Network Meta-analysis and Economic Evaluation of Neurostimulation Interventions for Chronic Non-surgical Refractory back Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Different types of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have now been evaluated for the management of chronic non-surgical refractory back pain (NSRBP). A direct comparison between the different types of SCS or between closed-loop SCS with conventional medical management (CMM) for patients with NSRBP has not been previously conducted, and therefore, their relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain unknown. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review, network meta-analysis (NMA) and economic evaluation of closed-loop SCS compared with fixed-output SCS and CMM for patients with NSRBP. METHODS: Databases were searched to 8th September 2023. Randomised controlled trials of SCS for NSRBP were included. Results of studies were combined using fixed-effect NMA models. A cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of the UK National Health Service with results reported as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Closed-loop SCS resulted in statistically and clinically significant reductions in pain intensity (mean difference [MD] 32.72 [95% CrI 15.69-49.78]) and improvements in secondary outcomes compared to fixed-output SCS at 6-months follow-up. Compared to CMM, both closed-loop and fixed-output SCS result in statistically and clinically significant reductions in pain intensity (closed-loop SCS vs. CMM MD 101.58 [95% CrI 83.73-119.48]; fixed-output SCS versus CMM MD 68.86 [95% CrI 63.43-74.31]) and improvements in secondary outcomes. Cost-utility analysis shows that closed-loop SCS dominates fixed-output SCS and CMM, and fixed-output SCS also dominates CMM. DISCUSSION: Current evidence shows that closed-loop and fixed-output SCS provide more benefits and are cost-saving compared to CMM for patients with NSRBP.

Clinical study of a micro-implantable pulse generator for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain: 3-month and 6-month results from the COMFORT-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We report the results from the first large, postmarket, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for the treatment of chronic peripheral pain with a micro-implantable pulse generator (micro-IPG). METHODS: Subjects meeting eligibility were randomised (2:1) to either the active arm receiving PNS and conventional medical management (CMM) or the control arm receiving CMM alone. Treatments were limited to the following areas: lower back, shoulder, knee and foot/ankle. RESULTS: At 6 months, the active arm achieved an 88% responder rate with a 70% average reduction in pain. At the 3-month primary endpoint, the active arm achieved an 84% responder rate with an average pain reduction of 67% compared with the control arm, which achieved a 3% responder rate with an average pain reduction of 6%. Both responder rate and pain reduction in the active arm were significantly better than in the control arm (p<0.001). A majority of patient-reported outcomes also reached statistical significance. There have been no reports of pocket pain and no serious adverse device effects. 81% of subjects found the external wearable component of the PNS system to be comfortable. CONCLUSIONS: This study successfully reached its primary endpoint-the active arm achieved a statistically significant superior responder rate as compared with the control arm at 3 months. These RCT results demonstrated that PNS, with this micro-IPG, is efficacious and safe. This ongoing study will follow subjects for 3 years, the results of which will be reported as they become available.

6. Persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS) refers to chronic axial pain and/or extremity pain. Two subtypes have been defined: PSPS-type 1 is chronic pain without previous spinal surgery and PSPS-type 2 is chronic pain, persisting after spine surgery, and is formerly known as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) or post-laminectomy syndrome. The etiology of PSPS-type 2 can be gleaned using elements from the patient history, physical examination, and additional medical imaging. Origins of persistent pain following spinal surgery may be categorized into an inappropriate procedure (eg a lumbar fusion at an incorrect level or for sacroiliac joint [SIJ] pain); technical failure (eg operation at non-affected levels, retained disk fragment, pseudoarthrosis), biomechanical sequelae of surgery (eg adjacent segment disease or SIJ pain after a fusion to the sacrum, muscle wasting, spinal instability); and complications (eg battered root syndrome, excessive epidural fibrosis, and arachnoiditis), or undetermined. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of PSPS-type 2 was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: There is low-quality evidence for the efficacy of conservative treatments including exercise, rehabilitation, manipulation, and behavioral therapy, and very limited evidence for the pharmacological treatment of PSPS-type 2. Interventional treatments such as pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the dorsal root ganglia, epidural adhesiolysis, and spinal endoscopy (epiduroscopy) might be beneficial in patients with PSPS-type 2. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be an effective treatment for chronic, intractable neuropathic limb pain, and possibly well-selected candidates with axial pain. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of PSPS-type 2 is based on patient history, clinical examination, and medical imaging. Low-quality evidence exists for conservative interventions. Pulsed radiofrequency, adhesiolysis and SCS have a higher level of evidence with a high safety margin and should be considered as interventional treatment options when conservative treatment fails.

