Neurophysiological outcomes that sustained clinically significant improvements over 3 years of physiologic ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain.

INTRODUCTION: A novel, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system with a physiologic closed-loop (CL) feedback mechanism controlled by evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) enables the optimization of physiologic neural dose and the accuracy of the stimulation, not possible with any other commercially available SCS systems. The report of objective spinal cord measurements is essential to increase the transparency and reproducibility of SCS therapy. Here, we report a cohort of the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial treated with CL-SCS for 36 months to evaluate the ECAP dose and accuracy that sustained the durability of clinical improvements. METHODS: 41 patients randomized to CL-SCS remained in their treatment allocation and were followed up through 36 months. Objective neurophysiological data, including measures of spinal cord activation, were analyzed. Pain relief was assessed by determining the proportion of patients with ≥50% and ≥80% reduction in overall back and leg pain. RESULTS: The performance of the feedback loop resulted in high-dose accuracy by keeping the elicited ECAP within 4µV of the target ECAP set on the system across all timepoints. Percent time stimulating above the ECAP threshold was >98%, and the ECAP dose was ≥19.3µV. Most patients obtained ≥50% reduction (83%) and ≥80% reduction (59%) in overall back and leg pain with a sustained response observed in the rates between 3-month and 36-month follow-up (p=0.083 and p=0.405, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that a physiological adherence to supra-ECAP threshold therapy that generates pain inhibition provided by ECAP-controlled CL-SCS leads to durable improvements in pain intensity with no evidence of loss of therapeutic effect through 36-month follow-up.

Defining the Boundaries of Patient Perception in Spinal Cord Stimulation Programming.

OBJECTIVES: Recent developments in spinal cord stimulation (SCS) programming have initiated new modalities of imperceptible stimulation. However, the boundaries of sensory perception are not well defined. The BEnchtop NEuromodulation Following endIng of Trial study aimed to create a map of perceptual threshold responses across a broad range of SCS parameters and programming to inform subperception therapy design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter study was conducted at seven US sites. A total of 43 patients with low back and/or leg pain who completed a percutaneous commercial SCS trial were enrolled. Test stimulation was delivered through trial leads for approximately 90 minutes before removal. SCS parameters, including amplitude, frequency, pulse width (PW), electrode configuration, cycling, and multifrequency stimulation were varied during testing. Paresthesia threshold (PT), comfort level (CL), perceptual coverage area, and paresthesia quality (through patient selection of keywords) were collected. Differences were evaluated with analysis of variance followed by post hoc multiple comparisons using t-tests with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: PT was primarily determined by PW and was insensitive to frequency for constant frequency stimulation (range: 20 Hz-10 kHz; F(1284) = 69.58, p < 0.0001). For all tests, CL was approximately 25% higher than PT. The dominant variable that influenced paresthesia quality was frequency. Sensations described as comfortable and tingling were most common for frequencies between 60 Hz and 2.4 kHz; unpleasant sensations were generally more common outside this range. Increasing distance between active electrodes from 7 mm to 14 mm, or cycling the SCS waveform at 1 Hz, decreased PT (p < 0.0001). Finally, PT for a low-frequency stimulus (ie, 60 Hz) was unaffected by mixing with a sub-PT high-frequency stimulus. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous work investigating narrower ranges, PW primarily influenced PT, independently of frequency. Paresthesia quality was primarily influenced by pulse frequency. These findings advance our understanding of SCS therapy and may be used to improve future novel neuromodulation paradigms.

ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop SCS for the treatment of chronic pain: 36-month results of the EVOKE blinded randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The evidence for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been criticized for the absence of blinded, parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limited evaluations of the long-term effects of SCS in RCTs. The aim of this study was to determine whether evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled, closed-loop SCS (CL-SCS) is associated with better outcomes when compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) 36 months following implant. METHODS: The EVOKE study was a multicenter, participant-blinded, investigator-blinded, and outcome assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial that compared ECAP-controlled CL-SCS with fixed-output OL-SCS. Participants with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy were enrolled between January 2017 and February 2018, with follow-up through 36 months. The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 50% in overall back and leg pain. Holistic treatment response, a composite outcome including pain intensity, physical and emotional functioning, sleep, and health-related quality of life, and objective neural activation was also assessed. RESULTS: At 36 months, more CL-SCS than OL-SCS participants reported ≥50% reduction (CL-SCS=77.6%, OL-SCS=49.3%; difference: 28.4%, 95% CI 12.8% to 43.9%, p<0.001) and ≥80% reduction (CL-SCS=49.3%, OL-SCS=31.3%; difference: 17.9, 95% CI 1.6% to 34.2%, p=0.032) in overall back and leg pain intensity. Clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed at 36 months in both CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in all other patient-reported outcomes with greater levels of improvement with CL-SCS. A greater proportion of patients with CL-SCS were holistic treatment responders at 36-month follow-up (44.8% vs 28.4%), with a greater cumulative responder score for CL-SCS patients. Greater neural activation and accuracy were observed with CL-SCS. There were no differences between CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in adverse events. No explants due to loss of efficacy were observed in the CL-SCS group. CONCLUSION: This long-term evaluation with objective measurement of SCS therapy demonstrated that ECAP-controlled CL-SCS resulted in sustained, durable pain relief and superior holistic treatment response through 36 months. Greater neural activation and increased accuracy of therapy delivery were observed with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS than OL-SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

Multiphase Spinal Cord Stimulation in Participants With Chronic Back or Leg Pain: Results of the BENEFIT-02 Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of a new charge-distributed multiphase stimulation paradigm during an extended spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blind, feasibility study included participants with chronic low back and/or leg pain and baseline numerical rating scale (NRS) for overall pain intensity ≥6. After a successful commercial SCS trial, participants were randomized to multiphase SCS therapy A (approximately 600-1500 Hz) or B (approximately 300-600 Hz), delivered via an investigational external pulse generator and existing leads during an 11-to-12-day testing period. Primary end points were mean NRS change from baseline to final in-office visit for each multiphase therapy and between therapies. Secondary end points included mean NRS change from end of commercial trial to final study visit and incidence of device-related adverse events (AEs). Additional measures included patient-reported outcomes collected at home through electronic watches and written diaries. Power usage was compared between multiphase and commercial therapies. RESULTS: A total of 122 participants initiated a commercial trial; 77 were randomized to a multiphase arm, and 65 completed the study. Reductions in mean NRS scores from baseline to final study visit were significant for multiphase therapy A and B (-4.3 and -4.7, respectively; both p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in mean NRS reduction or percent pain relief between multiphase therapies. In an additional analysis, 63.9% of participants reported greater pain relief with multiphase than with commercial SCS therapy in the at-home setting. On average, multiphase required less power than did commercial devices. One non-serious device-related AE was reported, and no infections occurred during the extended trial. CONCLUSIONS: Multiphase SCS effectively reduced pain in participants with chronic low back and/or leg pain during a trial, with no unanticipated device-related AEs reported. Future studies should evaluate long-term effectiveness of multiphase stimulation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT03594266.

