Ganesan Baranidharan

Introduction Closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (CL-SCS) is a recently introduced system that records evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) from the spinal cord elicited by each stimulation pulse and uses this information to automatically adjust the stimulation strength in real time, known as ECAP-controlled SCS. This innovative system compensates for fluctuations in the distance between the epidural leads and the spinal cord by maintaining the neural response (ECAP) at a predetermined target level. This data collection study was designed to assess the performance of the first CL-SCS system in a real-world setting under normal conditions of use in multiple European centers. The study analyzes and presents clinical outcomes and electrophysiological and device data and compares these findings with those reported in earlier pre-market studies of the same system. Methods This prospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted in 13 European centers and aimed to gather electrophysiological and device data. The study focused on the real-world application of this system in treating chronic pain affecting the trunk and/or limbs, adhering to standard conditions of use. In addition to collecting and analyzing basic demographic information, the study presents data from the inaugural patient cohort permanently implanted at multiple European centers. Results A significant decrease in pain intensity was observed for overall back or leg pain scores (verbal numerical rating score [VNRS]) between baseline (mean ± standard error of the mean [SEM]; n = 135; 8.2 ± 0.1), 3 months (n = 93; 2.3 ± 0.2), 6 months (n = 82; 2.5 ± 0.3), and 12 months (n = 76; 2.5 ± 0.3). Comparison of overall pain relief (%) to the AVALON and EVOKE studies showed no significant differences at 3 and 12 months between the real-world data release (RWE; 71.3%; 69.6%) and the AVALON (71.2%; 73.6%) and EVOKE (78.1%; 76.7%) studies. Further investigation was undertaken to objectively characterize the physiological parameters of SCS therapy in this cohort using the metrics of percent time above ECAP threshold (%), dose ratio, and dose accuracy (µV), according to previously described methods. Results showed that a median of 90% (40.7–99.2) of stimuli were above the ECAP threshold, with a dose ratio of 1.3 (1.1–1.4) and dose accuracy of 4.4 µV (0.0–7.1), based on data from 236, 230, and 254 patients, respectively. Thus, across all three metrics, the majority of patients had objective therapy metrics corresponding to the highest levels of pain relief in previously reported studies (usage over threshold > 80%, dose ratio > 1.2, and error < 10 µV). Conclusions In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the real-world application of the ECAP-controlled CL-SCS system, highlighting its potential for maintaining effective pain relief and objective neurophysiological therapy metrics at levels seen in randomized control trials, and potential for quantifying patient burden associated with SCS system use via patient–device interaction metrics. Clinical Trial Registration In the Netherlands, the study is duly registered on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Trial NL7889). In Germany, the study is duly registered as NCT05272137 and in the United Kingdom as ISCRTN27710516 and has been reviewed by the ethics committee in both countries.

Dove Press is a member of the Open Access Initiative, specializing in peer reviewed Medical Journals. View articlesor submit your research for publishing

Background: Despite the routine use of radiofrequency (RF) for the treatment of chronic pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region, there remains uncertainty on the most appropriate patient selection criteria. This study aimed to develop appropriateness criteria for RF in relation to relevant patient characteristics, considering RF ablation (RFA) for the treatment of chronic axial pain and pulsed RF (PRF) for the treatment of chronic radicular pain.Methods: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) was used to explore the opinions of a multidisciplinary European panel on the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a variety of clinical scenarios. Depending on the type of pain (axial or radicular), the expert panel rated the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a total of 219 clinical scenarios.Results: For axial pain in the lumbosacral or cervical region, appropriateness of RFA was determined by the dominant pain trigger and location of tenderness on palpation with higher appropriateness scores if these variables were suggestive of the diagnosis of facet or sacroiliac joint pain. Although the opinions on the appropriateness of PRF for lumbosacral and cervical radicular pain were fairly dispersed, there was agreement that PRF is an appropriate option for well‐selected patients with radicular pain due to herniated disc or foraminal stenosis, particularly in the absence of motor deficits. The panel outcomes were embedded in an educational e‐health tool that also covers the psychosocial aspects of chronic pain, providing integrated recommendations on the appropriate use of (P)RF interventions for the treatment of chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region.Conclusions: A multidisciplinary European expert panel established patient‐specific recommendations that may support the (pre)selection of patients with chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region for either RFA or PRF (accessible via https://rftool.org). Future studies should validate these recommendations by determining their predictive value for the outcomes of (P)RF interventions.

Context Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an approved treatment for chronic pain of neuropathic origin. Initial research suggests a close relationship between pain relief and patient satisfaction with SCS. Objectives To see whether similar patterns were observed in our center and to identify areas of improvement, this single-site, cohort audit explored the association between pain relief and satisfaction as well as specific factors that influence satisfaction at follow-up in patients with fully implanted SCS. Methods Age, gender, pain condition, SCS system, average pain (numerical rating scale, NRS), and worst pain (NRS) scores at baseline and the most recent follow-up visit were collected. Percentage change in average pain was calculated, and the patients were allocated to one of three pain improvement groups: 50%. A telephone survey explored patient outcomes including patient satisfaction, sleep, fatigue, quality of life (QoL), walking ability, and medication use. Chi-square tests of independence were performed. Results The final sample comprised 87 patients (50%: n = 32). The pain improvement group was significantly associated with satisfaction (p = 0.010): all patients in the >50% improvement group reported being either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with SCS. The pain improvement group was also significantly associated with change in sleep (p < 0.001), fatigue (p = 0.001), QoL (p = 0.003), and opioid consumption (p = 0.010). Improvements were most frequently reported in the >50% improvement group. Conclusion Findings point to an association between pain relief and patient satisfaction with SCS. Other factors, including sleep, fatigue, QoL, and opioid consumption, may influence this association and deserve further exploration.

BACKGROUND: Screening trials before full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation device are recommended by clinical guidelines and regulators, although there is limited evidence for their use. The TRIAL-STIM study showed that a screening trial strategy does not provide superior patient pain outcome at 6-month follow-up compared with not doing a screening trial and that it was not cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To report the long-term follow-up results of the TRIAL-STIM study. METHODS: The primary outcome of this pragmatic randomized controlled trial was pain intensity as measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS) and secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months, health-related quality of life, and complication rates. RESULTS: Thirty patients allocated to the “Trial Group” (TG) and 36 patients allocated to the “No Trial Group” (NTG) completed outcome assessment at 36-month follow-up. Although there was a reduction in NRS pain and improvements in utility scores from baseline to 36 months in both groups, there was no difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity NRS between TG and NTG (adjusted mean difference: −0.60, 95% CI: −1.83 to 0.63), EuroQol-5 Dimension utility values (adjusted mean difference: −0.02, 95% CI: −0.13 to 0.10), or proportion of pain responders (33% TG vs 31% NTG). No differences were observed between the groups for the likelihood of spinal cord stimulation device explant or reporting an adverse advent up to 36-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The long-term results show no patient outcome benefit in undertaking an SCS screening trial.