Search

Introduction: Although nonlinear burst and tonic SCS are believed to treat neuropathic pain via distinct pain pathways, the effectiveness of these modalities on brain activity in vivo has not been investigated. This study compared neuronal firing patterns in the brain after nonlinear burst and tonic SCS in a rat model of painful radiculopathy., Methods: Neuronal activity was recorded in the ACC or S1 before and after nonlinear burst or tonic SCS on day 7 following painful cervical nerve root compression (NRC) or sham surgery. The amplitude of nonlinear burst SCS was set at 60% and 90% motor threshold to investigate the effect of lower amplitude SCS on brain activity. Neuronal activity was recorded during and immediately following light brush and noxious pinch of the paw. Change in neuron firing was measured as the percent change in spikes post-SCS relative to pre-SCS baseline., Results: ACC activity decreases during brush after 60% nonlinear burst compared to tonic (p < 0.05) after NRC and compared to 90% nonlinear burst (p < 0.04) and pre-SCS baseline (p < 0.03) after sham. ACC neuron activity decreases (p < 0.01) during pinch after 60% and 90% nonlinear burst compared to tonic for NRC. The 60% of nonlinear burst decreases (p < 0.02) ACC firing during pinch in both groups compared to baseline. In NRC S1 neurons, tonic SCS decreases (p < 0.01) firing from baseline during light brush; 60% nonlinear burst decreases (p < 0.01) firing from baseline during brush and pinch., Conclusions: Nonlinear burst SCS reduces firing in the ACC from a painful stimulus; a lower amplitude nonlinear burst appears to have the greatest effect. Tonic and nonlinear burst SCS may have comparable effects in S1., (© 2020 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Introduction: ACCURATE, a randomized controlled trial comparing dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation to spinal cord stimulation, showed that DRG stimulation is a safe and effective therapy in individuals with lower extremity chronic pain due to complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I or II. Investigators noted that DRG stimulation programming could be adjusted to minimize, or eliminate, the feeling of paresthesia while maintaining adequate pain relief. The present study explores treatment outcomes for DRG subjects who were paresthesia-free vs. those who experienced the sensation of paresthesia, as well as the factors that predicted paresthesia-free analgesia., Methods: A retrospective analysis of therapy outcomes was conducted for 61 subjects in the ACCURATE study who received a permanent DRG neurostimulator. Outcomes of subjects who were paresthesia-free were compared to those who experienced paresthesia-present therapy at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12-month follow-ups. Predictor variables for the presence or absence of paresthesias with DRG stimulation were also explored., Results: The percentage of subjects with paresthesia-free pain relief increased from 16.4% at 1-month to 38.3% at 12-months. Paresthesia-free subjects generally had similar or better outcomes for pain severity, pain interference, quality of life, and mood state as subjects with paresthesia-present stimulation. Factors that increased the odds of a subject feeling paresthesia were higher stimulation amplitudes and frequencies, number of implanted leads, and younger age., Conclusions: Some DRG subjects achieved effective paresthesia-free analgesia in the ACCURATE trial. This supports the observation that paresthesia is not synonymous with pain relief or required for optimal analgesia with DRG stimulation., (© 2019 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Background: There is increasing literature evidence both clinically and experimentally on the existence of potent, adaptive interactions between the central and peripheral aspects of the neuroimmune system in the genesis and maintenance of chronic neuropathic extremity pain and nociceptive back pain. The neuroinflammatory pathways are modulated by the interaction of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, which are released by peripheral immune system-derived cell species (macrophages and leukocytes). This review examines the possible impact of spinal and peripheral neurostimulation on the inflammatory response in the context of acute and chronic pain pathologies of different origin., Study Design: A narrative review of preclinical and clinical studies addressed to the spinal cord and peripheral nerve stimulation and neuroinflammation., Methods: Available literature was reviewed on neurostimulation technologies and both acute and chronic low-grade inflammation to identify primary outcome measures and to provide an overview of postulated mechanisms of action of neurostimulation on host inflammatory responses. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID, SCOPUS, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Results: A comprehensive review of the literature indicates an alternate or synergistic mechanism of action of neurostimulation, beyond modulating somatosensory pain pathways, in modifying inflammatory response associated with chronic pain, by promoting a systemic anti-inflammatory state with upregulation of anti-inflammatory mediators., Conclusions: These preliminary findings may have important implications on the potential applications of neurostimulation as an anti-inflammatory therapy and the role of molecular profiling as a preimplant screening modality and post-implant outcome validation. Thus, future targeted clinical and experimental research is highly warranted in this particular novel field of neuromodulation., (© 2018 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Background: Burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS) technology uses a novel waveform that consists of closely packed high-frequency electrical impulses followed by a quiescent period. Within the growing field of neuromodulation, burst stimulation is unique in that it mimics the natural burst firing of the nervous system, in particular the thalamo-cingulate rhythmicity, resulting in modulation of the affective and attentional components of pain processing (e.g., medial thalamic pathways)., Study Design: A review of preclinical and clinical studies regarding burst SCS for various chronic pain states., Methods: Available literature was reviewed on burst stimulation technology. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID, SCOPUS, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was to understand the mechanisms of action with regards to burst stimulation and to review clinical data on the indications of burst SCS for various chronic pain states., Results: We present both mechanisms of action and review uses of burst stimulation for various pain states., Conclusions: Burst stimulation offers a novel pain reduction tool with the absence of uncomfortable paresthesia for failed back surgery syndrome, diabetic neuropathic pain, and anesthesia dolorosa. Preclinical models have emphasized that the potential mechanisms for burst therapy could be related to neural coding algorithms that mimic the natural nervous system firing patterns, resulting in effects on both the medial and lateral pain pathways. Other mechanisms include frequency dependent opioid release, modulation of the pain gate, and activation of electrical and chemical synapses., (© 2018 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Objective: The mechanisms of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for chronic pain remain unclear. The objective of this work was to explore the neurophysiological effects of DRG stimulation using computational modeling., Methods: Electrical fields produced during DRG stimulation were calculated with finite element models, and were coupled to a validated biophysical model of a C-type primary sensory neuron. Intrinsic neuronal activity was introduced as a 4 Hz afferent signal or somatic ectopic firing. The transmembrane potential was measured along the neuron to determine the effect of stimulation on intrinsic activity across stimulation parameters, cell location/orientation, and membrane properties., Results: The model was validated by showing close correspondence in action potential (AP) characteristics and firing patterns when compared to experimental measurements. Subsequently, the model output demonstrated that T-junction filtering was amplified with DRG stimulation, thereby blocking afferent signaling, with cathodic stimulation at amplitudes of 2.8-5.5 × stimulation threshold and frequencies above 2 Hz. This amplified filtering was dependent on the presence of calcium and calcium-dependent small-conductance potassium channels, which produced a hyperpolarization offset in the soma, stem, and T-junction with repeated somatic APs during stimulation. Additionally, DRG stimulation suppressed somatic ectopic activity by hyperpolarizing the soma with cathodic or anodic stimulation at amplitudes of 3-11 × threshold and frequencies above 2 Hz. These effects were dependent on the stem axon being relatively close to and oriented toward a stimulating contact., Conclusions: These results align with the working hypotheses on the mechanisms of DRG stimulation, and indicate the importance of stimulation amplitude, polarity, and cell location/orientation on neuronal responses., (© 2018 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Introduction: A shorter delay time from chronic pain diagnosis to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) implantation may make it more likely to achieve lasting therapeutic efficacy with SCS. The objective of this analysis was to determine the impact of pain-to-SCS time on patients' post-implant healthcare resource utilization (HCRU)., Methods: A retrospective observational study was performed using a real-world patient cohort derived from MarketScan(®) Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims data bases from April 2008 through March 2013. The predictor variable was the time from the first diagnosis of chronic pain to permanent SCS implant. Using multivariable analysis, we studied the impact of pain-to-SCS time on HCRU in the first year post-implant. For some regression tests, patients were grouped into terciles by HCRU., Results: A total of 762 patients met inclusion criteria, with a median pain-to-SCS time of 1.35 years (Q1: 0.8, Q3: 1.9). For every one-year increase in pain-to-SCS time, the odds increased by 33% for being in the high medical expenditures group (defined using the upper tercile: $4133 over above) over the low group (first lower: $603 or less). The odds increased by 39% for being in the high opioid prescriptions group (10-58 prescriptions) over the low group (0-1). The odds increased by 44% and 55%, respectively, for being in the high office visits (8-77) or hospitalizations (3-28) group over the low office visits (0-2) or hospitalizations (0) group., Conclusions: HCRU increased in the year following SCS implantation with longer pain-to-SCS time. These results suggest that considering SCS earlier in the care continuum for chronic pain may improve patient outcomes, with reductions in hospitalizations, clinic visits, and opioid usage., (© 2016 International Neuromodulation Society.)