Durability of Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the Evoke Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic pain is debilitating and profoundly affects health-related quality of life. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy for chronic pain; however, SCS has been limited by the inability to directly measure the elicited neural response, precluding confirmation of neural activation and continuous therapy. A novel SCS system measures the evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) to produce a real-time physiological closed-loop control system. Objective: To determine whether ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS is associated with better outcomes compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS at 24 months following implant. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Evoke study was a double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel arm clinical trial with 36 months of follow-up. Participants were enrolled from February 2017 to 2018, and the study was conducted at 13 US investigation sites. SCS candidates with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy, who consented, were screened. Key eligibility criteria included overall, back, and leg pain visual analog scale score of 60 mm or more; Oswestry Disability Index score of 41 to 80; stable pain medications; and no previous SCS. Analysis took place from October 2020 to April 2021. Interventions: ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS was compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reported here are the 24-month outcomes of the trial, which include all randomized patients in the primary and safety analyses. The primary outcome was a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain assessed at 3 and 12 months (previously published). Results: Of 134 randomized patients, 65 (48.5%) were female and the mean (SD) age was 55.2 (10.6) years. At 24 months, significantly more closed-loop than open-loop patients were responders (≥50% reduction) in overall pain (53 of 67 [79.1%] in the closed-loop group; 36 of 67 [53.7%] in the open-loop group; difference, 25.4% [95% CI, 10.0%-40.8%]; P = .001). There was no difference in safety profiles between groups (difference in rate of study-related adverse events: 6.0 [95% CI, -7.8 to 19.7]). Improvements were also observed in health-related quality of life, physical and emotional functioning, and sleep, in parallel with opioid reduction or elimination. Objective neurophysiological measurements substantiated the clinical outcomes and provided evidence of activation of inhibitory pain mechanisms. Conclusions and Relevance: ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS, which elicited a more consistent neural response, was associated with sustained superior pain relief at 24 months, consistent with the 3- and 12-month outcomes.

A Real-World Analysis of High-Frequency 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is one of the most prevalent chronic health conditions and diabetic neuropathy one of its most prevalent and debilitating complications. While there are treatments available for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), their effectiveness is limited. METHOD: This retrospective, multi-center, real-world review assessed pain relief and functional improvements for consecutive patients with diabetic neuropathy aged ≥18 years of age who were permanently implanted with a high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device. Available data were extracted from a commercial database. RESULTS: In total 89 patients consented to being included in the analysis. Sixty-one percent (54/89) of participants were male and the average age was 64.4 years (SD = 9.1). Most patients (78.7%, 70/89) identified pain primarily in their feet or legs bilaterally. At the last assessment, 79.5% (58/73) of patients were treatment responders, defined as having at least 50% patient-reported pain relief from baseline. The average time of follow-up was 21.8 months (range: 4.3 to 46.3 months). A majority of patients reported improvements in sleep and overall function relative to their baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study in typical clinical practices found 10 kHz SCS provided meaningful pain relief for a substantial proportion of patients refractory to current pDPN management, similar to published literature. This patient population has tremendous unmet needs and this study helps demonstrate the potential for 10 kHz SCS to provide an alternative pain management approach.

Allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells treatment for chronic low back pain associated with degenerative disc disease: a prospective randomized, placebo-controlled 36-month study of safety and efficacy.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT PURPOSE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of a single intradiscal injection of STRO-3+ adult allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells (MPCs) combined with hyaluronic acid (HA) in subjects with chronic low back pain (CLBP) associated with degenerative disc disease (DDD) through 36-month follow-up. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A multicenter, randomized, controlled study conducted at 13 clinical sites (12 in the United States and 1 in Australia). SUBJECT SAMPLE: A total of 100 subjects with chronic low back pain associated with moderate DDD (modified Pfirrmann score of 3-6) at one level from L1 to S1 for at least 6 months and failing 3 months of conservative treatment, including physical therapy were randomized in a 3:3:2:2 ratio to receive 6 million MPCs with HA, 18 million MPCs with HA, HA vehicle control, or saline control (placebo) treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Subjects were clinically and radiographically evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months postinjection. Subject-reported outcomes including adverse events, LBP on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), SF-36 and Work Productivity and Activity Index were collected. METHODS: Clinical and radiographic measures were collected at each visit. All randomized subjects were included in the safety assessments and analyzed based on the treatment received. Safety assessments included assessments of AEs, physical and radiographic examinations and laboratory testing. Efficacy assessments evaluated changes in VAS, ODI, and modified Pfirrmann (MP) scores between all active and control groups, respectively. Assessments included least squares mean (Mean), LS mean change from baseline (Mean Change) and responder analyses in order to assess the clinical significance of observed changes from baseline. The population for efficacy assessments was adjusted for the confounding effects of post-treatment interventions (PTIs). This study was conducted under an FDA Investigational New Drug application sponsored and funded by Mesoblast. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the control and MPC groups for improvement in VAS and ODI. The PTI-corrected VAS and ODI Means and Mean Change analyses; the proportion of subjects with VAS ≥30% and ≥50% improvement from baseline; absolute VAS score ≤20; and ODI reduction ≥10 and ≥15 points from baseline showed MPC therapy superior to controls at various time points through 36 months. Additionally, the proportion of subjects achieving the minimally important change and clinically significant change composite endpoints for the MPC groups was also superior compared with controls at various time points from baseline to 36 months. There were no significant differences in change in MP score from baseline across the groups. There were also no statistically significant differences in change in modified MP score at the level above or below the level treated between study arms. Both the procedure and treatment were well tolerated and there were no clinical symptoms of immune reaction to allogeneic MPCs. There was a low rate of Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) and Serious Adverse Events, and the rates of these events in the MPC groups were not significantly different from the control groups. One TEAE of severe back pain was possibly related to study agent and one TEAE of implantation site infection was considered to be related to the study procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide evidence that intradiscal injection of MPCs could be a safe, effective, durable, and minimally invasive therapy for subjects who have CLBP associated with moderate DDD.

