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.

Spinal Cord Stimulation With Additional Peripheral Nerve/Field Stimulation Versus Spinal Cord Stimulation Alone on Back Pain and Quality of Life in Patients With Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) or failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) refers to new or persistent pain following spinal surgery for back or leg pain in a subset of patients. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a neuromodulation technique that can be considered in patients with predominant leg pain refractory to conservative treatment. Patients with predominant low back pain benefit less from SCS. Another neuromodulation technique for treatment of chronic low back pain is subcutaneous stimulation or peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS). We investigated the effect of SCS with additional PNFS on pain and quality of life of patients with PSPS compared with that of SCS alone after 12 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a comparative study of patients with PSPS who responded to treatment with either SCS + PNFS or SCS only following a multicenter randomized clinical trial protocol. In total, 75 patients completed the 12-month follow-up: 21 in the SCS-only group and 54 in the SCS + PNFS group. Outcome measures were pain (visual analog scale), quality of life (36-Item Short Form Survey [SF-36]), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), overall health (EuroQol Five-Dimension [EQ-5D]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and pain assessed by the McGill questionnaire. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Both groups showed a significant reduction in back and leg pain at 12 months compared with baseline measurements. No significant differences were found between the groups in effect on both primary (pain) and secondary parameters (SF-36, HADS, EQ-5D, ODI, and McGill pain). CONCLUSION: In a subgroup of patients with chronic back and leg pain, SCS alone provided similar long-term pain relief and quality-of-life improvement as PNFS in addition to SCS. In patients with refractory low back pain not responding to SCS alone, adding PNFS should be recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT01776749.

Views of patients suffering from Failed Back Surgery Syndrome on their health and their ability to adapt to daily life and self-management: A qualitative exploration.

BACKGROUND: The clinical outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) therapy in patients with a Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) is mostly done by standardized pain and quality of life measurements instruments and hardly account for personal feelings and needs as a basis for a patient-centred approach and shared decision making. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to explore perspectives on personal health and quality of life (QoL) in FBSS patients concerning their physical-, psychological and spiritual well-being prior to receiving an SCS system. METHODS: We performed face-to-face, semi-structured, in-depth interviews to obtain descriptive and detailed data on personal health, guided by the Web diagram of Positive Health (Huber et al.) and a topic list. The following main topics were assessed qualitatively: 1) Bodily functioning, 2) Mental function and perception 3) Spiritual dimension, 4) Quality of life, 5) Social and societal participation and 6) Daily functioning. RESULTS: Seventeen FBSS patients (eight male, nine female) were included from April-November 2019 at the department of pain medicine in the Albert Schweitzer Hospital in the Netherlands. Median age 49 years; range 28 to 67 years, and patients underwent between one and five lumbar surgical operations. The duration of their chronic pain was between four and 22 years. After analyzing the interviews, three themes emerged: 1) dealing with chronic pain, 2) the current situation regarding aspects of positive health, and 3) future perspectives on health and quality of life. These themes arose from eleven categories and a hundred ninety codes. CONCLUSION: This qualitative study explored FBSS patients 'views on their health and the ability to adapt to daily life having complex chronic pain, and showed that patients experienced shortcomings in daily life within the six dimensions of the Web diagram of Positive Health before the SCS implant.

