Distinct Functional Connectivity Patterns for Intermittent Vs Constant Neuropathic Pain Phenotypes in Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2 Patients.

Background: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) has been associated with alterations in brain functional connectivity (FC) but based upon heterogeneous populations and single network analyses. Our goal is to study a more homogeneous cLBP population and focus on multiple cross-network (CN) connectivity analysis. We hypothesize that within this population: 1) altered CN FC, involving emotion and reward/aversion functions are related to their pain levels and 2) altered relationships are dependent upon pain phenotype (constant neuropathic vs intermittent pain). Methods: In this case series, resting state fcMRI scans were obtained over a study duration of 60 months from 23 patients (13 constant neuropathic and 10 intermittent pain) with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS Type 2) being considered for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy at a single academic center. Images were acquired using a Discovery MR750 GE scanner. During the resting state acquisitions, they were asked to close their eyes and relax. The CN analysis was performed on 7 brain networks and compared to age-matched controls. Linear regression was used to test the correlation between CN connectivity and pain scores. Results: CN FC involving emotion networks (STM: striatum network index) was significantly lower than controls in all patients, regardless of pain phenotype (P < 0.003). Pain levels were positively correlated with emotional FC for intermittent pain but negatively correlated for constant pain. Conclusion: This is the first report of 1) altered CN FC involving emotion/reward brain circuitry in 2) a homogeneous population of cLBP patients with 3) two different pain phenotypes (constant vs intermittent) in PSPS Type 2 patients being considered for SCS. FC patterns were altered in cLBP patients as compared to controls and were characteristic for each pain phenotype. These data support fcMRI as a potential and objective tool in assessing pain levels in cLBP patients with different pain phenotypes.

Temporary Spinal Cord Stimulation for Herpes Zoster With Myelitis: A Case Series.

Introduction: Preventing the development of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), the most prevalent and severe complication of herpes zoster (HZ), is vital. Recently, it has been suggested that using temporary spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) for 10-14 days can improve HZ-associated pain (ZAP) and prevent PHN. However, myelitis complicates HZ. Permanent SCS has been successful in treating neuropathic pain induced by postoperative transverse myelitis of the spine that has not responded to traditional multidisciplinary treatment. However, it is unknown whether tSCS can reduce ZAP complicated with myelitis. Methodology: Between January 2020 and April 2022, all patients with HZ who visited our pain clinic with spinal cord edema and who underwent tSCS were enrolled in this study; their medical records were retrospectively examined. Pain intensity was assessed at baseline (before initiating interventional procedures), just before tSCS, after tSCS removal, and one and three months after tSCS. Results: Twelve patients were enrolled. The mean Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) was 7.9 ± 1.6 at baseline (before interventional procedures), 6.8 ± 2.2 before tSCS (after interventional procedures), and 3.5 ± 2.4 after tSCS. Compared with before tSCS, the mean NRS decreased to 3.3 ± 2.3 after tSCS (P = 0.0004). The mean NRS changes with interventional procedures before and after tSCS were -1.2 ± 2.2 (P = 0.0945) and 3.3 ± 2.3 (P = 0.0004), respectively; the change after tSCS was significantly higher (between-group difference: -2.1 ± 3.7; P = 0.0324). Conclusions: Temporary SCS alleviated pain in cases of shingles with myelitis refractory to interventional therapy. Even in cases with myelitis, tSCS for ZAP remains an effective way to prevent PHN.

