Safety, Efficacy, and Durability of Outcomes: Results from SECURE: A Single Arm, Multicenter, Prospective, Clinical Study on a Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Fusion Allograft Implant.

Introduction: Research suggests that sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction is responsible for 15% to 30% of reported low back pain cases. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in SIJ fusion using minimally invasive surgery (MIS) due to safety. Initially, devices designed for MIS were intended for lateral approaches. A minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion implant for use with a posterior approach has been developed and is regulated for clinical use under the regulatory framework required for human cells, tissues, or cellular or tissue-based products (HCT/Ps). Methods: A multi-center, prospective, single-arm study was launched after initial studies provided preliminary data to support safety, efficacy, and durability of this minimally invasive sacroiliac posterior fusion LinQ allograft implant (NCT04423120). Preliminary results were reported previously. Final results for the full participant cohort are presented here. Results: One-hundred and fifty-nine (159) participants were enrolled across 16 investigational sites in the US between January 2020 and March 2022. One-hundred and twenty-two (122) participants were implanted. At the 1-month follow-up, 82 participants satisfied all criteria for the composite responder endpoint, representing 73.2% of the study cohort. These results stayed consistent across the remaining study timepoints with 66.0%, 74.4%, and 73.5% of participants classified as responders at the 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up visits, respectively. VAS scores were significantly reduced (p < 0.0001) and ODI scores were significantly improved (p < 0.0001). All domains of the PROMIS-29 were also significantly improved (all p's <0.0001). Only one procedure-related serious AE was reported in the study. Conclusion: These results suggest that the posterior approach LinQ Implant System is a safe and effective treatment for sacroiliac joint dysfunction at 12 months, with results that are favorable compared to outcomes reported for an FDA-cleared lateral approach.

Demographics and PainDETECT as Predictors of 24-Month Outcomes for 10 kHz SCS in Nonsurgical Refractory Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Nonsurgical refractory back pain (NSRBP) is broadly defined as chronic refractory back pain in patients who have not had previous spine surgery and, because they are deemed inappropriate candidates for surgery, are reliant on conventional medical management (CMM), which often provides poor long-term outcomes. High-frequency spinal cord stimulation (10kHz SCS) has demonstrated high rates of pain relief and improvements in functioning in patients with NSRBP. However, despite the use of temporary trial stimulation to select patients who will respond to therapy, some patients fail to achieve long-term therapy response with permanent implants. Prediction analysis founded on patients' baseline characteristics may enrich the appropriate selection of patients for permanent implantation. OBJECTIVES: To examine baseline patient characteristics to predict long-term pain and functional responses to treatment with 10 kHz SCS for NSRBP. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of baseline patient characteristics as predictors of 24-month pain and functional outcomes from a previous multicenter randomized controlled trial of 10 kHz SCS in patients with NSRBP. PATIENTS: Patients diagnosed with chronic, neuropathic, axial, low back pain refractory to CMM who had had no previous spine surgery, were deemed unsuitable candidates for it according to a spine surgeon, were implanted with 10kHz SCS and continued with CMM for up to 24 months. METHODS: The baseline characteristics of and 24-month outcomes in the 125 implanted patients who participated in the NSRBP randomized controlled trial (RCT) were included in this analysis. The baseline characteristics included demographics, baseline pain on the visual analog scale (VAS), baseline function based on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), mental health according to the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), neuropathic pain as measured by PainDETECT, and each patient's temporary trial response. Patient response at 24 months was defined as absolute change from the baseline on the VAS and ODI, and each patient was also classified as a pain responder (achieving at least a 50% decrease in VAS pain score from the baseline) and a function responder (at least a 10-point decrease in ODI or a 24-month score of no more than 20 points). Multivariate prediction models based on regression and classification and regression tree (CART) techniques were developed using the response variables discussed above as the dependent variables and the baseline characteristics as the independent variables. RESULTS: Different factors contributed to pain and functional outcomes. Patients presenting with neuropathic pain (PainDETECT >= 19) and female gender had higher odds of being pain responders to 10 kHz SCS therapy than did males and those without neuropathic pain. Both higher age and depression score (PHQ-9) independently reduced the odds that a patient would be an ODI responder. Years since diagnosis, the reason the patient was deemed unsuitable for spine surgery, and pain etiology were not predictive of pain or functional outcomes. LIMITATIONS: A retrospective sub-analysis of a single pragmatic randomized controlled trial. CONCLUSIONS: There may be an opportunity to increase pain relief and functional improvement if additional patient screening accompanies the temporary lead trial. The presence of neuropathic pain, female gender, age, and depression had some predictive value, but this analysis demonstrates the treatment efficacy of 10 kHz SCS across a wide range of patients with NSRBP.

