Radiofrequency for chronic lumbosacral and cervical pain: Results of a consensus study using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

BACKGROUND: Despite the routine use of radiofrequency (RF) for the treatment of chronic pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region, there remains uncertainty on the most appropriate patient selection criteria. This study aimed to develop appropriateness criteria for RF in relation to relevant patient characteristics, considering RF ablation (RFA) for the treatment of chronic axial pain and pulsed RF (PRF) for the treatment of chronic radicular pain. METHODS: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) was used to explore the opinions of a multidisciplinary European panel on the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a variety of clinical scenarios. Depending on the type of pain (axial or radicular), the expert panel rated the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a total of 219 clinical scenarios. RESULTS: For axial pain in the lumbosacral or cervical region, appropriateness of RFA was determined by the dominant pain trigger and location of tenderness on palpation with higher appropriateness scores if these variables were suggestive of the diagnosis of facet or sacroiliac joint pain. Although the opinions on the appropriateness of PRF for lumbosacral and cervical radicular pain were fairly dispersed, there was agreement that PRF is an appropriate option for well-selected patients with radicular pain due to herniated disc or foraminal stenosis, particularly in the absence of motor deficits. The panel outcomes were embedded in an educational e-health tool that also covers the psychosocial aspects of chronic pain, providing integrated recommendations on the appropriate use of (P)RF interventions for the treatment of chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary European expert panel established patient-specific recommendations that may support the (pre)selection of patients with chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region for either RFA or PRF (accessible via https://rftool.org). Future studies should validate these recommendations by determining their predictive value for the outcomes of (P)RF interventions.

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.

First evidence of a biomarker-based dose-response relationship in chronic pain using physiological closed-loop spinal cord stimulation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy, electricity is the medication delivered to the spinal cord for pain relief. In contrast to conventional medication where dose is determined by desired therapeutic plasma concentration, there is lack of equivalent means of determining dose delivery in SCS. In open-loop (OL) SCS, due to the dynamic nature of the epidural space, the activating electric field delivered is inconsistent at the level of the dorsal columns. Recent Food and Drug Administration guidance suggests accurate and consistent therapy delivered using physiologic closed-loop control (PCLC) devices can minimize underdosage or overdosage and enhance medical care. PCLC-based evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled technology provides the ability to prescribe a precise stimulation dose unique to each patient, continuously measure neural activation, and objectively inform SCS therapy optimization. METHODS: Neurophysiological indicator metrics of therapy dose, usage above neural activation threshold, and accuracy of SCS therapy were assessed for relationship with pain reduction in over 600 SCS patients. RESULTS: Significant relationships between objective metrics and pain relief across the patient population are shown, including first evidence for a dose-response relationship in SCS. CONCLUSIONS: Higher dose, more time over ECAP threshold, and higher accuracy are associated with better outcomes across patients. There is potential to optimize individual patient outcomes based on unique objective measurable electrophysiological inputs.

Cooled versus conventional radiofrequency treatment of the genicular nerves for chronic knee pain: 12-month and cost-effectiveness results from the multicenter COCOGEN trial.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) treatment of the genicular nerves reduces chronic knee pain in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or persistent postsurgical pain (PPSP) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The objective of this study is to compare long-term outcomes of cooled and conventional RF and perform an economic evaluation. METHODS: The COCOGEN trial is a double-blinded, non-inferiority, pilot, randomized controlled trial that compared the effects up to 12 months of cooled and conventional RF in patients with chronic knee pain suffering from OA or PPSP after TKA following a 1:1 randomization rate. Outcomes were knee pain, functionality, quality of life, emotional health, medication use, and adverse events. A trial-based economic evaluation was performed with a 12-month societal perspective. Here, the primary outcome was the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: 41 of the 49 included patients completed the 12-month follow-up. One patient in the PPSP cooled RF group had substantial missing data at 12-month follow-up. The proportion of patients with ≥50% pain reduction at 12 months was 22.2% (4/18) in patients treated with conventional RF versus 22.7% (5/22) in patients treated with cooled RF (p>0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the mean absolute numerical rating scale at 12 months after cooled RF and conventional RF in patients with PPSP (p=0.02). Differences between other outcomes were not statistically significant. The health economic analysis indicated that cooled RF resulted in lower costs and improved QALYs compared with conventional RF in PPSP but not in OA. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Both RF treatments demonstrated in approximately 22% of patients a ≥50% pain reduction at 12 months. In patients with PPSP, contrary to OA, cooled RF seems to be more effective than conventional RF. Additionally, cooled RF has in patients with PPSP, as opposed to OA, greater effectiveness at lower costs compared with conventional RF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03865849.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Intractable Visceral Pain Originating from the Pelvic and Abdominal Region: A Narrative Review on a Possible New Indication for Patients with Therapy-Resistant Pain.