Relationship between number of prior lumbar spine surgeries and outcomes following spinal cord stimulator implantation: A multisite, retrospective pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Lumbar spine surgery is a common procedure for treating disabling spine-related pain. In recent decades, both the number and cost of spine surgeries have increased despite technological advances and modification in surgical technique. For those patients that have continued uncontrolled back and/or lower extremity pain following lumbar spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a viable treatment option. However, the impact of lumbar spine surgical history remains largely unstudied. Specifically, the current study considers the impact of number of prior lumbar spine surgeries on pain relief outcomes following SCS implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried the electronic medical record of five separate pain practices for all patients who have undergone a SCS implant between January 1, 2017, and March 1, 2020. Inclusion criteria consisted of any patients with an SCS implant who underwent a prior lumbar spine surgery. The primary outcome was the mean calculated percentage pain relief in patients based on number of prior lumbar spine surgeries. RESULTS: There was a total of 1974 total SCS implant cases identified across five separate pain clinics. There was no difference in mean calculated pain relief in patients with one prior spine surgery versus those with two or more prior spine surgeries (28.2% vs. 25.8%, adjusted ß-coefficient -3.1, 95% CI -8.9 to 2.7, p = 0.290). Similarly, when analyzing number of spine surgeries as a continuous variable, there was no association between number of spine surgeries and calculated pain relief (adjusted ß-coefficient -1.5, 95% CI -4.0 to 1.1, p = 0.257). Additionally, after patients were stratified based on waveform, there was no association between number of prior lumbar spine surgeries (analyzed both as a categorical and continuous variable) and calculated percentage pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentered retrospective study found that there was no significant difference in pain scores in individuals who received SCS following one or more lumbar spine surgeries. Additionally, the waveform of the SCS device had no statistically significant impact on post-operative pain scores following one or more lumbar spine surgeries.

Treatment Options for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: An Umbrella Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews on the Effectiveness of Therapeutic Interventions.

Background: Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a common and incapacitating condition affecting patients with previous spine surgery in whom treatment approach can be challenging. This study aimed to summarize existing secondary studies and up-to-date randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assess the effectiveness of available treatment options for FBSS. Methods: Systematic searches were carried out in five databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Scielo, Epistemonikos, and Google scholar) for all systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treatment options for FBSS published after 2012. Outcomes of interest were pain levels measured through visual analog scale or numeric rating scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and quality of life. Methodological and risk of bias assessments were performed with the AMSTAR-2 tool for systematic reviews and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for RCT. Prospective PROSPERO registration: CRD42022307609. Results: Fifteen studies, seven systematic reviews, and eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria and fulfilled the methodological quality assessment. Of the 15 included studies, 8 were on neurostimulation, 4 on adhesiolysis, 4 on epidural or intrathecal injections, and 3 on other treatment modalities. The risk of bias was low in seven studies, moderate in five, and high in three. Conclusions: Based on this systematic overview and the considerable heterogeneity among studies, the FBSS therapeutic approach must be individualized. FBSS treatment should start with conservative management, considering the implementation of neurostimulation, a technique with the most robust evidence of effective results, in cases of refractory axial or neuropathic pain. As the last resource, in light of the evidence found, more invasive procedures or new surgical interventions are indicated.

Healthcare Utilization (HCU) Reduction with High-Frequency (10 kHz) Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) Therapy.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment for patients with chronic pain. With increasing healthcare costs, it is important to determine the benefits of SCS in healthcare utilization (HCU). This retrospective, single-center observational study involved 160 subjects who underwent implantation of a high-frequency (10 kHz) SCS device. We focused on assessing trends in HCU by measuring opioid consumption in morphine milligram equivalents (MME), as well as monitoring emergency department (ED) and office visits for interventional pain procedures during the 12-month period preceding and following the SCS implant. Our results revealed a statistically significant reduction in HCU in all domains assessed. The mean MME was 51.05 and 26.52 pre- and post-implant, respectively. There was a 24.53 MME overall decrease and a mean of 78.2% statistically significant dose reduction (p < 0.0001). Of these, 91.5% reached a minimally clinically important difference (MCID) in opioid reduction. Similarly, we found a statistically significant (p < 0.01) decrease in ED visits, with a mean of 0.12 pre- and 0.03 post-implant, and a decrease in office visits for interventional pain procedures from a 1.39 pre- to 0.28 post-10 kHz SCS implant, representing a 1.11 statistically significant (p < 0.0001) mean reduction. Our study reports the largest cohort of real-world data published to date analyzing HCU trends with 10 kHz SCS for multiple pain etiologies. Furthermore, this is the first and only study evaluating HCU trends with 10 kHz SCS by assessing opioid use, ED visits, and outpatient visits for interventional pain procedures collectively. Preceding studies have individually investigated these outcomes, consistently yielding positive results comparable to our findings.