The Safety and Effectiveness of Orthobiologic Injections for Discogenic Chronic Low Back Pain: A Multicenter Prospective, Crossover, Randomized Controlled Trial with 12 Months Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is one of the most common causes of disability, affecting more than 600 million people worldwide with major social and economic costs. Current treatment options include conservative, surgical, and minimally invasive interventional treatment approaches. Novel therapeutic treatment options continue to develop, targeting the biological cascades involved in the degenerative processes to prevent invasive spinal surgical procedures. Both intradiscal platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow concentrate (BMC) applications have been introduced as promising regenerative treatment procedures. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study is to assess the safety and effectiveness of an orthobiologic intradiscal injection, PRP or BMC, when compared to control patients. The secondary objectives are to measure: patient satisfaction and incidence of hospitalization, emergency room visit and spine surgery at predetermined follow-up intervals. STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter, prospective, crossover, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Comprehensive Spine and Sports Center and participating centers. METHODS: Forty patients were randomized into saline trigger point injection, intradiscal PRP, or BMC. Follow-up was 1, 3, 6, and 12 months posttreatment. Placebo patients were randomized to PRP and BMC injection if < 50% decrease in numeric rating scale (NRS) scores in 3 months, while PRP and BMC patients to the other active group if < 50% decrease in NRS scores in 6 months. RESULTS: Both PRP and BMC demonstrated statistically significant improvement in pain and function. All the placebo patients reported < 50% pain relief and crossed to the active arm. None of the patients had any adverse effects, hospitalization, or surgery up to 12 months posttreatment. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of our study were the small number of patients and open-label nature of the study. CONCLUSION: This is the only human lumbar disc study that evaluates both PRP and BMC in the same study and compares it to placebo. PRP and BMC were found to be superior to placebo in improving pain and function; however, larger randomized clinical trials are needed to answer further questions on the comparative effectiveness of various biologics as well as to identify outcome differences specific to disc pathology.

Durable responses at 24 months with high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for nonsurgical refractory back pain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the 24-month durability of pain relief, function, quality of life, and safety outcomes for patients with nonsurgical refractory back pain (NSRBP) treated with high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) within a large, national, multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Following the completion of an RCT comparing high-frequency SCS plus CMM with CMM alone for the treatment of NSRBP, patients gave additional consent for a follow-up extension to 24 months. Presented is the cohort analysis of all patients treated with high-frequency SCS following the optional crossover at 6 months. The outcomes assessed to 24 months included responder rate of ≥ 50% pain relief measured according to the visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), quality of life (EQ-5D 5-level [EQ-5D-5L]), opioid reduction. RESULTS: Of the 125 patients who received a permanent implant, 121 completed the 12-month follow-up, 101 gave additional consent for extended follow-up, and 98 completed the 24-month follow-up. At 24 months after implantation, the mean back pain VAS score was reduced by 73% and the responder rate was 82%. ODI and EQ-5D-5L both improved by at least double the minimal clinically important difference for each measure. No unexpected adverse events were observed, and the rates of serious adverse events (3.4%) and device explantations (4.8%) were low. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of high-frequency SCS to CMM in patients with NSRBP offers profound improvements at 24 months in pain, function, quality of life, and reduced opioid use. This study provides much-needed evidence to inform current clinical practice for managing patients with NSRBP.