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.

Chronic Abdominal Discomfort Syndrome (CADS): Defining and Discussing a Novel Diagnosis.

In this article, we propose a new diagnostic paradigm known as Chronic Abdominal Discomfort Syndrome (CADS). Patient's presentation centers around chronic abdominal pain not explained by acute pathology with or without accompanying dyspepsia, bloating, nausea and vomiting among other symptoms. The pathophysiology is noted to be neurogenic, possibly stemming from visceral sympathetic nerves or abdominal wall afferent nerves. Diagnosis is supported by signs or symptoms traversing clinical, diagnostic and functional criteria. Included is a tool which can assist clinicians in diagnosing patients with CADS per those domains. We hope to facilitate primary care physicians' and gastroenterologists' utilization of our criteria to provide guidance for selecting which patients may benefit from further interventions or evaluation by a pain physician. The pain physician may then offer interventions to provide the patient with relief.

Musculoskeletal and Neuropathic Pain in COVID-19.

Chronic pain constitutes a significant disease burden globally and accounts for a substantial portion of healthcare spending. The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to an increase in this burden as patients presented with musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain after contracting COVID-19 or had their chronic pain symptoms exacerbated by the virus. This extensive literature review analyzes the epidemiology of pain pre-pandemic, the costs associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact of the virus on the body, mechanisms of pain, management of chronic pain post-pandemic, and potential treatment options available for people living with chronic pain who have had or are currently infected with COVID-19.

Treating Chronic, Intractable Pain with a Miniaturized Spinal Cord Stimulation System: 1-Year Outcomes from the AUS-nPower Study During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Purpose: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a highly effective treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. Despite recent advances in technology, treatment gaps remain. A small SCS system with a miniaturized implantable pulse generator (micro-IPG; <1.5 cm3 in volume) and an externally worn power source may be preferred by patients who do not want a large, implanted battery. We report here the long-term outcomes from the first-in-human study evaluating the safety and performance of a new neurostimulation system. Patients and Methods: This was a prospective, multi-center, open-label, single-arm study to evaluate this SCS system, in the treatment of chronic, intractable leg and low-back pain. Consented subjects who passed screening continued on to the long-term phase of the study. One-year, patient-reported outcomes (PRO's) such as pain (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), functional disability, quality of life, and mood were captured. Results: Twenty-six (26) evaluable subjects with permanent implants were included in this analysis. The average leg pain NRS score decreased from 6.8 ± 1.2 at baseline to 1.1 ± 1.2 at the end of the study (p < 0.001), while the average low-back pain NRS score decreased from 6.8 ± 1.2 to 1.5 ± 1.2 (p < 0.001). The responder rate (proportion with ≥50% pain relief) was 91% in the leg(s) and 82% in the low back. There were significant improvements in functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and in mood (Beck Depression Inventory), demonstrating a 46% and 62% improvement, respectively (p < 0.001). Eleven-point Likert scales demonstrated the wearable to be very comfortable and very easy to use. Conclusion: There were considerable challenges conducting a clinical study during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as missed study programming visits. Nevertheless, subjects had significant PRO improvements through 1-year. The small size of the implanted device, along with a proprietary waveform, may allow for improved SCS outcomes and a drop in incidence of IPG-pocket pain.

Factors Predicting Clinically Relevant Pain Relief After Spinal Cord Stimulation for Patients With Chronic Low Back and/or Leg Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression.

RATIONALE: To optimize results with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic low back pain (CLBP) and/or leg pain, including persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS), careful patient selection based on proved predictive factors is essential. Unfortunately, the necessary selection process required to optimize outcomes of SCS remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to evaluate predictive factors of clinically relevant pain relief after SCS for patients with CLBP and/or radicular leg pain, including PSPS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In August 2023, PubMed, Cinahl, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched to identify studies published between January 2010 and August 2023. Studies reporting the percentage of patients with ≥50% pain relief after SCS in patients with CLBP and leg pain, including PSPS at 12 or 24 months, were included. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool results for back, leg, and general pain relief. Predictive factors for pain relief after 12 months were examined using univariable and multivariable meta-regression. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies (2220 patients) were included for further analysis. The mean percentages of patients with substantial pain relief were 68% for leg pain, 63% for back pain, and 73% for general pain at 12 months follow-up, and 63% for leg pain, 59% for back pain, and 71% for general pain at 24 months follow-up assessment. The implantation method and baseline Oswestry Disability Index made the multivariable meta-regression model for ≥50% back pain relief. Sex and pain duration made the final model for ≥50% leg pain relief. Variable stimulation and implantation method made the final model for general pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: This review supports SCS as an effective pain-relieving treatment for CLBP and/or leg pain, and models were developed to predict substantial back and leg pain relief. To provide high-grade evidence for predictive factors, SCS studies of high quality are needed in which standardized factors predictive of SCS success, based on in-patient improvements, are monitored and reported.

