The Predicted Outcome of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With a Psychopathological Disorder and Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2: A Systematic Review From 2009 to 2021.

OBJECTIVES: Psychologic screening is often included as a mandatory component of evaluation of the impact of psychopathology disorders on the predicted outcome of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for patients with chronic pain due to persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS type 2). The conclusion of such screenings can influence the decision to offer SCS therapy to a patient. However, evidence on the impact of psychopathology on SCS outcomes is still scarce. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To address this knowledge gap, we systematically reviewed the literature from 2009 to 2021 to explore the correlation between the presence of a psychopathological disorder and the predicted outcome of SCS in patients with PSPS type 2. The literature search was conducted using various online data bases with "failed back surgery syndrome," "psychopathology," and "spinal cord stimulation" used as essential keywords. The identified studies were organized in a Rayyan AI data base, and the quality was analyzed with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. RESULTS: Our search generated the identification of 468 original articles, of which two prospective and four retrospective studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies reported pain relief, a reduction of symptoms of anxiety and depression, and an improvement in rumination on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in patients with PSPS type 2 after SCS therapy. The studies also found contradictory outcomes measured using the Oswestry Disability Index, and in terms of the impact of psychopathological disorder on the clinical outcome and revision rate of the SCS system. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review, we found no convincing evidence that the presence of a psychopathological disorder affects the predicted outcome of SCS therapy in patients with PSPS type 2.

Gradation of Clinical Holistic Response as New Composite Outcome to Evaluate Success in Spinal Cord Stimulation Studies for Pain.

INTRODUCTION: The most prominent outcome measurement in the field of neuromodulation is pain relief. Nevertheless, the number of studies that rely on composite outcomes has increased. The aims of this study are twofold: (1) to evaluate which measures are important to include in a composite outcome and (2) to develop this new composite outcome to evaluate the degree of being a clinical holistic responder with a corresponding minimal clinical important difference (MCID). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 treated with High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation (HD-SCS) were used. Pain intensity for low back and leg pain, disability, health-related quality of life, medication use, and patient satisfaction were measured at baseline and after 12 months of HD-SCS. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses were used to evaluate which measures should be included in the composite outcome. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were applied to determine the MCID of the newly developed outcome measurement. RESULTS: A three-factor model was the most appropriate for this data set, in which leg pain intensity, EQ5D VAS, and disability had the largest loading on these factors. A clinical holistic outcome was created with a total score ranging from 0 (=better [no pain, no disability, and perfect health status]) to 300 (=worse [maximal pain, maximal disability, and worst health status]). The MCID value based on an absolute change score from baseline up to 12 months of HD-SCS was 87.97. When calculating with percentage changes, a MCID value of 48.4% was revealed. CONCLUSIONS: This new composite outcome evaluating the degree of deviation from being a holistic responder is a step toward a meaningful, overall outcome assessment for patients who are treated with SCS. Further studies to evaluate the psychometric properties and the generalizability toward other patient populations still need to be performed.

Spinal Cord Stimulation-Naïve Patients vs Patients With Failed Previous Experiences With Standard Spinal Cord Stimulation: Two Distinct Entities or One Population?

INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, the success of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is evaluated separately in patients who have previous experiences with standard SCS and in SCS-naïve patients. Nevertheless, it is yet to be evaluated whether both patient groups are effectively distinct patient groups. Therefore, the aims of this study are twofold: 1) Are there clusters in the data to distinguish between both patient groups? 2) Can we discriminate both patient groups based on routinely collected clinical parameters? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Baseline data from the Discover study were used, in which 263 patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 were included (185 neurostimulation-naïve patients and 78 patients with previous SCS experience). Pain intensity scores for low back and leg pain, functional disability, medication use, and health-related quality of life utility scores were used in the analysis. Model-based clustering was performed on standardized data. Discriminant analysis was performed with linear and quadratic discriminant analysis, with leave-one-out cross-validation to evaluate model performance. RESULTS: Model-based clustering revealed two different clusters in the data. None of the clusters clearly separated SCS-naïve patients from patients with previous SCS experience. Linear discriminant analysis resulted in a leave-one-out cross-validation error rate of 30.0% to discriminate between both patient groups, based on routinely collected clinical parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Clustering analysis did not result in clusters that separate SCS-naïve patients from patients with previous SCS experience. This may suggest that both patient groups should not be considered as two different patient groups when comparing them on routine clinical parameters, with potentially profound implications for research and clinical settings. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the Discover study is NCT02787265.

Synergistic neuromodulation therapy for persistent spinal pain: a proof-of-concept trial on the use of spinal cord and dorsal root ganglion stimulation.

PURPOSE: Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome type 2 (PSPS-T2) poses a significant clinical challenge, demanding innovative therapeutic interventions. The integration of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) and Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation (DRG-S) is emerging as a potent synergistic strategy for comprehensive pain management. This single patient-blind proof of concept (POC) trial explores the efficacy and synergistic potential of combined SCS and DRG-S in a patient with refractory PSPS-T2. METHODS: A 45-year-old male with intractable PSPS-T2 underwent a unique, methodically structured study, involving three treatment phases: Phase A with SCS alone, Phase B with DRG-S alone, and Phase C The patient, blinded to the treatment modalities, provided pain assessments using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) conducted by clinical investigators at each phase. Baseline pain scores were ten and nine, respectively. RESULTS: Distinct responses were noted across the phases. Phase A demonstrated moderate pain relief, while Phase B offered further pain intensity reduction. However, Phase C, combining both strategies, yielded the most significant improvement, remarkably enhancing the patient's quality of life and functional capacity. CONCLUSION: This POC trial underscores the synergistic potential of SCS and DRG-S in managing complex cases of PSPS-T2, suggesting a paradigm shift towards integrated neuromodulation strategies for enhanced pain control. The development of dual intent implantable pulse generators (IPGs) capable of offering combination therapy simultaneously might be effective for pain management in select cases. The significant pain reduction and functional improvement observed advocate for further research in dual neuromodulation therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: IRB 20190536.