The MOTION study: Two-year results of a real-world randomized controlled trial of the mild® procedure for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: The MOTION study is designed to measure the impact of percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as a first-line therapy on patients otherwise receiving real-world conventional medical management for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. This prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial uses objective and patient-reported outcome measures to compare the combination of the mild® percutaneous treatment and nonsurgical conventional medical management (CMM) to CMM-Alone. METHODS: Test group patients received the mild procedure after study enrollment. Test and control groups were allowed conventional conservative therapies and low-risk interventional therapies as recommended by their physicians. Subjective outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Objective outcomes included a validated Walking Tolerance Test, the rate of subsequent lumbar spine interventions, and safety data. RESULTS: Two-year follow-up included 64 mild + CMM and 67 CMM-Alone patients. All outcome measures showed significant improvement from baseline for mild + CMM, whereas the majority of CMM-Alone patients had elected to receive mild treatment or other lumbar spine interventions by 2 years, precluding valid 2-year between-group comparisons. Neither group reported any device- or procedure-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The durability of mild + CMM for this patient population was demonstrated for all efficacy outcomes through 2 years. Improvements in walking time from baseline to 2 years for patients treated with mild + CMM were significant and substantial. The lack of reported device or procedure-related adverse events reinforces the strong safety profile of the mild procedure. These results provide support for early interventional treatment of symptomatic LSS with the mild procedure.

Comprehensive, Evidence-Based, Consensus Guidelines for Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. OBJECTIVES: In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. METHODS: The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed. The multidisciplinary panel finalized 20 guideline recommendations for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Summary of the results showed over 90% agreement for the final 20 recommendations with strong consensus. The consensus guidelines included 4 sections specific to opioid therapy with 1) ten recommendations particular to initial steps of opioid therapy; 2) five recommendations for assessment of effectiveness of opioid therapy; 3) three recommendations regarding monitoring adherence and side effects; and 4) two general, final phase recommendations. LIMITATIONS: There is a continued paucity of literature of long-term opioid therapy addressing chronic non-cancer pain. Further, significant biases exist in the preparation of guidelines, which has led to highly variable rules and regulations across various states. CONCLUSION: These guidelines were developed based upon a comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among expert panelists, and in alignment with patient preferences, and shared decision-making so as to improve the long-term pain relief and function in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Consequently, it was concluded - and herein recommended - that chronic opioid therapy should be provided in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events only to those patients with a proven medical necessity, and who exhibit stable improvement in both pain relief and activities of daily function, either independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments.

Comprehensive, evidence-based, consensus guidelines for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP)

Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed

Results From a Prospective, Clinical Study (US-nPower) Evaluating a Miniature Spinal Cord Stimulator for the Management of Chronic, Intractable Pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic, intractable, neuropathic pain is readily treatable with spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Technological advancements, including device miniaturization, are advancing the field of neuromodulation. OBJECTIVES: We report here the results of an SCS clinical trial to treat chronic, low back and leg pain, with a micro-implantable pulse generator (micro-IPG). STUDY DESIGN: This was a single-arm, prospective, multicenter, postmarket, observational study. SETTING: Patients were recruited from 15 US-based comprehensive pain centers. METHODS: This open-label clinical trial was designed to evaluate the performance of the Nalu™ Neurostimulation System (Nalu Medical, Inc., Carlsbad, CA) in the treatment of low back and leg pain. Patients, who provided informed consent and were successfully screened for study entry, were implanted with temporary trial leads. Patients went on to receive a permanent implant of the leads and micro-IPG if they demonstrated a >= 50% reduction in pain during the temporary trial period. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as pain scores, functional disability, mood, patient impression of change, comfort, therapy use profile, and device ease of use, were captured. RESULTS: At baseline, the average pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score was 72.1 ± 17.9 in the leg and 78.0 ± 15.4 in the low back. At 90 days following permanent implant (end of study), pain scores improved by 76% (VAS 18.5 ± 18.8) in the leg and 75% (VAS 19.7 ± 20.8) in the low back. Eighty-six percent  of both leg pain and low back pain patients demonstrated a >= 50% reduction in pain at 90 days following implant. The comfort of the external wearable (Therapy Disc and Adhesive Clip) was rated 1.16 ± 1.53, on average, at 90 days on an 11-point rating scale (0 = very comfortable, 10 = very uncomfortable). All PROs demonstrated statistically significant symptomatic improvement at 90 days following implant of the micro-IPG. LIMITATIONS:   Limitations of this study include the lack of long-term results (beyond 90 days) and a relatively small sample size of 35 patients who were part of the analysis; additionally, there was no control arm or randomization as this was a single-arm study, without a comparator, designed to document the efficacy and safety of the device. Therefore, no direct comparisons to other SCS systems were possible. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical study demonstrated profound leg and low back pain relief in terms of overall pain reduction, as well as the proportion of therapy responders. The study patients reported the wearable aspects of the system to be very comfortable.