10 kHz stimulation as rescue therapy for spinal cord stimulation trial failure or loss of efficacy: A retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is currently used for the management of pain of different origin, and since its inception, many waveforms have been developed. Some patients experience no pain relief already during SCS trial, while other patients go through a loss of efficacy due to habituation after a variable period of satisfying pain control. Our retrospective study represents the first report exploring the potential role of 10 kHz stimulation as rescue therapy for patients who did not benefit not only from conventional stimulation but even from other waveforms during SCS trial or follow-up. METHODS: This study was conducted in Germany; we retrospectively enrolled patients with no pain relief during SCS trial or with loss of efficacy of other waveforms over time; and we recorded visual analogic scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and daily opioid consumption expressed as morphine milligram equivalents (MME), right before and 12 months after the switching to 10 kHz simulation. RESULTS: The rate of successful switching to 10 kHz stimulation was comparable in patients enrolled during the SCS trial and during the follow-up (43% vs. 40%, respectively); notably, the highest rate of failed rescue was recorded in case of persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) II. Patients who responded to the switching showed a significant improvement in VAS and ODI after 12 months of treatment compared to baseline (3.6 ± 1.0 vs. 8.2 ± 0.9, p < 0.00001 and 34.0 ± 7.8 vs. 64.3 ± 8.7, p < 0.0001, respectively), whereas there was no reduction in the consumption of opioids in terms of MME (3 (0-16) vs. 5 (0-8.75), p = 0.1003). CONCLUSIONS: Rescue therapy with 10 kHz stimulation could be an important strategy to avoid SCS explant in both patients non-responsive during trial or experiencing a loss of efficacy during the years with other waveforms.

Spinal cord stimulator paddle lead revision and replacement for misplaced or displaced electrodes.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are commonly implanted via a laminotomy or laminectomy. Revision surgery may be necessary in instances of hardware failure or loss of efficacy. It is uncommon for leads to have been initially misplaced in a suboptimal position, and revision in these cases necessitates additional dissection for appropriate repositioning. Accordingly, there is concern with a more extensive revision for a potentially higher risk of associated complications. This study aims to describe a series of patients with failed paddle SCS electrodes due to misplacement who underwent revision and replacement. METHODS: Patients who underwent SCS paddle replacement for misplaced paddles between 2021 and 2023 were identified. Medical charts were reviewed for demographic data, operative details, and incidence of complications. RESULTS: Sixteen patients underwent thoracic SCS paddle revision and replacement. The mean age was 59.6±12.6 years, with 11 females and 5 males. Misplaced paddles were too lateral (n=12), too high (n=2), or incompletely within the epidural space (n=2). The mean duration from initial implantation to revision surgery was 44.8±47.5 months. The mean operative duration was 126.1±26.9 minutes, and all patients required a "skip" laminectomy or laminotomy. No complications were encountered. The mean length of follow-up was 18.4±7.3 months. Mean preoperative pain intensity was 7.9±1.5, and at last follow-up was 3.6±1.7 (p<0.001). All but one patient continued to use their device in follow-up. CONCLUSION: The revision and replacement of misplaced paddle SCS electrodes is a feasible and durable revision strategy, even in long-term implants with extensive scarring.

Noninvasive spinal stimulation improves walking in chronic stroke survivors: a proof-of-concept case series.