10-kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Postsurgical Pain: Results From a 12-Month Prospective, Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) can be caused by peripheral nerve injury (PNI) resulting from surgical procedures and has a significant neuropathic component. This prospective, single-arm study was conducted to document the effectiveness of 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation (10-kHz SCS) as a treatment for patients with CPSP. METHODS: Subjects with CPSP who were refractory to conventional medical interventions and reported pain scores of ≥5 cm on a 10-cm VAS underwent trial stimulations lasting up to 14 days. Epidural leads were implanted at locations appropriate for the primary area of pain, and trials resulting in ≥40% pain relief were considered successful. Subjects with successful trials underwent implantation with a permanent 10-kHz SCS system and were followed for 12 months after implantation. RESULTS: Of the 34 subjects who underwent trial stimulation, 1 was withdrawn early and 29 (87.9%) had a successful trial and received a permanent implant. After 12 months of treatment, the mean VAS score decreased by 6.5 cm, the response rate was 88.0% (22/25), and 18 subjects (62.1%) were remitters with VAS scores sustained at ≤3.0 cm. Scores for all components of the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 were significantly reduced, including affective descriptors of pain. Pain catastrophizing and vigilance, patient function, physical and mental well-being, and sleep quality all improved over the course of the study. No neurologic deficits reported in the study. CONCLUSIONS: 10-kHz SCS is effective and tolerated in patients with CPSP, and further study of its clinical application in this population is warranted.

DRG FOCUS: A Multicenter Study Evaluating Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation and Predictors for Trial Success.

INTRODUCTION: Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) is a powerful tool in the treatment of chronic, neuropathic pain. The premise of DRGS is similar to that of conventional spinal cord stimulation (cSCS), however, there is more variability in how it can be utilized. While it is this variability that likely gives it its versatility, DRGS is not as straightforward to implement as cSCS. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of DRGS on a broad number of diagnoses, determine which dorsal root ganglia were associated with better outcomes for particular body parts/diagnoses, and evaluate what factors/parameters were associated with higher rates of trial success. METHODS: This is a physician initiated, multicenter retrospective registry of 217 patients trialed with DRGS. Data were collected via an online questionnaire that assessed specifics regarding the patient's pain, distribution, size, and response to treatment. The data were analyzed to see if there were certain diagnoses and/or parameters that were more or less associated with trial success. RESULTS: DRGS was found to be an effective treatment in all diagnoses evaluated within this study, most of which had statistically significant improvements in pain. The most important predictor of trial success was the amount of painful area covered by paresthesias during the programing phase. The number of leads utilized had a direct and indirect impact on trial success. Pain in the distribution of a specific peripheral nerve responded best and there was no statistical difference based on what body part was being treated. CONCLUSION: DRGS can be an effective treatment for a variety of neuropathic pain syndromes, in addition to CRPS. It is recommended that a minimum of 2 leads should be utilized per area being treated. In addition, this therapy was shown to be equally efficacious in any body part/region so long as the area being treated is focal and not widespread.

