Search

Objectives: Heart rate variability recordings have the potential to examine the role of the autonomic nervous system. Several wearable devices are nowadays readily available. Up until now, no studies explored whether a wearable device is able to reliably measure a treatment response in chronic pain patients. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the reliability of a Polar V800 (Polar Electro Oy, Finland) wearable device to accurately measure RR intervals in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) during spinal cord stimulation (SCS), as compared with an eMotion 2-lead ECG recording., Materials and Methods: Twenty-two patients diagnosed with FBSS and treated with SCS participated in this study. HRV was measured with a 2-lead ECG registration tool and a Polar V800 during on and off state of SCS. Intraclass correlation coefficients, correlations, limits of agreement, Cronbach's α, and effect sizes were calculated., Results: Analysis based on the recordings from the ECG and wearable device revealed the same HRV parameters (except for the time-frequency domain) to capture the treatment response of SCS. Parameters that are relevant for measuring the SCS treatment response have strong correlations (r ≥ .82), good ICC values (ICC ≥0.82), acceptable consistency (α ≥ .9), and limited bias., Conclusions: Similar pre- to posttreatment changes were revealed between a wearable device and 2-lead ECG with reliable HRV estimates for parameters that are able to capture the treatment changes. This suggests that a wearable heart rate monitor might be a reliable wearable tool for the detection of pre- to post treatment changes of SCS, in patients with FBSS., (© 2019 International Neuromodulation Society.)

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., (© 2019 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of peripheral nerve stimulation utilizing a subcutaneous lead implant technique-subcutaneous nerve stimulation (SQS) plus optimized medical management (SQS + OMM arm) vs. optimized medical management alone (OMM arm) in patients with back pain due to failed back surgery syndrome., Patients and Methods: Patients were recruited from 21 centers, in Europe, Israel, and Australia. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to SQS + OMM or OMM arms. Those in the SQS arm were implanted with a neurostimulator and up to two subcutaneous percutaneous cylindrical leads in the area of pain. Patients were evaluated pre-randomization and at one, three, six, and nine months post-randomization. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with a ≥50% reduction in back pain intensity ("responder") from baseline to nine months. Secondary outcomes included proportion of responders with a ≥50% reduction in back pain intensity at six months and ≥30% reduction at nine months, and the mean change from baseline in back pain intensity at six and nine months between the two arms., Results: Due to the slow rate of recruitment, the study was terminated early with 116 subjects randomized. A total of 33.9% (19/56, missing: n = 20 [36%]) of subjects in the SQS + OMM arm and 1.7% (1/60, missing: n = 24 [40%]) in the OMM arm were responders at Month 9 (p < 0.0001). Secondary objectives showed a significant difference in favor of SQS + OMM arm., Conclusion: The results indicate that the addition of SQS to OMM is more effective than OMM alone in relieving low back pain at up to nine months., (© 2018 The Authors. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Neuromodulation Society.)