Aim: Visceral pain, characterized by pain that is diffuse and challenging to localize, occurs frequently and is difficult to treat. In cases where the pain becomes intractable despite optimal medical management, it can affect patients' Quality of Life (QoL). Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a potential solution for intractable visceral pain. Purpose: In this narrative review, we collected all evidence regarding the efficacy of SCS for visceral pain across various underlying conditions. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science in which articles published from October 1st, 1963 up to March 7th, 2023 were identified. Results: Seventy articles were included in this review of which most were retrospective cohort studies, case series and case reports. The studies, often with a small number of participants, reported on SCS for chronic pancreatitis, anorectal pain and bowel disorders, gynaecological diagnoses, visceral pelvic pain, urological disorders and finally general visceral pain. They found positive effects on pain and/or symptom relief, opioid consumption, anxiety and depression and QoL. Complications occurred frequently but were often minor and reversible. Conclusion: Better screening and selection criteria need to be established to optimally evaluate eligible patients who might benefit from SCS. A positive outcome of a sympathetic nerve block appears to be a potential indicator of SCS effectiveness. Additionally, women receiving SCS for endometriosis had a better outcome compared to other indications. Finally, SCS could also relief functional symptoms such as voiding problems and gastroparesis. Complications could often be resolved with revision surgery. Since SCS is expensive and not always covered by standard health insurance, the incorporation of cost-analyses is recommended. In order to establish a comprehensive treatment plan, including selection criteria for SCS, rigorous prospective, possibly randomized and controlled studies that are diagnosis-oriented, with substantial follow-up and adequate sample sizes, are needed.

Introduction of a Post-Anaesthesia Care Unit in a Teaching Hospital Is Associated with a Reduced Length of Hospital Stay in Noncardiac Surgery: A Single-Centre Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: A post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) may improve postoperative care compared with intermediate care units (IMCU) due to its dedication to operative care and an individualized duration of postoperative stay. The effects of transition from IMCU to PACU for postoperative care following intermediate to high-risk noncardiac surgery on length of hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, and postoperative complications were investigated. METHODS: This single-centre interrupted time series analysis included patients undergoing eleven different noncardiac surgical procedures associated with frequent postoperative admissions to an IMCU or PACU between January 2018 and March 2019 (IMCU episode) and between October 2019 and December 2020 (PACU episode). Primary outcome was hospital length of stay, secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and ICU admissions. RESULTS: In total, 3300 patients were included. The hospital length of stay was lower following PACU admission compared to IMCU admission (IMCU 7.2 days [4.2-12.0] vs. PACU 6.0 days [3.6-9.1]; p < 0.001). Segmented regression analysis demonstrated that the introduction of the PACU was associated with a decrease in hospital length of stay (GMR 0.77 [95% CI 0.66-0.91]; p = 0.002). No differences between episodes were detected in the number of postoperative complications or postoperative ICU admissions. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a PACU for postoperative care of patients undergoing intermediate to high-risk noncardiac surgery was associated with a reduction in the length of stay at the hospital, without increasing postoperative complications.

Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation as Compared With L2 Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in Pain Relief for Nonoperated Discogenic Low Back Pain: Analysis of Two Prospective Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic discogenic low back pain (CD-LBP) is caused by degenerated disks marked by neural and vascular ingrowth. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be effective for pain relief in patients who are not responsive to conventional treatments. Previously, the pain-relieving effect of two variations of SCS has been evaluated in CD-LBP: Burst SCS and L2 dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS). The aim of this study is to compare the effectivity in pain relief and pain experience of Burst SCS with that of conventional L2 DRGS in patients with CD-LBP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects were implanted with either Burst SCS (n = 14) or L2 DRGS with conventional stimulation (n = 15). Patients completed the numeric pain rating score (NRS) for back pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI) and EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D) questionnaires at baseline, and at three, six, and 12 months after implantation. Data were compared between time points and between groups. RESULTS: Both Burst SCS and L2 DRGS significantly decreased NRS, ODI, and EQ-5D scores as compared with baseline. L2 DRGS resulted in significantly lower NRS scores at 12 months and significantly increased EQ-5D scores at six and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Both L2 DRGS and Burst SCS resulted in reduction of pain and disability, and increased quality of life in patients with CD-LBP. L2 DRGS provided significantly increased pain relief and improvement in quality of life when compared with Burst SCS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The clinical trial registration numbers for the study are NCT03958604 and NL54405.091.15.

Lead migration rate in dorsal root ganglion stimulation using lead anchoring techniques: A follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Lead anchoring has previously been shown to reduce the rate of dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) lead migration. The aim of this study was to assess longer-term follow-up and consistency of lead migration prevention with lead anchoring in a new cohort of patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review from September 2017 to November 2022 of all patients who had DRG-S implants at our institute to identify the number of lead migrations that occurred over this period. The first cohort consisted of patients reported on in a previous publication (implanted from September 2017 through September 2020) subdivided into unanchored or anchored lead groups. The second cohort consisted of patients implanted during or after October 2020 who were not previously reported on for whom leads were anchored using silastic anchoring only. RESULTS: At the November 2022 data cutoff, in the initial cohort, 8 migrations had occurred in unanchored leads over an average follow-up of 49 months, equating to a migration rate of 9.1% per lead. Patients with anchored leads in the initial cohort experienced 2 migrations over an average follow-up of 38 months (0.7% migration rate per lead). There were no new lead migrations in these groups over the extended follow-up reported here. The migration rate in the new cohort was similar, with 1 migration over an average follow-up of 13 months (0.5% migration rate per lead). CONCLUSION: These results underscore the necessity of anchor placement during DRG-S lead implantation to prevent lead migration.

3. Pain originating from the lumbar facet joints.

INTRODUCTION: Pain originating from the lumbar facets can be defined as pain that arises from the innervated structures comprising the joint: the subchondral bone, synovium, synovial folds, and joint capsule. Reported prevalence rates range from 4.8% to over 50% among patients with mechanical low back pain, with diagnosis heavily dependent on the criteria employed. In well-designed studies, the prevalence is generally between 10% and 20%, increasing with age. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar facet joint pain was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: There are no pathognomic signs or symptoms of pain originating from the lumbar facet joints. The most common reported symptom is uni- or bilateral (in more advanced cases) axial low back pain, which often radiates into the upper legs in a non-dermatomal distribution. Most patients report an aching type of pain exacerbated by activity, sometimes with morning stiffness. The diagnostic value of abnormal radiologic findings is poor owing to the low specificity. SPECT can accurately identify joint inflammation and has a predictive value for diagnostic lumbar facet injections. After "red flags" are ruled out, conservatives should be considered. In those unresponsive to conservative therapy with symptoms and physical examination suggesting lumbar facet joint pain, a diagnostic/prognostic medial branch block can be performed which remains the most reliable way to select patients for radiofrequency ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Well-selected individuals with chronic low back originating from the facet joints may benefit from lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation.