The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group Guidelines for Minimally Invasive Spine Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options. METHODS: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment (MIST) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers. RESULTS: The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available. CONCLUSIONS: MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS, based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer-reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence-based decision algorithm.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) Recommendations for Infection Prevention and Management.

INTRODUCTION: The use of neurostimulation for pain has been an established therapy for many decades and is a major tool in the arsenal to treat neuropathic pain syndromes. Level I evidence has recently been presented to substantiate the therapy, but this is balanced against the risk of complications of an interventional technique. METHODS: The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society convened an international panel of well published and diverse physicians to examine the best practices for infection mitigation and management in patients undergoing neurostimulation. The NACC recommendations are based on evidence scoring and peer-reviewed literature. Where evidence is lacking the panel added expert opinion to establish recommendations. RESULTS: The NACC has made recommendations to improve care by reducing infection and managing this complication when it occurs. These evidence-based recommendations should be considered best practices in the clinical implantation of neurostimulation devices. CONCLUSION: Adhering to established standards can improve patient care and reduce the morbidity and mortality of infectious complications in patients receiving neurostimulation.

Results From the Partnership for Advancement in Neuromodulation Registry: A 24-Month Follow-Up.

OBJECTIVE: This longitudinal, clinical outcome study was a multicenter, prospective, observational, registry with a 24-month assessment of patients implanted with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems for the management of chronic pain of the trunk and/or limbs. METHODS: On informed consent and institutional review board approval, 614 patients from 39 sites were enrolled within 30 days following permanent SCS system implantation. Medication usage, patient-reported pain relief (PRP), categorical ratings of pain relief, pain disability index scores (PDI), quality of life (QoL), and patient satisfaction were assessed at enrollment, 3-, 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month postimplant. Device-related adverse events (AEs) were recorded and reported. RESULTS: Across all visits, statistically significant improvements were reported on all outcome measures. Mean PRP was 58.5% (± 26.4) at 3 months, 56.8% (± 29.2) at 6 months, 57.7% (± 28.9) at 12 months, 55.6% (± 29.8) at 18 months, and 56.3% (± 30.3) at 24 months. More than 65% of patients at any visit reported a PRP ≥ 50%. Mean PDI scores reduced from 46.9 points at baseline to 32.7, 31.8, 31.5, 32.1, 32.1 points at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months (p ≤ 0.0001), respectively. Greater than 76% of patients at any visit were satisfied with their therapy. The majority of patients categorized pain relief as excellent or good on a 5-item scale and reported overall QoL as greatly improved or improved on a 5-item scale. An average of 88% of patients stopped, decreased, or did not change dose of narcotics/opioids. The most common AE was diminished or loss of pain relief in 11.4% of enrolled patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients experienced substantial pain relief and a significant improvement in all outcome measures. These results further support the safety, efficacy, and sustainability of SCS in clinical practice.

Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Partial Crossover Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of the Novel Neuromodulation System in the Treatment of Patients With Chronic Pain of Peripheral Nerve Origin.