Durable multimodal and holistic response for physiologic closed-loop spinal cord stimulation supported by objective evidence from the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain patients may experience impairments in multiple health-related domains. The design and interpretation of clinical trials of chronic pain interventions, however, remains primarily focused on treatment effects on pain intensity. This study investigates a novel, multidimensional holistic treatment response to evoked compound action potential-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop spinal cord stimulation as well as the degree of neural activation that produced that treatment response. METHODS: Outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality and emotional function were derived from individual patient level data from the EVOKE multicenter, participant, investigator, and outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial with 24 month follow-up. Evaluation of holistic treatment response considered whether the baseline score was worse than normative values and whether minimal clinical important differences were reached in each of the domains that were impaired at baseline. A cumulative responder score was calculated to reflect the total minimal clinical important differences accumulated across all domains. Objective neurophysiological data, including spinal cord activation were measured. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to closed-loop (n=67) or open-loop (n=67). A greater proportion of patients with closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (49.3% vs 26.9%) were holistic responders at 24-month follow-up, with at least one minimal clinical important difference in all impaired domains (absolute risk difference: 22.4%, 95% CI 6.4% to 38.4%, p=0.012). The cumulative responder score was significantly greater for closed-loop patients at all time points and resulted in the achievement of more than three additional minimal clinical important differences at 24-month follow-up (mean difference 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.5, p=0.002). Neural activation was three times more accurate in closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (p<0.001 at all time points). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that closed-loop spinal cord stimulation can provide sustained clinically meaningful improvements in multiple domains and provide holistic improvement in the long-term for patients with chronic refractory pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

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.

Device profile of the Evoke physiologic closed-loop spinal cord stimulation system for the treatment of chronic intractable pain: overview of its safety and efficacy.

INTRODUCTION: The Evoke® spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device enables the closed-loop feedback of dynamically measured evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) to adjust stimulation amplitude for every stimulation pulse to maintain the stimulation output level near a targeted ECAP amplitude. No other commercially available SCS device presently uses physiologic feedback from the spinal cord to adjust stimulation. Clinicians should be familiar with the differences in devices and with the latest technologies to provide optimized patient care. AREAS COVERED: In this device profile, the Evoke system is described and the system capabilities are differentiated from other available SCS devices. A systematic review was conducted based on best practice guidance to identify all available evidence on the safety and efficacy of the Evoke SCS system. EXPERT OPINION: The Evoke SCS system offers unique capabilities as a means to optimize therapy delivery tailored to each individual patient. Data through 24-months follow-up show statistically significant, clinically meaningful, ample, consistent, and strong evidence of the safety and efficacy of the Evoke system for the treatment of chronic intractable pain.

Remote Management of Spinal Cord Stimulation Devices for Chronic Pain: Expert Recommendations on Best Practices for Proper Utilization and Future Considerations.

OBJECTIVE: Emerging spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remote monitoring and programming technologies provide a unique opportunity to address challenges of in-person visits and improve patient care, although clinical guidance on implementation is needed. The goal of this document is to establish best clinical practices for integration of remote device management into the care of patients with SCS, including remote monitoring and remote programming. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of experts in SCS met in July 2022, and additional experts contributed to the development of recommendations after the meeting via survey responses and correspondence. RESULTS: Major goals of remote SCS device management were identified, including prompt identification and resolution of SCS-related issues. The panel identified metrics for remote monitoring and classified them into three categories: device-related (eg, stimulation usage); measurable physiologic or disease-related (eg, patient physical activity or pedometry); and patient-reported (eg, sleep quality and pain intensity). Recommendations were made for frequency of reviewing remote monitoring metrics, although providers should tailor follow-up to individual patient needs. Such periodic reviews of remote monitoring metrics would occur separately from automatic monitoring system notifications (if key metrics fall outside an acceptable range). The guidelines were developed in consideration of reimbursement processes, privacy concerns, and the responsibilities of the care team, industry professionals, manufacturers, patients, and caregivers. Both existing and needed clinical evidence were covered, including outcomes of interest for future studies. CONCLUSIONS: Given the expansion of SCS device capabilities, this document provides critical guidance on best practices for using remote device management, although medical necessity should drive all remote monitoring decisions, with individualized patient care. The authors also describe the potential of these emerging technologies to improve outcomes for patients with SCS, although more clinical evidence is needed.

