Transverse Tripolar Spinal Cord Stimulation: Results of an International Multicenter Study

Experienced neurosurgeons at eight spinal cord stimulation centers in the United States, Canada, and Europe participated in a study from 1997 to 2000 investigating the safety, performance, and efficacy of a Transverse Tripolar Stimulation (TTS) system invented at the University of Twente, the Netherlands. This device was proposed to improve the ability of spinal cord stimulation to adequately overlap paresthesia to perceived areas of pain. Fifty‐six patients with chronic, intractable neuropathic pain of the trunk and/or limbs more than three months’ duration (average 105 months) were enrolled with follow‐up periods at 4, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. All patients had a new paddle‐type lead implanted with four electrodes, three of them aligned in a row perpendicular to the cord. Fifteen of these patients did not undergo permanent implantation. Of the 41 patients internalized, 20 patients chose conventional programming using an implanted pulse generator to drive four electrodes, while 21 patients chose a tripole stimulation system, which used radiofrequency power and signal transmission and an implanted dual‐channel receiver to drive three electrodes using simultaneous pulses of independently variable amplitude. On average, the visual analog scale scores dropped more for patients with TTS systems (32%) than for conventional polarity systems (16%). Conventional polarity systems were using higher frequencies on average, while usage range was similar. Most impressive was the well‐controlled “steering” of the paresthesias according to the dermatomal topography of the dorsal columns when using the TTS‐balanced pulse driver. The most common complication was lead migration. While the transverse stimulation system produced acceptable outcomes for overall pain relief, an analysis of individual pain patterns suggests that it behaves like spinal cord stimulation in general with the best control of extremity neuropathic pain. This transverse tripole lead and driving system introduced the concept of electrical field steering by selective recruitment of axonal nerve fiber tracts in the dorsal columns.     

Subcutaneous Stimulation as an Additional Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Lower Limb Pain and/or Back Pain: A Feasibility Study

Objective: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of subcutaneous stimulation (SubQ) as an additional therapy in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) with chronic refractory pain, for whom spinal cord stimulation (SCS) was unsuccessful in treating low back pain. Study Design: Case series. Materials and Methods: FBSS patients with chronic limb and/or low back pain whose conventional therapies had failed received a combination of SCS (8‐contact Octad lead) and/or SubQ (4‐contact Quad Plus lead(s)). Initially leads were placed in the epidural space for SCS for a trial stimulation to assess response to suppression of limb and low back pain. Where SCS alone was insufficient in treating lower back pain, leads were placed superficially in the subcutaneous tissue of the lower back, directly in the middle of the pain area. A pulse generator was implanted if patients reported more than 50% pain relief during the trial period. Pain intensity for limb and lower back pain was scored separately, using visual analog scale (VAS). Pain and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) after 12‐month treatment were compared with pain and QBPDS at baseline. Results: Eleven FBSS patients, five male and six female (age: 51 ± 8 years; mean ± SD), in whom SCS alone was insufficient in treating lower back pain, were included. In nine cases, SubQ was used in combination with SCS to treat chronic lower back and lower extremity pain. In two cases only SubQ was used to treat lower back pain. SCS significantly reduced limb pain after 12 months (VAS_bl: 62 ± 14 vs. VAS_12m: 20 ± 11; p= 0.001, N= 8). SubQ stimulation significantly reduced low back pain after 12 months (VAS_bl: 62 ± 13.0 vs. VAS_12m: 32 ± 16; p= 0.0002, N= 10). Overall pain medication was reduced by more than 70%. QBPDS improved from 61 ± 15 to 49 ± 12 (p= 0.046, N= 10). Furthermore, we observed that two patients returned to work. Conclusion: SubQ may be an effective additional treatment for chronic low back pain in patients with FBSS for whom SCS alone is insufficient in alleviating their pain symptoms.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation With Hybrid Lead Relieves Pain in Low Back and Legs

