A Novel Pulsed Stimulation Pattern in Spinal Cord Stimulation: Clinical Results and Postulated Mechanisms of Action in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back and Leg Pain.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to discuss the possible mechanisms of action (MOAs) and results of a pilot study of a novel, anatomically placed, and paresthesia-independent, neurostimulation waveform for the management of chronic intractable pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A novel, multilayered pulsed stimulation pattern (PSP) that comprises three temporal layers, a Pulse Pattern layer, Train layer, and Dosage layer, was developed for the treatment of chronic intractable pain. During preliminary development, the utility was evaluated of anatomical PSP (aPSP) in human subjects with chronic intractable pain of the leg(s) and/or low back, compared with that of traditional spinal cord stimulation (T-SCS) and physiological PSP. The scientific theory and testing presented in this article provide the preliminary justification for the potential MOAs by which PSP may operate. RESULTS: During the pilot study, aPSP (n = 31) yielded a greater decrease in both back and leg pain than did T-SCS (back: -60% vs -46%; legs: -63% vs -43%). In addition, aPSP yielded higher responder rates for both back and leg pain than did T-SCS (61% vs 48% and 78% vs 50%, respectively). DISCUSSION: The novel, multilayered approach of PSP may provide multimechanistic therapeutic relief through preferential fiber activation in the dorsal column, optimization of the neural onset response, and use of both the medial and lateral pathway through the thalamic nuclei. The results of the pilot study presented here suggest a robust responder rate, with several subjects (five subjects with back pain and three subjects with leg pain) achieving complete relief from PSP during the acute follow-up period. These clinical findings suggest PSP may provide a multimechanistic, anatomical, and clinically effective management for intractable chronic pain. Because of the limited sample size of clinical data, further testing and long-term clinical assessments are warranted to confirm these preliminary findings.

Novel spinal cord stimulation system with a Battery-Free micro-implantable pulse generator.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective for the treatment of chronic intractable pain of the trunk and limbs. The mechanism of action may be based, at least in part, upon the gate control theory; however, new waveforms may suggest other mechanisms. Although benefits of the SCS technology generally outweigh the complications associated with SCS, some complications such as infection and skin erosion over the implant can result in device removal. Additional reasons for device removal, such as pocket pain and battery depletion, have driven technological innovations including battery-free implants and device miniaturization. The neurostimulation system described here was specifically designed to address complications commonly associated with implantable batteries and/or larger implantable devices. The benefits of the small size are further augmented by a minimally invasive implant procedure. Usability data show that patients found this novel neurostimulation system to be easy to use and comfortable to wear. What is more, clinical data demonstrate that the use of this system provides statistically significant reduction in pain scores with responder rates (defined as ≥50% reduction in pain) of 78% in the low back and 83% in the leg(s). Advances in miniaturization technology arose from the considerable shrinkage of the integrated circuit, with an increase in performance, according to Moore's law (1965). However, commensurate improvements in battery technology have not maintained a similar pace. This has prompted some manufacturers to place the battery outside, against the skin, thereby allowing a massive reduction in the implant volume, with the hopes of fewer device-related complications.

A narrative review and future considerations of spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In recent years, neuromodulation has experienced a renaissance. Novel waveforms and anatomic targets show potential improvements in therapy that may signify substantial benefits. New innovations in peripheral nerve stimulation and dorsal root ganglion stimulation have shown prospective evidence and sustainability of results. Sub-perception physiologic bursting, high-frequency stimulation and feedback loop mechanisms provide significant benefits over traditional tonic spinal cords stimulation (SCS) in peer reviewed investigations. We reviewed the themes associated with novel technology in the context of historical stalwart publications. RECENT FINDINGS: New innovations have led to better nerve targeting, improvements in disease-based treatment, and opioid alternatives for those in chronic pain. In addition, new neural targets from both structural and cellular perspectives have changed the field of Neurostimulation. SUMMARY: For many years, tonic SCS was representative of neuromodulation, but as this review examines, the progression of the field in the past decade has reshaped patient options.

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.

A Review of Emerging Evidence for Utilization of a Percutaneous Interspinous Process Decompression Device to Treat Symptomatic Lumbar Adjacent-Segment Degeneration.

OBJECTIVE: Postlaminectomy syndrome diagnoses secondary to adjacent segment degeneration are a substantial and rising cause of morbidity in the United States. Emerging spinal cord neuromodulation technologies have produced successful outcomes for postlaminectomy neuropathic pain but are less effective in treating neurogenic claudication secondary to recurrent lumbar stenosis. Percutaneous interspinous process decompression systems can be used as a salvage treatment modality for persistent structural neurogenic claudication in postlaminectomy syndrome or after spinal cord stimulator implantation. METHODS: This paper is a review of emerging evidence for efficacious utilization of percutaneous interspinous process decompression. RESULTS: A recent pragmatic trial of subjects who underwent percutaneous interspinous process decompression for lumbar stenosis with intermittent neurogenic claudication reported that 63% (26/41) maintained minimal clinically important improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) leg pain, 61% (25/41) in VAS back pain, 78% (32/41) in function objective values, and 88% (36/41) reported satisfaction with treatment at 12 months postop. All subjects in a small case series of seven individuals with postlaminectomy adjacent-segment disease reported postoperative satisfaction scores of 3 or 4 on a 0-4 scale and were also able to decrease or wean completely off controlled pain medications. In another study, there was a significant decrease in average leg pain (60% improvement, P < 0.0001, N = 25) and axial low back pain (58% improvement, P < 0.0001, N = 25) in patients who underwent one- or two-level percutaneous interspinous process decompression as a rescue treatment for reemerging neurogenic claudication after spinal cord stimulator implantation. CONCLUSIONS: The spine often is a focus of progressive disease. Furthermore, mechanical changes associated with spinal instrumentation can lead to additional disease at adjacent levels. Many individuals will present with symptomatic neurogenic claudication recalcitrant to multimodal management strategies, including even the most sophisticated neuromodulation technologies. Implementation of salvage percutaneous interspinus process decompression implantation in cases of adjacent segment degeneration or incomplete spinal cord stimulation can decompress structural causes of neurogenic claudication while sparing the patient from more invasive surgical reoperation techniques.

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.

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

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

Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of neuropathic pain: expert opinion and 5-year outlook.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for chronic, intractable neuropathic pain. There have been relatively few high-level studies that suggest its unequivocal use. The decay of stimulation efficacy over time have opened opportunity for the entrance of new pulse trains and waveforms. AREAS COVERED: In this state-of-the-art review, we focused on many of the major studies published in the last 10 years that were considered level one evidence. A retrospective narrative approach was taken to conceptualize foundation studies as they pertain to current evidence. A special focus was taken on reported safety outcomes in comparison to foundation studies especially as they pertain to our 5-year outlook on the use of spinal cord stimulation. EXPERT OPINION: We find there are still significant limitations in the body of reviewed evidence and suggest that long-term data beyond 24 months are lacking in the literature. In addition, adverse event rates, device explantation rates and the sham effect looms as important concepts to address in the future in spite of the existing novel stimulation paradigms.