Does lumbar spinal decompression or fusion surgery influence outcome parameters in patients with intrathecal morphine treatment for persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS-T2).

OBJECTIVES: Intrathecal morphine pump (ITMP) infusion therapy is efficient in managing chronic pain refractory to standard treatment. This study evaluates pain relief and improvement of quality of life in chronic pain patients after intrathecal morphine pump implantation for treatment of persistent pain after lumbar spinal fusion surgery and lumbar spinal decompression alone. METHODS: Forty three chronic pain patients that received an ITMP at our department between 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed divided into 2 cohorts (lumbar spinal fusion surgery and lumbar spinal decompression alone). Pain intensity was evaluated using the numeric rating scale (NRS), quality of life was assessed by EQ-5D-3L, mental health was assessed by Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-V), and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Morphine dosage was assessed over time. Data was collected preoperatively, 6 and 24 months postoperatively. Statistical analysis was performed using Friedman's analysis of variance to evaluate the development of NRS, PCS, BDI and EQ-5D-3L over time and Mann-Whitney-U-test for the differences between these parameters in the different cohorts. A two-sided p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Median age was 64 years (IQR25-75 56-71 years). NRS, EQ-5D-3L, BDI-V, and PCS showed a significant overall improvement after 6 and 24 months compared to baseline data (p<0.001). No statistically significant differences between patients with lumbar spinal fusion surgery and lumbar spinal decompression alone were seen. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences for age and gender were seen. The initially administered median morphine dosage was significantly higher in the fusion group (3.0 mg/day; IQR25-75 1.5-4.2 mg/day) compared to the decompression-alone group (1.5 mg/day; IQR25-75 1.0-2.6 mg/day); (p=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study showed that ITMP have a major long-term impact on pain relief, improve the quality of life, psychological distress, as well as pain catastrophizing in patients with chronic pain following lumbar spinal surgery independent of the previous surgical procedure. After ITMP implantation initial median morphine dosage seems to be significantly higher after spinal fusion compared to decompressive surgery alone.

Study protocol: Effects of active versus passive recharge burst spinal cord stimulation on pain experience in persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2: a multicentre randomized trial (BURST-RAP study).

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown to be an effective treatment for patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS Type 2). The method used to deliver electrical charge in SCS is important. One such method is burst stimulation. Within burst stimulation, a recharge pattern is used to prevent buildup of charge in stimulated tissues. Two variations of burst waveforms are currently in use: one that employs active recharge and one that uses passive recharge. It has been suggested that differences exist between active and passive recharge paradigms related to both efficacy of pain relief and their underlying mechanism of action. Active recharge has been shown to activate both the medial spinal pathway, engaging cortical sensorimotor areas involved in location and intensity of pain, and lateral pathway, reaching brain areas involved with cognitive-emotional aspects of pain. Passive recharge has been suggested to act via modulation of thalamic neurons, which fire in a similar electrical pattern, and thereby modulate activity in various cortical areas including those related to motivational and emotional aspects of pain. The objective of this randomized clinical trial is to assess and compare the effect of active versus passive recharge Burst SCS on a wide spectrum of pain in PSPS Type 2 patients. METHODS: This multicentre randomized clinical trial will take place in 6 Dutch hospitals. PSPS Type 2 patients (n=94) will be randomized into a group receiving either active or passive recharge burst. Following a successful trial period, patients are permanently implanted. Patients complete the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) (primary outcome at 6 months), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS), Patient Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (PVAQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Quality of Life (EQ-5D), Oswestery Disability Index (ODI), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and painDETECT questionnaires (secondary outcomes) at baseline, after trial, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months following implantation. DISCUSSION: The BURST-RAP trial protocol will shed light on possible clinical differences and effectivity of pain relief, including emotional-motivational aspects between active and passive burst SCS in PSPS Type 2 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration:  NCT05421273 . Registered on 16 June 2022. Netherlands Trial Register NL9194. Registered on 23 January 2021.

Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2 (PSPS-T2), a Social Pain? Advocacy for a Social Gradient of Health Approach to Chronic Pain.

The Social Gradient of Health (SGH), or position in the social hierarchy, is one of the major determinants of health. It influences the development and evolution of many chronic diseases. Chronic pain dramatically affects individual and social condition. Its medico-economic impact is significant and worldwide. Failed Back Surgery Syndrome or Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome type 2 (PSPS-T2) represents one of its most fascinating and disabling conditions. However, the influence of SGH on PSPS-T2 has been poorly explored. We designed a prospective multicentric study (PREDIBACK study) to assess the SGH prevalence, and to examine its association with medical and psychological variables, in PSPS-T2 patients. This study included 200 patients to determine the SGH association with pain (NPRS), Quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), kinesiophobia (FABQ-Work), catastrophism (CSQ), and functional capacity (ODI). Around 85.3% of PSPS-T2 patients in our study had low SGH. Low SGH patients had a higher FABQ-Work and CSQ-Catastrophizing score than high SGH patients (p < 0.05). High SGH patients have a higher ODI score than low SGH patients (p < 0.10). Our results suggest that SGH is a relevant factor to guide prevention, research, and ultimately intervention in PSPS-T2 patients and could be more widely transposed to chronic pain.