Objective: The failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is the most common chronic pain syndrome. Whereas it is relatively easy to achieve pain relief in the lower limbs of FBSS patients with spinal cord stimulation (SCS), it is difficult to manage low back pain with SCS. The performance of a paddle‐shaped SCS lead that can be inserted surgically as well as percutaneously (a hybrid lead) was evaluated in a prospective study on the relief of low back pain and leg pain in patients with FBSS. Materials and Methods: Patients with FBSS being eligible for SCS were enrolled in the study, and a hybrid lead was placed surgically. Outcome measures included pain scores for low back and leg pain assessed by visual analog scale (VAS), pain medication, and patient satisfaction. These scores were assessed before and at regular intervals after implantation. Results: It was shown that a single hybrid lead, generally positioned over the physiological midline of the spinal cord, is capable of alleviating both low back and leg pain in patients with FBSS. Forty‐five subjects were eligible for SCS and received trial stimulation. Forty‐two of them had a successful trial period and were converted to a permanent system. Their average VAS score at baseline was 8.0 for lower limb pain and 7.5 for low back pain. After six months of SCS, these average VAS scores were reduced to 3.2 and 3.5, respectively, and also pain medication was reduced significantly. Conclusion: SCS with a hybrid lead in subjects with FBSS is safe, and causes significant pain relief in both the low back and the lower limbs.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation Reverses Pain and Diarrheal Episodes of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Case Report

Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorder, characterized by abdominal pain, altered bowel habit (diarrhea and/or constipation), and bloating in the absence of demonstrable organic pathology. It is the most common GI disorder seen in primary care and gastroenterology practices. Conservative therapies for IBS are directed at both pain and correction of altered GI motility. A small proportion of patients with IBS have severe or refractory symptoms and report constant pain. IBS is no longer considered solely a disorder of motility, but rather its clinical expression is viewed as dysregulation of CNS‐enteric function. Symptoms of IBS cannot be explained entirely by changes in motility alone and may also arise from complex feedback and feed–forward interactions between supraspinal circuits, the spinal cord, and the periphery, in effect, a neuropathic process, that might be amenable to neuromodulation, that is, spinal cord stimulation. We present here a single case report of a patient with IBS who responded positively to SCS after failing all conservative therapies to alleviate or manage her abdominal pain and diarrheal episodes. Our discussion is focused on the reasons why SCS might work in patients with IBS.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Upper and Lower Extremity Neuropathic Pain due to Lyme Disease

Background. Lyme disease is caused by Borrelia, a bacterium transmitted by the bite of a deer tick. A slow developing encephalopathy or an axonal polyneuropathy with distal paresthesia and spinal or radicular pain rarely occurs and can be hard to treat. Materials and Methods. We report here the case of a 44‐year‐old woman with four‐limb, intolerable, neuropathic pain as sequelae to Lyme disease, which was resistant to conservative measures and was treated successfully with concurrent, thoracic, and cervical percutaneous spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Results. After 18 months of therapy and follow‐up, this patient's analgesia, as a result of SCS, continues to be excellent, with almost complete subjective pain relief and cessation of adjuvant analgesic medication. Conclusions. SCS may be efficacious for the treatment of neuropathic pain due to Lyme disease.     

Randomized Prospective Study in Patients With Complex Regional Pain Syndrome of the Upper Limb With High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation (10-kHz) and Low-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation

ObjectiveThe objective of this prospective randomized study of cases and controls was to evaluate the efficacy of treatment with low-frequency spinal cord stimulation (LF-SCS) and 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (10-kHz SCS) in patients diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS) with upper limb involvement.Materials and MethodsFifty patients were randomized to receive conventional treatment or SCS with a commercially available low-frequency or 10-kHz system. Patients were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was at 12-months post permanent implantation of the SCS devices. Outcome measures assessed included: Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), 12-Item Short-Format Health Survey (SF-12), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Study Sleep Scale medical outcomes (MOS-SS), Douleur Neuropathique 4 questions pain questionnaire (DN4), Patient Global Impression Scale on the impact of treatment improvement (PGI-I), Clinician Global Impression Scale on the impact of improving the patient (CGI-I).ResultsForty-one patients were finally included in the analysis, 19 patients in the conventional treatment group, 12 in the LF-SCS group, and 10 in the 10-kHz SCS group. At the primary endpoint, patients treated with LF-SCS presented improvements in the NRS and DN4 outcomes around 2.4 and 1.5 times above the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds. At the primary endpoint, patients treated with 10-kHz SCS presented improvements in the NRS and DN4 outcomes around 2 and 1.4 times above the MCID thresholds.ConclusionsPatients experienced considerable improvement after SCS. The results show that LF-SCS has very good results when compared with conventional treatment. The results obtained with 10-kHz SCS are encouraging, with the advantages of the absence of paresthesia making it an alternative in the treatment of CRPS.     

Treatment of Chronic Pain in Failed Back Surgery Patients with Spinal Cord Stimulation: a Review of Current Literature and Proposal for Future Investigation

Objective. The authors attempted to design and conduct a randomized, prospective study to investigate the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for patients with chronic back and leg pain following at least one previous surgery. While the scientific advantages of the randomized, prospective trial are considerable, the authors encountered numerous practical and ethical difficulties with conducting these trials. These are reviewed and an alternative investigative technique proposed. Materials and Methods. The literature on interventional and minimally invasive treatments for this population group is reviewed, and the strengths and weaknesses of different methodologies for conducting clinical research in an interventional setting are examined. Results. The difficulties inherent in a randomized, prospective study for an intervention vs. a nonintervention group are addressed, and an alternative methodology is proposed—that of a randomized interventional design. In this design, patients are assigned to a given treatment group, with each treatment exclusively available at different centers. Conclusions. By utilizing a randomized interventional study design, problems of comparability of procedures, provider reluctance to participate in randomized clinical trials, provider bias, detection bias, and transfer bias are eliminated. It is suggested that future investigations, particularly those which are interventionally or device‐based, conform to this particular model.     

Quantitative Sensory Testing in Patients With Chronic Unilateral Radicular Neuropathic Pain and Active Spinal Cord Stimulation

Objectives. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment option for chronic radicular neuropathic pain syndromes. This prospective study was performed to examine the peripheral effects of SCS on sensation using quantitative sensory testing (QST). Materials and Methods. We measured two consecutive QST measurements for thermal, tactile‐static, tactile‐dynamic, vibratory, and pain sensation of the lower limbs in seven patients with chronic unilateral radicular neuropathic pain who underwent SCS implantation for their pain. Measurements were performed when SCS was turned off and once again during SCS and subsequent reduced pain levels. Results. Baseline QST demonstrated significantly increased thresholds for tactile and warm and cold detection in the pain area. With SCS active, a significant reduction of the cold and warm perception and mechanical detection thresholds was found on the painful side (p < 0.01). Although not significant (p > 0.01), altered sensory thresholds with active SCS also were found at the healthy side where no paresthesias were felt. Conclusion. SCS leads to bilateral subclinical effects even if the evoked paresthesias are only unilateral. Pain perception thresholds are not altered with therapeutic SCS.     

Evaluation of a Dual Quadripolar Surgically Implanted Spinal Cord Stimulation Lead for Failed Back Surgery Patients with Chronic Low Back and Leg Pain

Objectives. Recent publications on dual program spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system demonstrate more flexible electrode programming, which helps to steer paresthesias towards all of the affected areas including the low back area. Materials and Methods. The following data were retrospectively sought from 20 nonrandomized failed back surgery patients at two centers treated by a dual quadripolar surgically implanted SCS lead: pain and paresthesia, VAS ratings, medication use, sleep patterns, daily activities, hardware problems, and willingness to repeat the procedure. The data were analyzed by the Wilcoxon signed rank test (p value < 0.05). Results. The average paresthesia coverage was 76%. After SCS implantation, analgesic use was decreased in 59% of the patients, sleeping time augmented, and quality of sleep improved. The number of patients taking benzodiazepines decreased. Sixty percent reported increased participation in social activities. Conclusions. This dual program surgical SCS technique is simple, respects patients’ autonomy, and provides adequate analgesia with an increase in quality of life.     