Objective: To explore the experience of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS)., Methods: Adults with FBSS referred for SCS underwent semistructured interviews at three time points: before their SCS trial, after the trial, and three months after receiving the SCS implant. The face-to-face interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically., Results: Twelve adults (8 male, 4 female, aged 38-80 years, pain duration 1-26 years) were recruited. Six themes were identified; 1) What should I expect? 2) Varied outcomes, 3) Understanding pain and this new treatment, 4) Experiences of the SCS journey, 5) Getting used to the device, and 6) Finding out what I need to know. Participants' expectations were varied and the procedures were broadly viewed as minor surgery. Participants' expectations about SCS were not limited to pain relief and included reductions in medication, better sleep, and increased physical activity. Participants' understanding of pain and how SCS purports to work was limited. Throughout the process, practical challenges were identified such as the surgical wound management and battery recharging. Participants received information from multiple sources and identified a range of key information needs including a quick-start guide on how to operate the device and a list of dos and don'ts., Conclusions: Overall, participants' understanding of SCS was limited. The value participants placed on understanding of the process varied markedly. A list of practical informational needs has been identified. Bespoke, user-friendly, informational tools should be developed from this list to enhance the patient experience of SCS., (© 2018 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Objectives: Currently little objective evidence exists regarding the phenotype or somato-sensory profile of patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS). The aim of this study is to characterize the somato-sensory profile of the patients with FBSS undergoing spinal cord stimulation (SCS)., Methods: A combined quantitative sensory test and questionnaire approach was used to characterize the somatosensory profiles of patients undergoing SCS., Results: Baseline somatosensory profiles were obtained from 23 patients and full three-month data was obtained from 19 patients. At baseline, there was a high prevalence (>50% prevalence of moderate to severe sensation) of burning, tingling, electric shock, numbness, and pressure pain sensitivity. None of the sensory symptoms were present at significant levels at three months following SCS. At baseline, 65% of patients had an inefficient conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Three months post-SCS, 95% of patients had an efficient CPM. All the patients who had an inefficient CPM at baseline had a successful implant at three months and their CPM became efficient in all but one patient. Only 50% of the patients with an efficient CPM at baseline, had a successful implant at three months post-SCS., Conclusion: Although very low numbers, we could demonstrate the somatosensory profiles of patients with FBSS undergoing SCS. Early indication may associate an efficient CPM profile having a higher chance of an unsuccessful implant at three months., (© 2018 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Background: To date, clinical pain research has typically used subjective questionnaires to assess effectiveness of treatment. However, in the near future, new technologies may provide us objective outcome measures as an alternative to self-report. The goal of this study is to compare subjective and objective sleep assessments in a population of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients, treated with spinal cord stimulation (SCS)., Methods: Twenty-two patients diagnosed with FBSS received SCS. Sleep data was collected at three time point: prior to SCS implantation (B), one month after SCS (T1), and two months after SCS (T2). Sleep data measured by actigraphy provided objective sleep data and were compared to Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) scores. Agreement between sleep parameters, total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency (SE), and sleep onset latency (SOL), was examined., Results: Nineteen out of 22 patients completed the study. We identified significant differences between objective and subjective measurements for TST and SE at baseline and after two months of SCS, with patients underestimating both parameters on the PSQI in comparison to objective measurements. For SOL no significant differences were found, although patients subjectively overestimated SOL at B., Conclusion: The results about sleep measurements shown in this population of chronic pain patients, suggest that the subjective ratings scored worse than the objective measurements. Second, short-term SCS mainly seems to affect subjectively measured sleep parameters, especially SOL. This study shows the discrepancies between objective and subjective assessments in chronic pain research. Objective tools are indispensable for a correct assessment and treatment of sleep parameters. They are also playing a role as a biofeedback tool and are supporting the rehabilitation process., (© 2018 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-known treatment in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Burst stimulation is a recently developed stimulation modality that seems to be superior to tonic stimulation., Methods: This observational multicenter study compared tonic and burst stimulation during a trial period in patients with FBSS or radiculopathy. All the patients enrolled underwent two weeks of tonic stimulation followed by another two weeks of BurstDR stimulation, without randomization. The primary outcome was the reduction of pain in the legs and back. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) were assessed before and after the trial. Patients were reevaluated after 12 months., Results: We recruited 23 patients, 57% of whom had FBSS and 43% had radiculopathies. Five patients failed both the tonic and burst stimulation trials. While tonic stimulation reduced leg pain (p < 0.05), the burst mode added an extra pain reduction (ΔNRS 1.2 ± 1.5) (p < 0.01). No significant reduction in back pain was found (p 0.29). Pain on movement was reduced only by BurstDR (p < 0.01). Both stimulation modalities increased EQ-5D and reduced PCS from the baseline (p < 0.0001). At the end of the SCS trial phase, 26% patients chose tonic SCS, while 74% preferred burst. On 12-month follow-up examination, the benefits recorded at the end of the trial were maintained., Conclusions: Burst stimulation confers a greater reduction in leg pain intensity at rest and on movement. Reducing axial pain is still a challenge. Further studies are needed in order to provide each patient with the most appropriate stimulation paradigm., (© 2018 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Introduction: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices are cost effective and improve function as well as quality of life. Despite the demonstrated benefits of SCS, some patients have the device explanted. We are interested in exploring the patient characteristics of those explanted., Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of neurostimulation patients who underwent explantation at 18 centers across the United States within the previous five years., Results: Data from 352 patients were collected and compiled. Failed Back Surgery syndrome was the most common diagnosis (38.9%; n = 136/350) and over half of the patients reported numerical rating scale (NRS) scores ≥8 prior to implant (64.3%; n = 207/322). All patients reported changes in NRS scores across time, with an initial decrease after implant followed by a pre-explant increase (F (2, 961) = 121.7, p < 0.001). The most common reason for device explant was lack or loss of efficacy (43.9%; 152/346) followed by complications (20.2%; 70/346). Eighteen percent (18%; 62/343) of patients were explanted by a different physician than the implanting one. Rechargeable devices were explanted at a median of 15 months, whereas primary cell device explants occurred at a median of 36 months (CI 01.434, 2.373; median endpoint time ratio = 2.40)., Discussion: Loss or lack of efficacy and complications with therapy represent the most frequent reasons for neurostimulation explantation. Of the devices that were explanted, therapy was terminated earlier when devices were rechargeable, when complications occurred, or when pain relief was not achieved or maintained. Furthermore, in nearly 20% of the cases, a different provider than the implanting physician performed device removal., Conclusions: SCS is largely a safe and efficacious strategy for treating select chronic refractory pain syndromes. Further prospective data and innovation are needed to improve patient selection, maintain SCS therapeutic efficacy and reduce the reasons that lead to device explant., (© 2017 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Objective: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is used for treating intractable neuropathic pain. Generally, it induces paresthesia in the area covered by SCS. Burst SCS was introduced as a new stimulation paradigm with good pain relief without causing paresthesia. Good results have been obtained in patients who were naive to SCS. In this study we assess the effectiveness of burst stimulation in three groups of chronic pain patients who are already familiar with SCS and the accompanying paresthesia., Methods: Forty-eight patients with at least six months of conventional, tonic stimulation tested burst stimulation for a period of two weeks. They were classified in three different groups: a cross-section of our population with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), a cross-section of our population with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), and FBSS patients who over time had become poor responders (PR) to SCS. Visual analog scale scores for pain were assessed prior to implantation, with tonic stimulation, and after two weeks of burst stimulation., Results: Burst stimulation reduced pain significantly for almost all patients. When compared with tonic stimulation, burst stimulation led to a significant additional pain reduction of on average 44% in patients with PDN (p < 0.001) and 28% in patients with FBSS (p < 0.01). Patients from the PR group benefitted less from burst stimulation on average. In addition, burst stimulation caused little or no paresthesia whereas tonic stimulation did induce paresthesia. Most patients preferred burst stimulation, but several preferred tonic stimulation because the paresthesia assured them that the SCS was working., Conclusion: About 60% of the patients with tonic SCS experienced further pain reduction upon application of burst stimulation., (© 2013 International Neuromodulation Society.)