INTRODUCTION: Currently available central nervous system treatment strategies are often insufficient in management of peripheral neuropathic pain, prompting a resurgence of neuromodulation focused on peripheral pain. A new peripheral nerve stimulation device was investigated in a prospective, randomized, double blind, crossover study, looking specifically at efficacy and safety, with Food and Drug Administration oversight. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, partial crossover study to assess safety and efficacy. After IRB approval, patients were enrolled, implanted, and then followed for three months to assess efficacy and one year for safety based on Food and Drug Administration guidance. RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven patients were consented and screened for the study. Thirty-five did not meet inclusion or exclusion criteria. Ninety-four patients were implanted and then randomized to the treatment (45) or the Control group (49). The primary efficacy endpoint, three months after randomization to treatment, demonstrated that patients receiving active stimulation achieved a statistically significantly higher response rate of 38% vs. the 10% rate found in the Control group (p = 0.0048). Improvement in pain was statistically significant between the randomized groups, with the Treatment group achieving a mean pain reduction of 27.2% from Baseline to Month 3 compared to a 2.3% reduction in the Control group (p < 0.0001). During the partial crossover period, patients again demonstrated statistically significant improvement in pain relief with active stimulation compared to baseline. Further, the Treatment group had significantly better improvement than the Control group in secondary measures including but not limited to quality of life and satisfaction. Safety, assessed throughout the trial and with follow-up to one year, demonstrated no serious adverse events related to the device. All device-related adverse events were minor and self-limiting. CONCLUSION: The novel peripheral nerve stimulation device is a safe and effective treatment strategy to address neuropathic pain of peripheral nerve origin.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: avoidance and treatment of complications of neurostimulation therapies for the treatment of chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has determined that there is a need for guidance regarding safety and risk reduction for implantable neurostimulation devices. The INS convened an international committee of experts in the field to explore the evidence and clinical experience regarding safety, risks, and steps to risk reduction to improve outcomes. METHODS: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) reviewed the world literature in English by searching MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar to evaluate the evidence for ways to reduce risks of neurostimulation therapies. This evidence, obtained from the relevant literature, and clinical experience obtained from the convened consensus panel were used to make final recommendations on improving safety and reducing risks. RESULTS: The NACC determined that the ability to reduce risk associated with the use of neurostimulation devices is a valuable goal and possible with best practice. The NACC has recommended several practice modifications that will lead to improved care. The NACC also sets out the minimum training standards necessary to become an implanting physician. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC has identified the possibility of improving patient care and safety through practice modification. We recommend that all implanting physicians review this guidance and consider adapting their practice accordingly.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: new and evolving neurostimulation therapies and applicable treatment for chronic pain and selected disease states. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has determined that there is a need to provide an expert consensus that defines the appropriate use of neuromodulation technologies for appropriate patients. The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) was formed to give guidance to current practice and insight into future developments. METHODS: The INS executive board selected members of the international scientific community to analyze scientific evidence for current and future innovations and to use clinical experience to fill in any gaps in information. The NACC used PubMed and Google Scholar to obtain current evidence in the field and used clinical and research experience to give a more complete picture of the innovations in the field. RESULTS: The NACC has determined that currently approved neurostimulation techniques and technologies have expanded our ability to treat patients in a more effective and specific fashion. Despite these advances, the NACC has identified several additional promising technologies and potential applications for neurostimulation that could move this field forward and expand the applicability of neuromodulation. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC concludes that the field of neurostimulation is an evolving and rapidly changing one that will lead to improved patient access, safety, and outcomes.

Case report: successful epiradicular peripheral nerve stimulation of the C2 dorsal root ganglion for postherpetic neuralgia.

BACKGROUND: Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is the most common complication following an acute varicella zoster virus infection. PHN often results in a chronic severe pain condition refractory to conservative pain management treatments. Peripheral nerve stimulation over the affected spinal nerve root may be an effective treatment option for patients with intractable PHN. OBJECTIVE: To describe a successful case of peripheral nerve stimulation of the second cervical dorsal root ganglion for the treatment of intractable PHN. CASE REPORT: An 80-year-old man with a 15-month history of severe PHN was referred to our clinic for pain management. His pain was localized to the left side in the distribution of the C2 dermatome. The patient's pain was unresponsive to comprehensive conventional treatments for PHN including physical therapy, membrane stabilizing medications, opioids, anti-inflammatories, cervical epidural steroid injections, cervical facet joint injections, and dorsal root ganglion blockade with pulsed radiofrequency. After failing to respond to conservative and interventional therapies, a peripheral nerve stimulator trial was conducted for a period of seven days. The lead was placed within the epidural space over the atlanto-axial joint under fluoroscopy to stimulate the left C2 nerve root. This trial resulted in a significant decrease of the patient's pain, and discontinuation of all pain medications. CONCLUSION: We describe a case of successful electrode placement at the C2 spinal level for the treatment of refractory PHN.