BACKGROUND: After stroke, restoring safe, independent, and efficient walking is a top rehabilitation priority. However, in nearly 70% of stroke survivors asymmetrical walking patterns and reduced walking speed persist. This case series study aims to investigate the effectiveness of transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (tSCS) in enhancing walking ability of persons with chronic stroke. METHODS: Eight participants with hemiparesis after a single, chronic stroke were enrolled. Each participant was assigned to either the Stim group (N = 4, gait training + tSCS) or Control group (N = 4, gait training alone). Each participant in the Stim group was matched to a participant in the Control group based on age, time since stroke, and self-selected gait speed. For the Stim group, tSCS was delivered during gait training via electrodes placed on the skin between the spinous processes of C5-C6, T11-T12, and L1-L2. Both groups received 24 sessions of gait training over 8 weeks with a physical therapist providing verbal cueing for improved gait symmetry. Gait speed (measured from 10 m walk test), endurance (measured from 6 min walk test), spatiotemporal gait symmetries (step length and swing time), as well as the neurophysiological outcomes (muscle synergy, resting motor thresholds via spinal motor evoked responses) were collected without tSCS at baseline, completion, and 3 month follow-up. RESULTS: All four Stim participants sustained spatiotemporal symmetry improvements at the 3 month follow-up (step length: 17.7%, swing time: 10.1%) compared to the Control group (step length: 1.1%, swing time 3.6%). Additionally, 3 of 4 Stim participants showed increased number of muscle synergies and/or lowered resting motor thresholds compared to the Control group. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides promising preliminary evidence that using tSCS as a therapeutic catalyst to gait training may increase the efficacy of gait rehabilitation in individuals with chronic stroke. Trial registration NCT03714282 (clinicaltrials.gov), registration date: 2018-10-18.

Spinal Cord Stimulation Waveforms for the Treatment of Chronic Pain.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Since the advent of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), advances in technology have allowed for improvement and treatment of various conditions, especially chronic pain. Additionally, as the system has developed, the ability to provide different stimulation waveforms for patients to treat different conditions has improved. The purpose and objective of the paper is to discuss basics of waveforms and present the most up-to-date literature and research studies on the different types of waveforms that currently exist. During our literature search, we came across over sixty articles that discuss the various waveforms we intend to evaluate. RECENT FINDINGS: There are several publications on several waveforms used in clinical practice, but to our knowledge, this is the only educational document teaching on waveforms which provides essential knowledge. There is a gap of knowledge related to understanding wave forms and how they work.

Modulations in neural pathways excitability post transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation among individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review.

Introduction: Transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation (TSCS), a non-invasive form of spinal cord stimulation, has been shown to improve motor function in individuals living with spinal cord injury (SCI). However, the effects of different types of TSCS currents including direct current (DC-TSCS), alternating current (AC-TSCS), and spinal paired stimulation on the excitability of neural pathways have not been systematically investigated. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effects of TSCS on the excitability of neural pathways in adults with non-progressive SCI at any level. Methods: The following databases were searched from their inception until June 2022: MEDLINE ALL, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and clinical trials. A total of 4,431 abstracts were screened, and 23 articles were included. Results: Nineteen studies used TSCS at the thoracolumbar enlargement for lower limb rehabilitation (gait & balance) and four studies used cervical TSCS for upper limb rehabilitation. Sixteen studies measured spinal excitability by reporting different outcomes including Hoffmann reflex (H-reflex), flexion reflex excitability, spinal motor evoked potentials (SMEPs), cervicomedullay evoked potentials (CMEPs), and cutaneous-input-evoked muscle response. Seven studies measured corticospinal excitability using motor evoked potentials (MEPs) induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and one study measured somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) following TSCS. Our findings indicated a decrease in the amplitude of H-reflex and long latency flexion reflex following AC-TSCS, alongside an increase in the amplitudes of SMEPs and CMEPs. Moreover, the application of the TSCS-TMS paired associative technique resulted in spinal reflex inhibition, manifested by reduced amplitudes in both the H-reflex and flexion reflex arc. In terms of corticospinal excitability, findings from 5 studies demonstrated an increase in the amplitude of MEPs linked to lower limb muscles following DC-TSCS, in addition to paired associative stimulation involving repetitive TMS on the brain and DC-TSCS on the spine. There was an observed improvement in the latency of SSEPs in a single study. Notably, the overall quality of evidence, assessed by the modified Downs and Black Quality assessment, was deemed poor. Discussion: This review unveils the systematic evidence supporting the potential of TSCS in reshaping both spinal and supraspinal neuronal circuitries post-SCI. Yet, it underscores the critical necessity for more rigorous, high-quality investigations.