Defining the Patient with Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Real-World Implications for Diagnosis and Effective Clinical Management.

There is an enormous body of literature that has identified the intervertebral disc as a potent pain generator. However, with regard to lumbar degenerative disc disease, the specific diagnostic criteria lack clarity and fail to capture the primary components which include axial midline low back pain with or without non-radicular/non-sciatic referred leg pain in a sclerotomal distribution. In fact, there is no specific ICD-10-CM diagnostic code to classify and define discogenic pain as a unique source of pain distinct from other recognized sources of chronic low back pain including facetogenic, neurocompressive including herniation and/or stenosis, sacroiliac, vertebrogenic, and psychogenic. All of these other sources have well-defined ICD-10-CM codes. Corresponding codes for discogenic pain remain absent from the diagnostic coding vernacular. The International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) has proposed a modernization of ICD-10-CM codes to specifically define pain associated with lumbar and lumbosacral degenerative disc disease. The proposed codes would also allow the pain to be characterized by location: lumbar region only, leg only, or both. Successful implementation of these codes would benefit both physicians and payers in distinguishing, tracking, and improving algorithms and treatments for discogenic pain associated with intervertebral disc degeneration.

Combination therapy with simultaneous delivery of spinal cord stimulation modalities: COMBO randomized controlled trial.

Aim: The Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of various spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities for chronic pain. Specifically, combination therapy (simultaneous use of customized sub-perception field and paresthesia-based SCS) versus monotherapy (paresthesia-based SCS) was evaluated. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled (key inclusion criterion: chronic pain for ≥6 months). Primary end point was the proportion with ≥50% pain reduction without increased opioids at the 3 month follow-up. Patients were followed for 2 years. Results: The primary end point was met (n = 89; p < 0.0001) in 88% of patients in the combination-therapy arm (n = 36/41) and 71% in the monotherapy arm (n = 34/48). Responder rates at 1 and 2 years (with available SCS modalities) were 84% and 85%, respectively. Sustained functional outcomes improvement was observed out to 2 years. Conclusion: SCS-based combination therapy can improve outcomes in patients with chronic pain. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03689920 (ClinicalTrials.gov), Combining Mechanisms for Better Outcomes (COMBO).

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a device-based therapy for chronic pain that delivers electrical impulses to the spinal cord, disrupting pain signals to the brain. Pain relief can be achieved using different SCS techniques that use or do not use paresthesia (stimulation that produces a tingling sensation). These approaches affect patients in different ways, suggesting that different biological processes are involved in enabling pain relief. Research also suggests that better long-term results occur when patients can choose the therapy that is best for their own needs. This clinical study compared pain relief and other functional activities in those receiving combination therapy (simultaneous use of SCS that does and does not produce tingling sensation) against those receiving monotherapy (only SCS therapy producing tingling sensation) for 3 months. In the study, 88% of those receiving combination therapy and 71% with monotherapy alone reported a 50% (or greater) decrease in overall pain (the 'responder rate') without an increased dose of opioid drugs at 3 months after the start of therapy. This responder rate was found to be 84% at 1 year and 85% at 2 years (with all SCS therapy options available). Analysis of functional activities or disability showed that patients improved from 'severely disabled' at study start to 'moderately disabled' after 2 years, indicating that effective long-term (2 year) improvement can be achieved using SCS-based combination therapy for chronic pain.

Retrospective Efficacy and Cost-Containment Assessment of 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in Non-Surgical Refractory Back Pain Patients.