5. Sacroiliac joint pain.

INTRODUCTION: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is defined as pain localized in the anatomical region of the SI joint. The reported prevalence of SI joint pain among patients with mechanical low back pain varies between 15% and 30%. METHODS: In this narrative review, the literature on the diagnosis and treatment of SI joint pain was updated and summarized. RESULTS: Patient's history provides clues on the source of pain. The specificity and sensitivity of provocative maneuvers are relatively high when three or more tests are positive, though recent studies have questioned the predictive value of single or even batteries of provocative tests. Medical imaging is indicated only to rule out red flags for potentially serious conditions. The diagnostic value of SI joint infiltration with local anesthetic remains controversial due to the potential for false-positive and false-negative results. Treatment of SI joint pain ideally consists of a multidisciplinary approach that includes conservative measures as first-line therapies (eg, pharmacological treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy, manual medicine, exercise therapy and rehabilitation treatment, and if necessary, psychological support). Intra- and extra-articular corticosteroid injections have been documented to produce pain relief for over 3 months in some people. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the L5 dorsal ramus and S1-3 (or 4) lateral branches has been shown to be efficacious in numerous studies, with extensive lesioning strategies (eg, cooled RFA) demonstrating the strongest evidence. The reported rate of complications for SI joint treatments is low. CONCLUSIONS: SI joint pain should ideally be managed in a multidisciplinary and multimodal manner. When conservative treatment fails, corticosteroid injections and radiofrequency treatment can be considered.

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain.

INTRODUCTION: Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.

The effectiveness of a transitional pain service in patients undergoing surgery with an increased risk of developing chronic postsurgical pain (TRUSt study). A randomized clinical trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Poorly controlled acute postsurgical pain is associated with delayed recovery, chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP), chronic opioid use and impaired functioning in daily activities. The aim was to determine the effectiveness of a transitional pain service (TPS) to improve quality of recovery for patients at risk of CPSP. We hypothesized that a TPS improves the quality of recovery in patients at risk of CPSP. DESIGN: Single-center, pragmatic, randomized, superiority trial. SETTING: Tertiary hospital in the Netherlands. PATIENTS: Assessed for eligibility if ≥18 years of age, undergoing elective surgery, and had an increased risk of developing CPSP. After being stratified for sex, 176 patients were included. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive TPS or standard of care (SOC). TPS was a multidisciplinary intervention providing a patient-tailored perioperative pain management plan, throughout all phases of surgery. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the difference in quality of recovery on the third postoperative day, measured by the Quality of Recovery (QoR)-15 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include the between group differences in opioid consumption. MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was available in 169 (96.0%) patients. No difference between groups was found in QoR-15 on the third postoperative day (mean difference 2.0, 95% CI -5.5 to 9.4, p = 0.607). A decrease in opioid usage (compared to baseline) was observed in chronic opioid users, the median [IQR] reduction in total daily oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for TPS was -30 [-60, 0] at three and - 29.3 [-65.6, 0] at six months, whereas SOC had a median reduction of 0 [-56, 0] at three, and 0 [-60, 7.5] at six months. CONCLUSIONS: TPS did not significantly affect short-term quality of recovery but might improve long-term outcomes, such as the incidence of chronic pain, opioid consumption, and functioning in daily life. However, sample size in the present study was too small to provide solid evidence for this positive signal.

Durable multimodal and holistic response for physiologic closed-loop spinal cord stimulation supported by objective evidence from the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain patients may experience impairments in multiple health-related domains. The design and interpretation of clinical trials of chronic pain interventions, however, remains primarily focused on treatment effects on pain intensity. This study investigates a novel, multidimensional holistic treatment response to evoked compound action potential-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop spinal cord stimulation as well as the degree of neural activation that produced that treatment response. METHODS: Outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality and emotional function were derived from individual patient level data from the EVOKE multicenter, participant, investigator, and outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial with 24 month follow-up. Evaluation of holistic treatment response considered whether the baseline score was worse than normative values and whether minimal clinical important differences were reached in each of the domains that were impaired at baseline. A cumulative responder score was calculated to reflect the total minimal clinical important differences accumulated across all domains. Objective neurophysiological data, including spinal cord activation were measured. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to closed-loop (n=67) or open-loop (n=67). A greater proportion of patients with closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (49.3% vs 26.9%) were holistic responders at 24-month follow-up, with at least one minimal clinical important difference in all impaired domains (absolute risk difference: 22.4%, 95% CI 6.4% to 38.4%, p=0.012). The cumulative responder score was significantly greater for closed-loop patients at all time points and resulted in the achievement of more than three additional minimal clinical important differences at 24-month follow-up (mean difference 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.5, p=0.002). Neural activation was three times more accurate in closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (p<0.001 at all time points). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that closed-loop spinal cord stimulation can provide sustained clinically meaningful improvements in multiple domains and provide holistic improvement in the long-term for patients with chronic refractory pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

