly 80% of patients have two or more noncontiguous pain areas. This can provide challenges in effectively programming stimulation and long-term therapy efficacy. Multiarea DeRidder Burst programming is a new option to treat multisite pain by delivering stimulation to multiple areas along the spinal cord. This study aimed to identify the effect of intraburst frequency, multiarea stimulation, and location of DeRidder Burst on the evoked electromyography (EMG) responses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Neuromonitoring was performed during permanent implant of SCS leads in nine patients diagnosed with chronic intractable back and/or leg pain. Each patient underwent the surgical placement of a Penta Paddle electrode via laminectomy at the T8-T10 spinal levels. Subdermal electrode needles were placed into lower extremity muscle groups, in addition to the rectus abdominis muscles, for EMG recording. Evoked responses were compared across multiple trials of burst stimulation in which the number of independent burst areas were varied. RESULTS: The thresholds for EMG recruitment with DeRidder Burst differed across patients owing to anatomic and physiological variations. The average threshold to evoke a bilateral EMG response using single site DeRidder Burst was 3.2 mA. Multisite DeRidder Burst stimulation on up to four stimulation programs evoked a bilateral EMG response at a threshold of 2.5 mA (∼23% lower threshold). DeRidder Burst stimulation across four electrode pairs resulted in more proximal recruitment (vastus medialis and tibialis anterior) than did stimulation across two pairs. It also resulted in more focal coverage of areas across multiple sites. CONCLUSIONS: Across all patients, multisite DeRidder Burst provided broader myotomal coverage than did traditional DeRidder Burst. Multisite DeRidder Burst stimulation provided focal recruitment and differential control of noncontiguous distal myotomes. Energy requirements were also lower when multisite DeRidder Burst was used.

Anticipating and preventing complications in spinal cord stimulator implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation is considered a minor elective procedure. The inherent goal is to provide safe, reliable, effective treatment with mitigation of known potential risk of adverse events. AREAS COVERED: This is a comprehensive literature review evaluating the most prevalent complications encountered with SCS implantation. EXPERT OPINION: SCS-related complications are uncommon. The authors offer clinical insight and feel the best practice is to have strategies employed to avoid complications, and we assist clinicians and surgeons in appropriately identifying and treating potential complications. There is a focus on appropriate patient selection, adherence to evidence-based guidelines and best practice recommendations.

A Prospective, Observational, Open-Label, Non-Randomized, Multicenter Study Measuring Functional Outcomes in a Novel Interspinous Fusion Device in Subjects with Low Back Pain: REFINE Study.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar degenerative disease and the accompanying pain and dysfunction affect a significant number of patients in the USA and around the world. As surgery and innovation are moving towards minimally invasive treatments, this study looks to explore interspinous fixation as a standalone posterior approach to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease in the presence of neurogenic claudication and spinal stenosis. METHODS: This study was approved by an institutional review board (IRB) and is actively enrolling in a single-arm, multicenter, prospective, open-label fashion. Patients are followed with reporting at 3 months, and 12 months for primary endpoint analysis of efficacy and safety based on improved composite endpoints relative to baseline, with success defined as greater than 20 mm back pain reduction in Visual Analog Scale 100 mm (VAS) while standing or walking, greater than 20 mm leg pain reduction in VAS while standing or walking, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) improvement of 0.5 or greater in two or three domains, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improvement of a least 10 points and no reoperations or revisions at the index level(s). Secondary endpoints included a multidimensional assessment in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 29 v2.1 and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). RESULTS: In this interim 3-month analysis, 82% of patients reported they were improved from the procedure, while 65% of patients demonstrated clinical meaningful improvement in their pain and function, as defined by the VAS, ODI, and ZCQ. There was only one adverse event and no complications were identified at last clinic research follow-up visit. CONCLUSIONS: This interim analysis of the first 20% of the enrolled patients out to 3 months was to determine safety of the procedure and report on adverse events, acknowledging the heterogeneity of surgical specialty. Further follow-up and greater numbers are needed as the study is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05504499.

Clinical Longevity of 106,462 Rechargeable and Primary Cell Spinal Cord Stimulators: Real World Study in the Medicare Population.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are available with either primary cell (PC) or rechargeable cell (RC) batteries. Although RC systems are proposed to have a battery longevity upward of nine years, in comparison with four years for PC systems, there are few studies of longevity of SCS in the real world. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an observational, nonrandomized, retrospective study of Medicare beneficiaries who received neurostimulator implants in the outpatient hospital. This study used Medicare fee-for-service claims data from 2013 to 2020. The clinical longevity of the implantable pulse generator (IPG), defined as the duration from implant until removal for any reason, was compared between PC and RC devices. Life distribution analysis was used to approximate device lifespan. The secondary analysis separated removals into explant or replacements. The statistics were adjusted for relevant clinical covariates. RESULTS: A total of 25,856 PC and 79,606 RC systems were included in the study. At seven years after implant, 53.8% of PC IPGs and 55.0% of RC IPGs remained in use. The life distribution modeling analysis projected a median lifespan of 8.2 years for PC and 9.0 years for RC devices. The rate of explant was lower for PC devices (19.2%) than for RC devices (22.0%, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96, p = 0.082), whereas the rate of replacements was higher for PC devices (33.7%) than for RC devices (29.5%, HR = 1.31, p < 0.001). An analysis of the battery type used in device replacements showed an increasing adoption of PC devices over time. CONCLUSIONS: This large, retrospective, real-world analysis of Medicare claims data demonstrated that the clinical longevity of neurostimulator devices is similar for PC and RC batteries. In the past, clinicians may have defaulted to RC devices based on the assumption that they provided extended battery life. Considering this longevity data, clinicians should now consider the choice between PC and RC devices based on other individual factors pertinent to the patient experience and not on purported longevity claims.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain.

Introduction: Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety. Objective: The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented. Results: After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain. Conclusion: The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.