Background: Non-surgical refractory back pain (NSRBP) is persistent, severe back pain that is not considered surgically correctable. Published studies have demonstrated clinically important long-term improvement in pain and functional capacity when 10kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is used to treat NSRBP. This study examines if real-world patients in interventional pain practice obtain the same outcomes, and have any reduction in health care utilization (HCU) following 10kHz SCS implant. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of 105 patients from two clinical sites who underwent implantation of 10kHz SCS for NSRBP. The three most frequent diagnoses were lumbosacral radiculopathy, degenerative disc disease (DDD)/discogenic back pain and foraminal stenosis. The complete set of patient-level electronic data, including clinical outcomes, HCU, and at least 12 months (12M) follow-up were available in 90 subjects. Results: The 90 analyzed patients were 63.9 years old (median 67) with an average of 10.2 years since back pain diagnosis. Reported pain on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) decreased from 7.78±1.3 cm to 3.4±2.4 cm at 12M after SCS implant (p<0.001). Opioid usage (n = 65) decreased from 57.9±89.9 mg to 34.3±66.4 mg MSO4 equivalents (p = 0.004) at 12M. There were 46 patients on various doses of anticonvulsants, mostly gabapentin. The average dose decreased from 1847.91±973.6 mg at baseline to 1297.9±1184.6 mg at 12M after implant (p = 0.016). HCU was analyzed comparing the 12M before to the 12M after implant. Number of office visits decreased from 10.83±8.0 per year to 8.86±7.64 (p = 0.036), number of procedures to control chronic pain decreased from 2.2±1.9 to 0.6±1.2 (p<0.001). There was no significant change in number of imaging procedures, hospital admissions, or days spent in the hospital. Conclusion: 10kHz SCS warrants consideration as a therapeutic option for NSRBP patients and appears to provide a substantial reduction in HCU in the year following implant.

Effects of local anesthetics and contrast agents on musculoskeletal regenerative medicine procedures.

In regenerative medicine, cells, tissues and organs are often replaced, engineered or regrown in order to restore their function after they have been damaged or lost. Local anesthetics, corticosteroids and contrast agents are commonly employed for both diagnostic and therapeutic objectives in interventional pain and musculoskeletal treatments for regenerative medicine. There is growing evidence that routine injectables promote catabolism and disease processes. Thus, understanding the effects of these compounds on regenerative medicine injectates and target tissues such as tenocytes, chondrocytes, nucleus pulposus and ligamentous tissue is critical. This review includes the current research on the effects of local anesthetics and contrast agents, as well as their use and recommendations in regenerative medicine operations.

In regenerative medicine, various human organs are often modified to restore their function after being damaged. Various substances are commonly injected in pain and musculoskeletal treatments for regenerative medicine. A growing body of literature indicates that common injectable substances may promote cellular destruction and pathologies. Therefore, understanding their effects on various musculoskeletal tissue and cellular components is critical. This review includes the current research on the effects of local anesthetics and contrast agents, as well as their use and recommendations in regenerative medicine operations.

Six Month Interim Outcomes from SECURE: A Single arm, Multicenter, Prospective, Clinical Study on a Novel Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Fusion Device.

INTRODUCTION: Sacroiliac joint disease is a prominent diagnosis across the world. A novel fixation technique employing a posterior approach, single point, bone allograft transfixation has proven to be helpful anecdotally. The purpose of this is study is to investigate prospectively the safety and efficacy of this approach. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, single arm study was performed after patient identification and treatment with the novel posterior fusion, single-point transfixation system and followed for 24 months. Target enrollment is 100 patients. Interim results on the first 69 consecutive patients at 6 months is presented. Primary endpoint at 6-month analysis was Pain Intensity reduction by visual analogue scale and functional improvement by Oswestry Disability Index. Adverse events were assessed for safety analysis. RESULTS: In total, 69 patients were identified for this analysis. At 6 months, a mean improvement of 34.9 was identified by a reduction in VAS and functional improvement was demonstrated by a mean reduction in ODI of 17.7. There were three adverse events, all unrelated to the device. CONCLUSION: The posterior single point transfixation is safe and efficacious for the treatment of sacroiliac joint dysfunction with statistical improvements in pain and function.