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.

The Effect of Preoperative Disability, Cognitive Impairment, Frailty and Opioid Use on Acute Postoperative Pain in Older Patients Undergoing Surgery A Prospective Cohort Study.

Globally, life expectancy is increasing, leading to more surgeries being performed in older patients. Postoperative pain is associated with complications after surgery. The aim of this study is to explore potential age-related risk factors for acute postoperative pain in older patients undergoing surgery. This was a prospective, single-center study. Patients ≥65 years, with and without disability, as defined by the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0, undergoing elective surgery, were compared. Primary outcome was the postoperative pain (ie, numeric rating scale (NRS) score) on the first postoperative day. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain and pain trajectories in patients with and without mild cognitive impairment (MCI), frailty, preoperative opioid use, and new-onset disability after surgery. Between February 2019 and July 2020, 155 patients were enrolled. On the first day after surgery, postoperative pain did not differ between patients with and without disability. NRS scores differed between patients with-, and without MCI on the first (P = .01), and second postoperative day (P < .01). Patients who used opioids before surgery reported higher median NRS score on the first (P < .001) and second (P < .01) postoperative day. Out of a total of 1816 NRS scores, 2 pain clusters were identified. Acute postoperative pain did not differ between patients with or without preoperative disability and frailty in older patients undergoing surgery. Reduced postoperative pain in older patients with MCI warrants further investigation. The PIANO study (Comparison of Postoperative NeurocognitiveFunction in Older Adult Patients with and without Diabetes Mellitus) was registered with www.clinicaltrialregister.nl (search term: Which can predict memory problems after surgery better; blood sugar levels or memory before surgery?). PERSPECTIVE: This study explored risk factors for acute postoperative pain in older patients. No differences in postoperative pain were observed in patients with or without preexistent disability or frailty, however, patients with mild cognitive impairment experienced reduced pain. We suggest to simplify pain assessment in this group and take functional recovery into account.

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.

Effect of a Behavioral Therapy-Based Virtual Reality Application on Quality of Life in Chronic Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Low back pain is the leading cause of years lived with disability with a large impact on quality of life and resistance to a broad array of current treatments. This study aimed to investigate the effect of a novel self-administered behavioral therapy-based virtual reality (VR) application on the quality of life of patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted in adults with nonspecific CLBP with moderate to severe pain, waiting for treatment in a teaching hospital-based pain clinic. The intervention group used a self-administered behavioral therapy-based VR application for at least 10 minutes daily for 4 weeks. The control group received standard care. The primary outcome was quality of life at 4 weeks measured by the short form-12 physical and mental scores. Secondary outcomes were daily worst and least pain, pain coping strategies, activities of daily living, positive health, anxiety, and depression. Discontinuation of therapy and adverse events were analyzed as well. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were included. One patient withdrew due to personal reasons. No significant treatment effect was found for the short form-12 physical score (mean difference: 2.6 points; 95% CI: -5.60 to 0.48) and mental score (-1.75; -6.04 to 2.53) at 4 weeks. There was a significant treatment effect for daily "worst pain score" ( F [1, 91.425] = 33.3, P < 0.001) and "least pain score" ( F [1, 30.069] = 11.5, P = 0.002). Three patients reported mild and temporary dizziness. DISCUSSION: Four weeks of self-administered VR for CLBP does not improve quality of life, however, it may positively affect daily pain experience.