Large-scale real-world data on a multidisciplinary approach to spinal cord stimulation for persistent spinal pain syndromes: first evaluation of the Neuro-Pain® nationwide screening and follow-up interactive register.

Introduction: Spinal cord stimulation is a common treatment option for neuropathic pain conditions. Despite its extensive use and multiple technological evolutions, long term efficacy of spinal cord stimulation is debated. Most studies on spinal cord stimulation include a rather limited number of patients and/or follow-ups over a limited period. Therefore, there is an urgent need for real-world, long-term data. Methods: In 2018, the Belgian government initiated a nationwide secure platform for the follow-up of all new and existing spinal cord stimulation therapies. This is a unique approach used worldwide. Four years after the start of centralized recording, the first global extraction of data was performed. Results: Herein, we present the findings, detailing the different steps in the centralized procedure, as well as the observed patient and treatment characteristics. Furthermore, we identified dropouts during the screening process, the reasons behind discontinuation, and the evolution of key indicators during the trial period. In addition, we obtained the first insights into the evolution of the clinical impact of permanent implants on the overall functioning and quality of life of patients in the long-term. Discussion: Although these findings are the results of the first data extraction, some interesting conclusions can be drawn. The long-term outcomes of neuromodulation are complex and subject to many variables. Future data extraction will allow us to identify these confounding factors and the early predictors of success. In addition, we will propose further optimization of the current process.

A brief review of complex regional pain syndrome and current management.

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a debilitating chronic pain condition that, although exceedingly rare, carries a significant burden for the affected patient population. The complex and ambiguous pathophysiology of this condition further complicates clinical management and therapeutic interventions. Furthermore, being a diagnosis of exclusion requires a diligent workup to ensure an accurate diagnosis and subsequent targeted management. The development of the Budapest diagnostic criteria helped to consolidate existing definitions of CRPS but extensive work remains in identifying the underlying pathways. Currently, two distinct types are identified by the presence (CRPS type 1) or absence (CRPS type 2) of neuronal injury. Current management directed at this disease is broad and growing, ranging from non-invasive modalities such as physical and psychological therapy to more invasive techniques such as dorsal root ganglion stimulation and potentially amputation. Ideal therapeutic interventions are multimodal in nature to address the likely multifactorial pathological development of CRPS. Regardless, a significant need remains for continued studies to elucidate the pathways involved in developing CRPS as well as more robust clinical trials for various treatment modalities.

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a debilitating and complex condition that places a significant physical, psychological and emotional burden upon afflicted patients necessitating multi-modal approaches to treatment.The development of the Budapest criteria provided a robust and well-tested set of diagnostic criteria to aid clinicians in the diagnosis of CRPS.The pathophysiology of CRPS has been challenging to elucidate with numerous proposed mechanisms, altogether suggesting a multi-factorial process is involved in the development of this condition.Non-invasive treatments for CRPS are essential in addressing the physical limitations this disease can cause as well as addressing the significant psychological burden that involves increased incidence of depression and suicidal ideation.Invasive treatments offer promising results, especially when considering dorsal root ganglion stimulation; however, the need for more robust clinical trials remains, especially when considering a small portion of patients who have refractory CRPS resort to amputation to control their pain symptoms.

Boosting Confidence: Enhancing Spinal Cord Stimulator Needle and Lead Placement Through Simulation Training.