Comparison of Paresthesia Mapping With Anatomic Placement in Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Long-Term Results of the Prospective,Multicenter, Randomized,Double-Blind,Crossover CRISP Study

ObjectivesSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for chronic intractable pain. Conventional SCS involves electrode placement based on intraoperative paresthesia mapping; however, newer paradigms like burst may allow for anatomic placement of leads. Here, for the first time, we report the one-year safety and efficacy of burst SCS delivered using a lead placed with conventional, paresthesia mapping, or anatomic placement approach in subjects with chronic low back pain (CLBP).Materials and MethodsSubjects with CLBP were implanted with two leads. The first lead was placed to cross the T8/T9 disc and active contacts for this lead were chosen through paresthesia mapping. The second lead was placed at the T9/T10 spinal anatomic landmark. Subjects initially underwent a four-week, double-blinded, crossover trial with a two-week testing period with burst SCS delivered through each lead in a random order. At the end of trial period, subjects expressed their preference for one of the two leads. Subsequently, subjects received burst SCS with the preferred lead and were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months. Pain intensity (visual analog scale), quality-of-life (EuroQol-5D instrument), and disability (Oswestry Disability Index) were evaluated at baseline and follow-up.ResultsForty-three subjects successfully completed the trial. Twenty-one preferred the paresthesia mapping lead and 21 preferred the anatomic placement lead. Anatomic placement lead was activated in one subject who had no preference. The pain scores (for back and leg) significantly improved from baseline for both lead placement groups at all follow-up time points, with no significant between-group differences.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that equivalent clinical benefits could be achieved with burst SCS using either paresthesia mapping or anatomic landmark-based approaches for lead placement. Nonparesthesia-based approaches, such as anatomic landmark-based lead placement investigated here, have the potential to simplify implantation of SCS and improve current surgical practice.     

One-Year Results of Prospective Research Study Using 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation in Persistent Nonoperated Low Back Pain of Neuropathic Origin: Maiden Back Study

PurposeSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recommended treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. Persistent nonoperative low back pain of neuropathic origin has profound negative impacts on patient’s lives. This prospective, open label, research study aimed to explore the use of SCS in patients with associated features of central sensitisation such as allodynia and hyperalgesia.Materials and MethodsTwenty-one patients with back pain and hyperalgesia or allodynia who had not had prior spinal surgery underwent a SCS trial followed by full implantation. SCS comprised administering electrical impulses epidurally at a frequency of 10 kHz and pulse width of 30 μsec. Patients attended follow-up visits after 6 and 12 months of SCS. Repeated measure ANOVAs/Friedman tests explored change after 6 and 12 months of 10 kHz SCS. Independent sample t-tests/Mann–Whitney U tests examined differences in response after 12 months of 10 kHz SCS.ResultsBack and leg pain, quality of life (QoL), pain-related disability, and morphine equivalence significantly improved compared with baseline following 6 and 12 months of 10 kHz SCS. There were no increases in the consumption of opioids, amitriptyline, gabapentin or pregabalin in any patient. After 12 months of treatment, 52% encountered ≥50% improvement in back pain, 44% achieved remission (0–3 cm back pain VAS), 40% reported ODI scores between 0 and 40 and 60% experienced a reduction of at least 10 ODI points. Patients reporting ≥10-point improvement in ODI had significantly longer pain history durations and experienced significantly greater improvements in back pain, leg pain and QoL than those reporting <10-point improvement in ODI.ConclusionThe 10 kHz SCS improved back and leg pain, QoL, pain-related disability and medication consumption in patients with nonoperative back pain of neuropathic origin. With further research incorporating a sham control arm, the efficacy of 10 kHz SCS in this patient cohort will become more established.