High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation for Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain and Leg Pain in Patients With FBSS, 12-Month Results: A Prospective Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the long-term effect of high-dose spinal cord stimulation (HD-SCS) in patients with chronic refractory low back and leg pain due to failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case series; pilot study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with chronic low back and leg pain (CBLP) due to failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) were screened for SCS according to the Dutch Neuromodulation Society guidelines. Patients with a pain score of >50 (on a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100) for both low back and leg pain, were selected for participation in this study. During intraoperative screening one or two electrodes were implanted to ensure adequate paresthesia coverage of the back and leg pain area. During the 14 days trial period patients received two programs: a conventional or low-dose (LD) program with 30 Hz; 390 µsec and a high-dose (HD) program with 420 Hz, 400 µsec. They all started with LD-SCS and changed to HD-SCS after three days. If patients reported more than 50% pain relief with either program a rechargeable neurostimulator was implanted for permanent SCS. The scores for low back pain and leg pain were recorded separately. Other therapy related outcomes that were collected are pain medication use, Quebec back pain disability scale (QBPDS), patient satisfaction, employment status, stimulation settings, and adverse events. We present the 6- and 12-months results. Results are presented as mean ± SD. RESULTS: Thirteen patients, nine females and four males (mean age: 49.7 ± 8.1 years), were included between July 2015 and March 2016. Eleven patients responded to SCS during the trial period and were implanted with a neurostimulator. Most patients preferred HD-SCS over LD-SCS and the overall use of HD-SCS increased over time. At 6 to 12 months follow-up, two patients discontinued the study. In one patient low back pain returned despite optimal stimulation settings. The second patient was neither satisfied with LD nor HD and had the system explanted. VAS Leg pain at baseline was 71.2 ± 33.8 and reduced to 25.7 ± 24.0 at 6 months and 23.4 ± 32.0 at 12 months. VAS Back pain at baseline was 66.7 ± 33.2 and reduced to 36.8 ± 41.6 at 6 months and 26.1 ± 33.2 at 12 months. Pain medication was significantly reduced and QBPDS improved from 59.2 ± 12.2 at baseline to 44.1 ± 13.7 at 12 months. Five patients returned to work and overall patient satisfaction at the end of the study was high. CONCLUSION: This pilot study shows promising results of offering HD-SCS in addition to LD-SCS for treatment of chronic back and leg pain in patients with failed back surgery syndrome.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation as Add-On Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Presently, there is only limited evidence about the cost-effectiveness of peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) and no evidence to date on the cost-effectiveness of PNFS as an add-on therapy to spinal cord stimulation (SCS). In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, PNFS as add-on therapy to SCS demonstrated clinical effectiveness in treating chronic low back pain in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients. We report here the cost-effectiveness of PNFS as additional therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a health-care perspective using the general principles of cost-utility analysis, using empirical data from our multicenter randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of hybrid SCS + PNFS on low back pain in FBSS patients, who were back pain non-responders to initial SCS-therapy, over a time-horizon of three months. Outcome measures were costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost and QALYs were integrated using the net monetary benefit (NMB). Differences in costs, effects, and NMB were analyzed using multilevel regression. Uncertainty surrounding the NMB was presented by cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients implanted with both SCS and PNFS, randomly assigned to a group with PNFS either activated or inactive, completed the controlled part of the study. With mean total costs for the SCS + active PNFS group of €1813.86 (SD €109.78) versus €1103.64 (SD €123.43) for the SCS + inactive PNFS group at three months, we found an incremental cost-utility ratio of €25.311 per QALY gained and a probability being cost-effective of more than 80% given a willingness to pay for a QALY of about €40.000. CONCLUSIONS: From a Dutch national health-care context, when the willingness to pay threshold is up to 60.000 Euros per QALY, PNFS as an add-on therapy to SCS for the treatment of low back pain in FBSS patients has a high probability of being cost-effective.