Reliability and validity of the Global Pain Scale with chronic pain sufferers.

BACKGROUND: Many pain scales exist today; however, a comprehensive, easy-to-analyze test has yet to be available to evaluate a patient's pain and understand the sociocultural, cognitive, and affective factors contributing to a patient's overall pain experience. Many scales have attempted to create an all-encompassing pain assessment but remain incomplete in their assessment of pain and the contributing aspects of pain. OBJECTIVE: To present the Global Pain Scale (GPS) as an alternative to current pain assessments and evaluate the reliability and construct validity of the GPS. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-two undergraduates with chronic pain at a large midwestern university participated in this survey study. Participants reported in which of 14 specific body regions they have pain, the frequency of pain, and treatment history for their pain. Participants completed 4 scales--GPS, the West Haven Yale Scale (WHY), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and the short form McGill (SF-MPQ)--in a randomized order. RESULTS: The GPS demonstrated high criterion validity and high construct validity (including both convergent and discriminant validity). The total GPS scale and each of the subscales were reliable. The total GPS score was significantly correlated with all other subscales, excluding those for which there is a theoretical reason for them to not be correlated with our participant population. LIMITATIONS: A sample of college students was used, thus decreasing the generalizability of these findings to patients approximating our sample. CONCLUSIONS: The GPS is a valid scale that is concise and easily interpreted. The GPS is a comprehensive assessment of pain evaluating pain, emotions, clinical outcomes, and daily activities. This may be a valuable tool for evaluation and treatment planning for interventional pain management physicians.

An innovative case report detailing the successful treatment of post-thoracotomy syndrome with peripheral nerve field stimulation.

INTRODUCTION: The detrimental effects of post-thoracotomy pain syndrome is experienced worldwide; however, an effective treatment regimen remains elusive. METHODS: We report a case of post-thoracotomy pain syndrome effectively treated with peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNfS). RESULTS: In the presented case, the patient underwent permanent placement of the PSfS device after a successful trial period. Upon follow-up the patient has reported even better coverage over her painful areas and admits to 80% and higher reductions in her painful symptoms. CONCLUSION: Although the data are limited, in the aforesaid case report, post-thoracotomy syndrome was effectively treated with the use of PNfS. This resulted in a significant pain perception reduction, increased quality of life and mobility, as well as decreased usage of oral pain medications. This adds to the accumulating case report and case series data that suggest PNfS is showing great promise as a pain reduction modality. Further, it is minimally invasive, can be trialled prior to implantation, and is reversible. Large prospective studies will be required in the future to further evaluate its efficacy before it can be widely accepted and adopted.

Sacral nerve stimulation as a treatment modality for intractable neuropathic testicular pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic testicular pain, or "chronic orchalgia," is defined as testicular pain 3 months or longer in duration that significantly interferes with the daily activities of the patient. For patients failing to respond to conservative treatment, microsurgical denervation of the spermatic cord, epididymectomy, and vasovasostomy have all shown a degree of relief. However, these are all invasive procedures and no treatment has proven efficacy when these options fail. We present a case of a male who presented with over a decade of chronic right-sided testicular pain secondary to recurrent epididymitis. Before arriving at our clinic the patient had an epididymectomy performed with no appreciable improvement in pain. Initially ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, and genetofemoral nerve blocks; right-sided S1, S2, and S3 transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) with inferior hypogastric blocks; and right-sided T12-L1, L1-L2, and L2-L3 TFESIs all failed to provide pain relief. After conservative therapies had failed, a sacral nerve stimulation trial was done via a caudal epidural approach. The permanent implant has provided the patient with sustained 80% decrease in pain at 4 months status post permanent sacral nerve stimulation implant. The above case demonstrates the potential benefit of sacral nerve stimulation with neuropathic intractable testicular pain in a patient that failed conservative treatment. In this case, the patient had exhausted medical and surgical management, including advanced interventional pain options. We were unable to find any previous published cases of neurostimulation used as a modality of treatment for testicular pain, and further studies are needed to gain a better understanding of the efficacy in this setting.