Background This pilot study aims to examine the effectiveness of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) simulator training system in improving the confidence of pain fellows in SCS placement. Methodology Five Ukrainian physicians (neurologists, neurosurgeons, and an anesthesiologist) completed a 10-item survey regarding their confidence in various aspects of SCS placement and their opinions on how effective SCS models were for educational purposes. After placing SCS leads using the SCS simulator, the physicians took the same survey again. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine if there was a significant difference in total scores pre and post-simulator training. The software PAST (PAleontological STatistics) was used for statistical analysis. Results Overall, five participants had a 38% statistically significant increase in survey scores before and after the intervention (mean: 4.2 vs. 6.2, p = 0.0055). With regards to each item of the survey, participants had a significantly increased confidence in driving leads (2.6 vs. 5.2, p = 0.008) and in overall technical skills for the SCS procedure after the training (2.8 vs. 5.2, p = 0.0188). Although the other eight survey items were not statistically significant (p > 0.05), participants had a 28% increase in confidence when inserting epidural needles, a 20% increase in interpreting simulated X-rays, a 32% increase in navigating challenging anatomical variations, a 12% increase in identifying key anatomical landmarks, a 20% increase in ensuring the correct placement of the lead, or a 53% increase in preparedness for performing an SCS procedure in a real clinical setting. The participant's perspective on how valuable the stimulator training was for enhancing procedural skills increased by 38% and how well the simulator replicated real-life SCS procedure increased by 52%, although both were statistically insignificant (p > 0.05). Conclusions This pilot study shows that the utilization of simulated neuromodulation training is a viable means of augmenting neuromodulation education by increasing physician's confidence in aspects of the SCS placement procedure. The extent to which simulator training improves procedural skills in a real-life SCS placement needs to be investigated further.

THE DEEP AND THE DEEPER: SPINAL CORD AND DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION FOR NEUROPATHIC PAIN.

Neuropathic pain occurs in people experiencing lesion or disease affecting the somatosensorial system. It is present in 7% of the general population and may not fully respond to first- and second-line treatments in up to 40% of cases. Neuromodulation approaches are often proposed for those not tolerating or not responding to usual pharmacological management. These approaches can be delivered surgically (invasively) or non-invasively. Invasive neuromodulation techniques were the first to be employed in neuropathic pain. Among them is spinal cord stimulation (SCS), which consists of the implantation of epidural electrodes over the spinal cord. It is recommended in some guidelines for peripheral neuropathic pain. While recent studies have called into question its efficacy, others have provided promising data, driven by advances in techniques, battery capabilities, programming algorithms and software developments. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is another well-stablished neuromodulation therapy routinely used for movement disorders; however, its role in pain management remains limited to specific research centers. This is not only due to variable results in the literature contesting its efficacy, but also because several different brain targets have been explored in small trials, compromising comparisons between these studies. Structures such as the periaqueductal grey, posterior thalamus, anterior cingulate cortex, ventral striatum/anterior limb of the internal capsule and the insula are the main targets described to date in literature. SCS and DBS present diverse rationales for use, mechanistic backgrounds, and varying levels of support from experimental studies. The present review aims to present their methodological details, main mechanisms of action for analgesia and their place in the current body of evidence in the management of patients with neuropathic pain, as well their particularities, effectiveness, safety and limitations.

Blunted cardiovascular responses to exercise by inhibiting afferent feedback via spinal cord stimulation in heart failure.

This case study investigated the impact of SCS on alterations in blood pressure during constant-load exercise in a female patient with heart failure. Three different SCS frequencies [No SCS (~0 Hz), Low SCS (~100 Hz), and High SCS (~1000 Hz)] with and without ischaemic stimulation of the legs (cuffs) were randomly applied during constant-load exercise. To determine cardiovascular and ventilatory responses to exercise following SCS frequencies, BP, heart rate (HR), and respiratory gas exchange were measured. This experiment was duplicated in visit 1 and visit 2 with a random application of SCS frequency order and the data were averaged. There were no significant differences among three frequencies with no leg ischaemia. However, High SCS demonstrated lower BP, HR, and respiratory gas exchange relative to No SCS and Low SCS. SCS may be effective in improving cardiovascular and ventilatory responses in HF and high-frequency stimulation provides more clinical benefit; however, further studies are needed.

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

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

Integrative approaches in spinal cord stimulation: Neuropathic pain management and motor recovery in spinal cord injury. A narrative review.