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.

Cost-utility Analysis of Evoke Closed-loop Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of Evoke closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (CL-SCS), a novel modality of neurostimulation, has been demonstrated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The objective of this cost-utility analysis was to develop a de novo economic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Evoke CL-SCS when compared with open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) for the management of chronic back and leg pain. METHODS: A decision tree followed by a Markov model was used to estimate the costs and outcomes of Evoke CL-SCS versus OL-SCS over a 15-year time horizon from the UK National Health Service perspective. A "high-responder" health state was included to reflect improved levels of SCS pain reduction recently reported. Results are expressed as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was conducted to assess uncertainty in the model inputs. RESULTS: Evoke CL-SCS was estimated to be the dominant treatment strategy at ~5 years postimplant (ie, it generates more QALYs while cost saving compared with OL-SCS). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that Evoke CL-SCS has a 92% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000/QALY. Results were robust across a wide range of scenario and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: The results indicate a strong economic case for the use of Evoke CL-SCS in the management of chronic back and leg pain with or without prior spinal surgery with dominance observed at ~5 years.

Real World Clinical Utility of Neurophysiological Measurement Utilizing Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation in a Chronic Pain Population: The ECAP Study Protocol.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established chronic pain treatment, but the effectiveness of traditional, open-loop paradigms has been plagued by variable sustainability in a real-world setting. A new approach, utilizing evoked compound action potential (ECAP) controlled closed-loop (CL) SCS, continuously monitors spinal cord activation and automatically adjusts the stimulation amplitude of every pulse, maintaining stimulation at the prescribed ECAP level through this continual feedback mechanism. Recent studies demonstrated the long-term safety and efficacy of ECAP-controlled CL-SCS. Here, we report the design of a prospective, multicenter, single-arm feasibility study to characterize clinical outcomes in a real-world chronic pain population utilizing ECAP-controlled CL-SCS. Objective neurophysiological measurements such as device performance and patient therapy compliance, will be analyzed against baseline biopsychosocial assessments, to explore the clinical utility of these objective physiologic biomarkers in patient phenotyping. Methods: This study will enroll up to 300 subjects with chronic, intractable trunk and/or limb pain in up to 25 United States investigation sites. Subjects meeting eligibility criteria will undergo a trial procedure and a permanent implant following a successful trial. Neurophysiological measurements (measured in-clinic and continuously during home use) and clinical outcomes including pain, quality-of-life, psychological, emotional, and functional assessments will be collected at baseline, trial end, and up to 24-months post-implantation. Discussion: Associations between objective neurophysiological data, clinical evaluation and patient-reported outcomes may have important clinical and scientific implications. They may provide novel insights about the chronic pain pathophysiology, its modulation during CL-SCS, and identification of pain phenotypes and/or mechanisms associated with treatment response during SCS trials and long-term therapy. Data from the ECAP study could lead to improvements in diagnosis, assessment, patient identification and management of chronic pain. It could also provide the foundation for development of a new SCS treatment approach customized by the patient's pain phenotype, unique neurophysiology, and disease severity.

Percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression and interspinous spacers for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A 2-year Medicare Claims Benchmark Study.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective longitudinal study compares outcomes between Medicare beneficiaries receiving percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression (PILD) using the mild® procedure and a control group of patients receiving interspinous spacers for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with neurogenic claudication (NC). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with LSS with NC and treated with either the mild procedure or a spacer were identified in the Medicare claims database. The incidence of harms, the rate of subsequent interventions, and the overall combined rate of harms and subsequent interventions during 2-year follow-up after the index procedure were compared between the two groups and assessed for statistical significance with p = 0.05. RESULTS: The study included 2229 patients in the mild group and 3401 patients who were implanted with interspinous spacers. The rate of harms for those treated with the mild procedure was less than half that of patients implanted with a spacer (5.6% vs. 12.1%, respectively; p < 0.0001) during 2-year follow-up. The rate of subsequent interventions was not significantly different between the two groups (24.9% and 26.1% for the mild and spacer groups, respectively; p = 0.7679). The total rate of harms and subsequent interventions for mild was found to be noninferior to spacers (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive study of real-world Medicare claims data demonstrated a significantly lower rate of harms for the mild procedure compared to interspinous spacers for patients diagnosed with LSS with NC, and a similar rate of subsequent interventions during 2-year follow-up.