Treatment of nonsurgical refractory back pain with high-frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz: 12-month results of a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at 10 kHz (10-kHz SCS) is a safe and effective therapy for treatment of chronic low-back pain. However, it is unclear from existing evidence whether these findings can be generalized to patients with chronic back pain that is refractory to conventional medical management (CMM) and who have no history of spine surgery and are not acceptable candidates for spine surgery. The authors have termed this condition "nonsurgical refractory back pain" (NSRBP) and conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial to compare CMM with and without 10-kHz SCS in this population. METHODS: Patients with NSRBP, as defined above and with a spine surgeon consultation required for confirmation, were randomized 1:1 to patients undergoing CMM with and without 10-kHz SCS. CMM included nonsurgical treatment for back pain, according to physicians' best practices and clinical guidelines. Primary and secondary endpoints included the responder rate (≥ 50% pain relief), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), global impression of change, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and change in daily opioid use and were analyzed 3 and 6 months after randomization. The protocol allowed for an optional crossover at 6 months for both arms, with observational follow-up over 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 159 patients were randomized; 76 received CMM, and 69 (83.1%) of the 83 patients who were assigned to the 10-kHz SCS group received a permanent implant. At the 3-month follow-up, 80.9% of patients who received stimulation and 1.3% of those who received CMM were found to be study responders (primary outcome, ≥ 50% pain relief; p < 0.001). There was also a significant difference between the treatment groups in all secondary outcomes at 6 months (p < 0.001). In the 10-kHz SCS arm, outcomes were sustained, including a mean 10-cm visual analog scale score of 2.1 ± 2.3 and 2.1 ± 2.2 and mean ODI score of 24.1 ± 16.1 and 24.0 ± 17.0 at 6 and 12 months, respectively (p = 0.9). In the CMM arm, 74.7% (56/75) of patients met the criteria for crossover and received an implant. The crossover arm obtained a 78.2% responder rate 6 months postimplantation. Five serious adverse events occurred (procedure-related, of 125 total permanent implants), all of which resolved without sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: The study results, which included follow-up over 12 months, provide important insights into the durability of 10-kHz SCS therapy with respect to chronic refractory back pain, physical function, quality of life, and opioid use, informing the current clinical practice for pain management in patients with NSRBP.

Safety and Efficacy of Platelet Rich Plasma for Treatment of Lumbar Discogenic Pain: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Study.

BACKGROUND: Interventions for chronic discogenic spine pain are currently insufficient in lowering individual patient suffering and global disease burden. A 2016 study of platelet rich plasma (PRP) for chronic discogenic pain previously demonstrated clinically significant response among active group patients compared with controls. OBJECTIVES: To replicate the previous research to move this intervention forward as a viable option for patient care. STUDY DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Multicenter private practices. METHODS: Twenty-six (12 men, 14 women) human patients, ages 25 to 71 with a diagnosis of chronic lumbar discogenic pain, were randomly assigned to active (PRP) or control (saline) groups in a ratio of 2 active to 1 control. Baseline and follow-up Oswestry Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale questionnaires were obtained to track patient outcomes at 8 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: Within group assessment showed clinically significant improvement in 17% of PRP patients and clinically significant decline in 5% (1 patient) of the active group. Clinically significant improvement was seen in 13% of placebo group patients and no placebo patients had clinically significant decline secondary to the procedure. LIMITATIONS: Possible explanations may include a range of factors including differences in patient demographics, outcome-measure sensitivity, or misalignment of statistical analyses. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are markedly different than the highly promising results of the 2016 PRP study. This study posits necessary caution for researchers who wish to administer PRP for therapeutic benefit and may ultimately point to necessary redirection of interventional research for discogenic pain populations.

Multi-waveform Spinal Cord Stimulation with High Frequency Electromagnetic Coupled (HF-EMC) Powered Implanted Electrode Array and Receiver for the Treatment of Chronic Back and Leg Pain (SURF Study).

