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

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

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)®: Recommendations for the Mitigation of Complications of Neurostimulation.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise and international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the mitigation of neuromodulation complications. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)® project intends to update evidence-based guidance and offer expert opinion that will improve efficacy and safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors were chosen on the basis of their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when NACC last published guidelines) to October 2023. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence was scant. RESULTS: The NACC examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC recommends best practices regarding the mitigation of complications associated with neurostimulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be used as a guide to assist decision-making when clinically appropriate.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)®: Recommendations for Spinal Cord Stimulation Long-term Outcome Optimization and Salvage Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has recognized a need to establish best practices for optimizing implantable devices and salvage when ideal outcomes are not realized. This group has established the Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)® to offer guidance on matters needed for both our members and the broader community of those affected by neuromodulation devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The executive committee of the INS nominated faculty for this NACC® publication on the basis of expertise, publications, and career work on the issue. In addition, the faculty was chosen in consideration of diversity and inclusion of different career paths and demographic categories. Once chosen, the faculty was asked to grade current evidence and along with expert opinion create consensus recommendations to address the lapses in information on this topic. RESULTS: The NACC® group established informative and authoritative recommendations on the salvage and optimization of care for those with indwelling devices. The recommendations are based on evidence and expert opinion and will be expected to evolve as new data are generated for each topic. CONCLUSIONS: NACC® guidance should be considered for any patient with less-than-optimal outcomes with a stimulation device implanted for treating chronic pain. Consideration should be given to these consensus points to salvage a potentially failed device before explant.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for DRG stimulation. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for DRG stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, too small, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: DRG stimulation has Level II evidence (moderate) based upon one high-quality pivotal randomized controlled trial and two lower-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-level evidence supports DRG stimulation for treating chronic focal neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome.

A Systematic Literature Review of Spine Neurostimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for SCS. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year's duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: SCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT). CONCLUSIONS: High-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

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

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

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the management of refractory primary chronic headaches: A real-world experience.

Background Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation has initial evidence of efficacy in migraine and cluster headache. However, little is known about its role in the management of refractory chronic headaches. Methods We evaluated the preventive and abortive effects of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation in 41 consecutive patients with refractory primary chronic headaches in an open-label prospective clinical audit. Headache diaries were used to collect clinical information. Those who obtained at least 30% reduction in headache days/episodes after three months of treatment were considered responders and were offered treatment continuation. Results Twenty-three patients with chronic migraine, 12 with chronic cluster headache, four with hemicrania continua and two with short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with autonomic symptoms (SUNA) were treated. Two of 23 chronic migraine patients, one of 12 chronic cluster headache patients, and two of four hemicrania continua patients were considered responders. None of the patients with SUNA benefited from the therapy. Two chronic migraine patients were able to reduce the pain severity of moderate migraines with non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation. Conclusion Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation may not constitute an effective acute nor preventive treatment in refractory chronic primary headaches. The encouraging effect in hemicrania continua warrants further evaluation in larger studies.

Guideline of guidelines: bladder pain syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Bladder pain syndrome (BPS) is a debilitating condition which can be difficult to diagnose and treat due to the lack of consensus on aetiology, definition, and management. The aim of this review is to summarise the findings from major national and international guidelines on the management of BPS, highlighting areas of disagreement and uncertainty. METHODS: We performed a Medline/PubMed search from 1st January 2000 to 31st December 2017 in order to identify relevant guidelines addressing BPS/interstitial cystitis. We also manually searched the websites of major national and international societies. The following guidelines were included in this review: European Association of Urology, American Urological Association, International Society for the Study of BPS, International Consultation on Incontinence, International Continence Society, East Asian guideline, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists/British Society of Urogynaecology, and the Canadian Urological Association. RESULTS: There is disagreement between guidelines on the exact definition of BPS and the nomenclature to use to describe this condition. However, all agree that the diagnosis is dependent on the presence of pain, pressure, or discomfort, in addition to at least one urinary symptom, in the absence of other diseases that could cause pain. Exclusion of other pathology that could cause similar symptoms requires thorough evaluation, and is recommended in all guidelines. There is also disparity in the recommended diagnostic investigation of BPS, with hydrodistension and bladder biopsy either recommended, considered optional, or not recommended, by different guidelines. It is accepted that BPS can be diagnosed clinically, without invasive investigation, but cystoscopy and diagnostic hydrodistension aids sub-typing of patients and may help direct treatment strategies. Patients should be phenotyped in order to direct multimodal treatment (including behavioural, physical, emotional, and psychological therapy), and treatments should follow a stepwise approach starting with the most conservative. Although widely performed, hydrodistension as a therapeutic strategy has a limited evidence base and is unlikely to provide long-term resolution of symptoms CONCLUSION: There are multiple national and international guidelines for the diagnosis and management of BPS, and this review has highlighted the differences in nomenclature, definitions, and recommended diagnostic tests between guidelines. The overall evidence base for the majority of treatments for BPS/IC is of low-quality, and larger randomised trials are required to more accurately inform guideline recommendations and clinical management of this complex group of patients.

Long-Term Improvements in Chronic Axial Low Back Pain Patients Without Previous Spinal Surgery: A Cohort Analysis of 10-kHz High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation over 36 Months.