Introduction: Spinal cord stimulation is a widespread treatment of chronic neuropathic pain from different conditions. Several novel and improving technologies have been recently developed to increase the effect of neuromodulation in patients refractory to pharmacological therapy. Research question: To explore spinal cord stimulation's mechanisms of action, indications, and management. Material and methods: The paper initially explores the mechanism of action of this procedure based on the generation of an electric field between electrodes placed on the posterior dural surface of the spinal cord probably interfering with the transmission of pain stimuli to the brain. Subsequently, the most consolidated criteria for selecting patients for surgery, which constitute a major issue of debate, were defined. Thereafter, the fundamental patterns of stimulation were summarized by exploring the advantages and side effects. Lastly, the most common side effects and the related management were discussed. Results: Proper selection of the patient is of paramount importance to achieve the best results from this specific neuromodulation treatment. Regarding the different types of stimulation patterns, no definite evidence-based guidelines exist on the most appropriate approach in relation to the specific type of neuropathic pain. Both burst stimulation and high-frequency stimulation are innovative techniques that reduce the risk of paresthesias compared with conventional stimulation. Discussion and conclusion: Novel protocols of stimulation (burst stimulation and high frequency stimulation) may improve the trade-off between therapeutic benefits and potential side effects. Likewise, decreasing the rates of hardware-related complications will be also useful to increase the application of neuromodulation in clinical settings.

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.

Neuromodulation techniques in poststroke motor impairment recovery: Efficacy, challenges, and future directions.

Cerebrovascular accidents, also known as strokes, represent a major global public health challenge and contribute to substantial mortality, disability, and socioeconomic burden. Multidisciplinary approaches for poststroke therapies are crucial for recovering lost functions and adapting to new limitations. This review discusses the potential of neuromodulation techniques, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation, spinal cord stimulation (SCS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), and deep brain stimulation (DBS), as innovative strategies for facilitating poststroke recovery. Neuromodulation is an emerging adjunct to conventional therapies that target neural plasticity to restore lost function and compensate for damaged brain areas. The techniques discussed in this review have different efficacies in enhancing neural plasticity, optimizing motor recovery, and mitigating poststroke impairments. Specifically, rTMS has shown significant promise in enhancing motor function, whereas SCS has shown potential in improving limb movement and reducing disability. Similarly, VNS, typically used to treat epilepsy, has shown promise in enhancing poststroke motor recovery, while DBS may be used to improve poststroke motor recovery and symptom mitigation. Further studies with standardized protocols are warranted to elucidate the efficacy of these methods and integrate them into mainstream clinical practice to optimize poststroke care.

Examining the Duration of Carryover Effect in Patients With Chronic Pain Treated With Spinal Cord Stimulation (EChO Study): An Open, Interventional, Investigator-Initiated, International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical treatment for severe, chronic, neuropathic pain. It is based on one to two lead(s) implanted in the epidural space, stimulating the dorsal column. It has long been assumed that when deactivating SCS, there is a variable interval before the patient perceives the return of the pain, a phenomenon often termed echo or carryover effect. Although the carryover effect has been problematized as a source of error in crossover studies, no experimental investigation of the effect has been published. This open, prospective, international multicenter study aimed to systematically document, quantify, and investigate the carryover effect in SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with a beneficial effect from their SCS treatment were instructed to deactivate their SCS device in a home setting and to reactivate it when their pain returned. The primary outcome was duration of carryover time defined as the time interval from deactivation to reactivation. Central clinical parameters (age, sex, indication for SCS, SCS treatment details, pain score) were registered and correlated with carryover time using nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney/Kruskal-Wallis) for categorical data and linear regression for continuous data. RESULTS: In total, 158 patients were included in the analyses. A median carryover time of five hours was found (interquartile range 2.5;21 hours). Back pain as primary indication for SCS, high-frequency stimulation, and higher pain score at the time of deactivation were correlated with longer carryover time. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the existence of the carryover effect and indicates a remarkably high degree of interindividual variation. The results suggest that the magnitude of carryover may be correlated to the nature of the pain condition and possibly stimulation paradigms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03386058.