BACKGROUND: Novel externally powered spinal cord stimulation technology can be fully implanted when trialing the effectiveness of the therapy, since no percutaneous leads are needed, and the trial period lasted 30 days. Multiple tests of different stimulation modalities and parameters are possible, thus improving the chances that the therapy will lead to effective pain reduction. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of the Freedom Spinal Cord Stimulator System (Stimwave LLC, Pompano Beach, FL) for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome due to postlaminectomy syndrome utilizing multiple waveforms. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective, single cohort study. Patients were enrolled and implanted with up to 2 permanent, 8-contact electrode arrays with receiver, controlled regularly during 6 months of follow-up after a one month trial period. Pain and overall improvement were evaluated at 3 months and 6 months following an initial one-month implanted trial period. SETTINGS: A variety of frequency stimulation waveforms (tonic as well as subthreshold) at frequencies of 10 Hz to 1500 Hz* and 50 to 800 µs pulse width, were provided. (*Note: While 1500 Hz was utilized in the study, Stimwave Technologies is currently only permitted to provide spinal cord stimulation therapy at frequencies below 1500 Hz, therefore pulse rates used in this study are not commercially available on Stimwave Technologies' products). METHODS: Endpoints evaluated included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain intensity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for functionality, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for overall health improvement, and quality of life as measured by the European Quality of Life 5 Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients completed the study. At 6 months, the responder rate (? 50% reduction VAS for back pain) was 33/39 = 85%. Mean VAS for back pain decreased 62%. The mean ODI decreased 46% from 54 to 29.2, indicating a reduction from severe to moderate disability. The median satisfaction as measured with the PGIC was 6 out of 7. The mean EQ-5D-5L utility score increased from 0.54 to 0.75. At the 6-months endpoint, 44% (17/39) of patients preferred tonic stimulation with a back pain per protocol responder rate of 82%; 41% (16/39) preferred surge with a responder rate of 56%; and 15% (6/39) preferred high density, with a responder rate of 83%. Fifteen patients reported 28 adverse events. Migration of the electrode array (n = 10) was the adverse event most reported. Two serious adverse events related to infection were reported. LIMITATIONS: This study had several limitations. Trial failures were excluded from the analysis, there was a small sample size, and there was a lack of blinding due to the suprathreshold nature of tonic stimulation. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that spinal cord stimulation with multiple stimulation patterns demonstrates clinical and functional efficacy when using an externally powered stimulation system.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness and Safety.

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) was the first application of neuromodulation. Widespread application of PNS was limited by technical concerns. Recent advances now allow the percutaneous placement of leads with ultrasound or fluoroscopic guidance, while the transcutaneous powering of these leads removes the need for leads to cross major joints. This systematic review was written to assess the current status of high-quality evidence supporting the use of PNS for pain conditions treated by interventional pain physicians. The available literature on PNS, limited to conditions treated by interventional pain physicians, was reviewed and the quality assessed. Literature from 1966 to June 2021 was reviewed. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional improvement. One hundred and two studies were identified. Five randomized controlled trials (RCT) and four observational studies, all case series, met the inclusion criteria. One RCT was of high quality and four were of moderate quality; all four case series were of moderate quality. Three of the RCTs and all four case series evaluated peripheral nerve neuropathic pain. Based upon these studies, there is level II evidence supporting the use of PNS to treat refractory peripheral nerve injury. One moderate-quality RCT evaluated tibial nerve stimulation for pelvic pain, providing level III evidence for this indication. One moderate-quality RCT evaluated surgically placed cylindrical leads for cluster headaches, providing level III evidence for this indication. The evidence suggests that approximately two-thirds of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain will have at least 50% sustained pain relief. Adverse events from PNS are generally minor. A major advantage of PNS over spinal cord stimulation is the absence of any risk of central cord injury. The study was limited by the paucity of literature for some indications. No studies dealt with joint-related osteoarthritic pain.