Subcutaneous Stimulation as an Additional Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Low Back Pain and Leg Pain in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: Four-Year Follow-Up.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate the efficacy of long-term follow-up of subcutaneous stimulation (SubQ) as an additional therapy for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) with chronic refractory pain, for whom spinal cord stimulation (SCS) alone was unsuccessful in treating low back pain. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: FBSS patients with leg and/or low back pain whose conventional therapies had failed, received a combination of SCS (8-contact Octad lead, 3877-45 cm, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) and/or SubQ (4-contact Quad Plus lead (s), 2888-28 cm, Medtronic). Initially, an Octad lead was placed in the epidural space for SCS for a trial stimulation to assess the suppression of leg and/or low back pain. Where SCS alone was insufficient in treating low back pain, lead(s) were placed superficially in the subcutaneous tissue of the lower back, exactly in the middle of the pain area. A pulse generator (Prime Advanced, 37702, Medtronic) was implanted if the patient reported more than 50% pain relief during the trial period. We investigated the long-term effect of neuromodulation on pain with the visual analog scale (VAS), and disability using the Quebec Pain Disability Scale. The results after 46 months are presented. RESULTS: Eleven patients, five men and six women (age 51 ± 8 years, mean ± SD) were included in the pilot study. In nine cases, SCS was used in combination with SubQ leads. Two patients received only SubQ leads. In one patient, the SCS + SubQ system was removed after nine months and these results were not taken into account for the analysis. Baseline scores for leg (N = 8) and low back pain (N = 10) were VASbl: 59 ± 15 and VASbl: 63 ± 14, respectively. The long-term follow-up period was 46 ± 4 months. SCS significantly reduced leg pain after 12 months (VAS12: 20 ± 11, p12 = 0.001) and 46 months (VAS46: 37 ± 17, p46 = 0.027). Similarly, SubQ significantly reduced back pain after 12 months(VAS12: 33 ± 16, p12 = 0.001) and 46 months (VAS46: 40 ± 21, p46 = 0.013). At 12 months, the Quebec Pain Disability Scale (QPDS) was 49 ± 12 and after 46 months, 53 ± 15. Both at 12 and 46 months, the QPDS values were statistically significantly better (p12 = 0.001, p46 = 0.04) compared with baseline values (QPDSbl: 61 ± 15). In one patient, the pain suppressive effect of SCS/SubQ had disappeared completely over time and the pain scores returned to prestimulation values. In four, patients back pain scores increased over time due to new issues (SI-joint problems, degenerative spine problems, disc problems, and hip pain) unrelated to FBSS and for which SCS/SubQ was not targeted or a reason for implantation at the start of the pilot study. DISCUSSION: This is the first prospective report on the combined use of SCS and SubQ with a follow-up period of four years. These data show that SCS and/or SubQ provide persistent long-term pain relief for leg and back pain in patients with FBSS. One should also take into account that new back/leg pain problems may evolve over time and increase the pain score which impact overall pain treatment. CONCLUSION: SCS combined with SubQ can be considered an effective long term treatment for low back pain in patients with FBSS for whom SCS alone is insufficient in alleviating their pain symptoms.

Subcutaneous stimulation as an additional therapy to spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of lower limb pain and/or back pain: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of subcutaneous stimulation (SubQ) as an additional therapy in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) with chronic refractory pain, for whom spinal cord stimulation (SCS) was unsuccessful in treating low back pain. STUDY DESIGN: Case series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: FBSS patients with chronic limb and/or low back pain whose conventional therapies had failed received a combination of SCS (8-contact Octad lead) and/or SubQ (4-contact Quad Plus lead(s)). Initially leads were placed in the epidural space for SCS for a trial stimulation to assess response to suppression of limb and low back pain. Where SCS alone was insufficient in treating lower back pain, leads were placed superficially in the subcutaneous tissue of the lower back, directly in the middle of the pain area. A pulse generator was implanted if patients reported more than 50% pain relief during the trial period. Pain intensity for limb and lower back pain was scored separately, using visual analog scale (VAS). Pain and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) after 12-month treatment were compared with pain and QBPDS at baseline. RESULTS: Eleven FBSS patients, five male and six female (age: 51 ± 8 years; mean ± SD), in whom SCS alone was insufficient in treating lower back pain, were included. In nine cases, SubQ was used in combination with SCS to treat chronic lower back and lower extremity pain. In two cases only SubQ was used to treat lower back pain. SCS significantly reduced limb pain after 12 months (VAS(bl) : 62 ± 14 vs. VAS(12m) : 20 ± 11; p= 0.001, N= 8). SubQ stimulation significantly reduced low back pain after 12 months (VAS(bl) : 62 ± 13.0 vs. VAS(12m) : 32 ± 16; p= 0.0002, N= 10). Overall pain medication was reduced by more than 70%. QBPDS improved from 61 ± 15 to 49 ± 12 (p= 0.046, N= 10). Furthermore, we observed that two patients returned to work. CONCLUSION: SubQ may be an effective additional treatment for chronic low back pain in patients with FBSS for whom SCS alone is insufficient in alleviating their pain symptoms.