Objective: This prospective, open-label study was designed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of 10-kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the treatment of chronic axial low back pain with no history of spinal surgery. Methods: Patients with chronic low back pain without previous spinal surgery underwent assessment by a multidisciplinary pain and surgical team to confirm eligibility. After a successful temporary trial of 10-kHz HF-SCS therapy, defined by ≥50% back pain reduction, enrolled subjects underwent permanent system implantation and were followed up for 36 months. Outcome measures consisted of a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) for pain intensity, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and a standard measure of health-related quality of life. Results: Twenty-one patients satisfied the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Following a temporary trial, 20 of 21 (95%) subjects were implanted with a pulse generator, and 17 of 20 reached the 36-month time point. From baseline to 36 months, the average VAS pain intensity decreased from 79 ± 12 mm to 10 ± 12 mm, the average ODI score decreased from 53 ± 13 to 19.8 ± 13, and use of opioids decreased from 18 subjects to two subjects. One subject was deceased, unrelated to the study, one subject was explanted due to loss of effectiveness, and one subject was lost to follow-up. Conclusions: These results suggest that 10-kHz high-frequency SCS may provide significant, long-term back pain relief, improvement in disability and quality of life, and reduction in opioids for nonsurgical refractory back pain.

Prospective, Randomized, Sham-Control, Double Blind, Crossover Trial of Subthreshold Spinal Cord Stimulation at Various Kilohertz Frequencies in Subjects Suffering From Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (SCS Frequency Study).

INTRODUCTION: The increasing use of high frequency paresthesia-free spinal cord stimulation has been associated with improved outcomes in the therapy of neuropathic pain. What is unknown is the effect of varying frequency on pain relief and the placebo effect. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, sham-controlled double blind crossover study. Subjects with predominantly axial low back pain undergoing spinal cord stimulation therapy for failed back surgery syndrome were randomized to sham, 1200 Hz, 3030 Hz, and 5882 Hz with a four-phase crossover design over 12 weeks. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were randomized in the study. The mean low back pain score at baseline was 7.75. The mean low back pain scores on a 10 cm visual analog scale during the randomized crossover phase were 4.83, 4.51, 4.57, and 3.22, for sham, 1200 Hz, 3030 Hz, and 5882 Hz, respectively, with the lowest low back pain score observed in the 5882 Hz frequency group (p = 0.002). Of note, sham stimulation resulted in a reduction of pain by -2.92 cm and was not significantly different from stimulation at 1200 Hz and 3030 Hz. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized crossover study demonstrated that 5882 Hz stimulation can produce significant pain relief for axial low back pain compared with lower frequencies and sham stimulation. Sham stimulation produced similar analgesic effects to 1200 Hz and 3030 Hz and this effect may influence future neuromodulation clinical trial designs.

Medullary infarction causing coexistent SUNCT and trigeminal neuralgia.

Background Short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks with conjunctival injection and tearing (SUNCT) or with autonomic symptoms (SUNA) are grouped together within the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs). However, the SUNCT and SUNA phenotype and management overlap with those of trigeminal neuralgia (TN). Additionally, a broad variety of cerebral pathologies are reportedly able to trigger either TN- or SUNCT-like pain, and emerging structural neuroimaging findings suggest the possible role of neurovascular conflict with the trigeminal nerve in SUNCT, further supporting aetiological and pathophysiological overlaps among SUNCT, SUNA and TN. Case report We present the first case of coexisting chronic SUNCT- and TN-like phenotypes caused by haemorrhagic infarct of the dorsolateral medulla. Discussion In light of our case, a perturbation of the dorsolateral medullary circuits may constitute an important pathophysiological component, supporting a unifying nosological hypothesis that considers SUNCT, SUNA and TN clinical variants of the same disorder.

10 kHz High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Axial Low Back Pain in Patients With No History of Spinal Surgery: A Preliminary, Prospective, Open Label and Proof-of-Concept Study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the effectiveness of 10 kHz high frequency spinal cord stimulation (HF10 therapy) treatment of chronic low back pain in patients who have not had spinal surgery. METHODS: Patients with chronic low back pain without prior spinal surgery were evaluated by a team of spine surgeons to rule out any spinal pathology amenable to surgical interventions and by a multidisciplinary pain team to confirm eligibility for the study. After a successful (>50% back pain reduction) trial of HF10 therapy, enrolled subjects underwent permanent system implantation and were followed-up one year post-implant. RESULTS: About 95% of the enrolled subjects (20/21) received the permanent system. At 12 months post-implant, both back pain VAS score and ODI were significantly reduced compared with baseline values (by 73% and 48%, respectively); an estimated quality-adjusted life year gain of 0.47 and a reduction in opioid use by 64% was observed. Four more patients among those unable to work at baseline due to back pain were employed at 12 months post-implant. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: HF10 therapy may provide significant back pain relief, reduction in disability, improvement quality of life, and reduction in opioid use in chronic low back pain not resulting from spinal surgery.

Safety and efficacy of cervical 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation in chronic refractory primary headaches: a retrospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Paresthesia-free cervical 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (HF10 SCS) may constitute a novel treatment modality for headache disorders, when pharmacological approaches fail. We report the results of a retrospective analysis assessing the long-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of HF10 SCS in a group of patients with chronic refractory primary headache disorders. FINDINGS: Four patients with chronic migraine (CM), two with chronic SUNA (Short-lasting Unilateral Neuralgiform headache attacks with Autonomic symptoms) and one with chronic cluster headache (CCH) refractory to medical treatments, were implanted with cervical HF10 SCS. Pre- and post-implantation data were collected from the medical notes and from headache charts. At an average follow-up of 28 months (range: 12-42 months) we observed an improvement of at least 50 % in headache frequency and/or intensity in all CM patients. One SUNA patient became pain free and the other reported at least 50 % improvement in attacks frequency an duration. The CCH patient reported a significant reduction in CH attacks duration. Two patients underwent a surgical revision due to lead migration. CONCLUSIONS: Paresthesia-free high cervical HF10 SCS appears to be a long-term safe and likely effective therapeutic approach for patients with chronic refractory primary headache disorders. These results warrant further prospective studies in larger series of patients.