Twelve-Month results from multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation and traditional spinal cord stimulation in subjects with chronic intractable back pain and leg pain.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment for chronic intractable pain of the trunk and/or limbs; however, low back pain (LBP) is difficult to treat using traditional SCS. Differential Target Multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM SCS) is an advanced approach inspired from animal studies demonstrating improved pain-related behavior and pain-relevant biological processes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of DTM SCS and traditional SCS in treating chronic LBP and leg pain (LP). METHODS: This prospective, postmarket randomized controlled trial compared DTM SCS to traditional SCS in patients with chronic LBP and LP. Primary end point was LBP responder rate (percentage of subjects with ≥ 50% relief) at 3 months. Noninferiority and superiority were assessed. Other outcomes included mean change in back and leg pain, responder rates, disability, global health, satisfaction, and safety profile throughout the 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight subjects were randomized across 12 centers (67 DTM SCS and 61 traditional SCS). Of the 94 patients implanted, 46 subjects in each group completed the 3-month assessment. LBP responder rate of 80.1% with DTM SCS was superior to 51.2% with traditional SCS (p = 0.0010). Mean LBP reduction (5.36 cm) with DTM SCS was greater than reduction (3.37 cm) with traditional SCS (p < 0.0001). These results were sustained at 6 months and 12 months. Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Superiority of DTM SCS compared with traditional SCS for chronic LBP was demonstrated. Clinical improvements provided by DTM SCS were sustained over 12 months and are expected to significantly impact the management of chronic LBP.

A Comprehensive Review of Novel Interventional Techniques for Chronic Pain: Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Disc Disease-MILD Percutaneous Image Guided Lumbar Decompression, Vertiflex Interspinous Spacer, MinuteMan G3 Interspinous-Interlaminar Fusion.

Spinal stenosis is the compression of nerve roots by bone or soft tissue secondary to the narrowing of the spinal canal, lateral recesses, or intervertebral foramina. Spinal stenosis may have acquired or congenital origins. Most cases are acquired and caused by hypertrophy of the ligamentum flavum, enlarged osteophytes, degenerative arthritis, disk herniations, and various systemic illnesses. The ligamentum flavum (LF) is a highly specialized elastic ligament that connects the laminae of the spine and fuses them to the facet joint capsules. There are a number of treatment options available for spinal stenosis. Implants and surgical interventions have grown in popularity recently, and a number of these have been shown to have varying efficacy, including the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD®), Vertiflex®, Coflex® Interlaminar Stabilization, and MinuteMan G3® procedures. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD®) is a minimally invasive outpatient procedure to treat spinal stenosis related to hypertrophied ligamentum flavum. The Superion® Interspinous Spacer, also known as Vertiflex®, is a titanium implant that is delivered percutaneously to relieve back pain caused by lumbar spinal stenosis. The MinuteMan® is a minimally invasive, interspinous-interlaminar fusion device planned for the temporary fixation of the thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine, which eventually results in bony fusion. Based on our review of the available current scientific literature, the novel interventions for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis, such as the MILD® procedure and the Superion® interspinous spacer, generally appear to be safe and effective. There is a possibility in the future that these interventions could disrupt current treatment algorithms for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Novel Interventional Techniques for Chronic Pain with Minimally Invasive Arthrodesis of the Sacroiliac Joint: (INSITE, iFuse, Tricor, Rialto, and others).

Acute and chronic pain are public health issues that clinicians have been battling for years. Opioid medications have been a treatment option for both chronic and acute pain; however, they can cause unwanted complications and are a major contributor to our present opioid epidemic. The sacroiliac (SI) joint is a common cause of both acute and chronic low back pain. It affects about 15-25% of patients with axial low back pain, and up to 40% of patients with ongoing pain following lumbar fusion. Recent advances in the treatment of SI joint pain have led to the development of a wide variety of SI joint fusion devices. These fusion devices seek to stabilize the joints themselves in order that they become immobile and, in theory, can no longer be a source for pain. This is a minimally invasive procedure aimed to address chronic pain without subjecting patients to lengthy surgery or medications, including opioids with the potential for addiction and abuse. Minimally invasive SI fusion can be performed by a lateral approach (i.e., iFuse, Tricor) or posterior approach (i.e., CornerLoc, LinQ, Rialto). The posterior approach requires the patient to be in the prone position but allows for less disruption of muscles with entry. More data are necessary to determine which fusion system may be best for a particular patient. SI fusion devices are a promising way of treating chronic lower back pain related to the SI joint. This narrative review will discuss various types of SI fusion devices, and their potential use in terms of their safety and efficacy.