Spinal cord stimulation for low back pain.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Traeger AC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9990744 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Spinal cord stimulation for low back pain.
Traeger Adrian C AC Gilbert Stephen E SE Gilbert Stephen E SE Harris Ian A IA Maher Christopher G CG
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20230307
<h4>Background</h4>Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical intervention used to treat persistent low back pain. SCS is thought to modulate pain by sending electrical signals via implanted electrodes into the spinal cord. The long term benefits and harms of SCS for people with low back pain are uncertain.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the effects, including benefits and harms, of SCS for people with low back pain.<h4>Search methods</h4>On 10 June 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionPersistent spine pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS2) represents a significant burden to the individual and society. Treatment options include revision surgery, stabilisation surgery of the spine, neuromodulation, analgesics and cognitive behavioural therapy. Nevertheless, structured treatment algorithms are missing as high-level evidence on the various treatments is sparse. The aim of this study is to compare higher frequency neuromodulation with instrumentation surgery in patients suffering from PSPS2.Methods and analysisThe sPinal coRd stimulatiOn coMpared with lumbar InStrumEntation for low back pain after previous lumbar decompression (PROMISE) trial is a prospective randomised rater blinded multicentre study. Patients suffering from PSPS2 with a functional burden of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) >20 points are randomised to treatment via spinal cord stimulation or spinal instrumentation. Primary outcome is back-related functional outcome according to the ODI 12 months after treatment. Secondary outcomes include pain perception (visual analogue scale), Short Form-36, EuroQOL5D, the amount of analgesics, the length of periprocedural hospitalisation and adverse events. Follow-up visits are planned at 3 and 12 months after treatment. Patients with previous lumbar instrumentation, symptomatic spinal stenosis, radiographical apparent spinal instability or severe psychiatric or systemic comorbidities are excluded from the study. In order to detect a significant difference of ≥10 points (ODI) with a power of 80%, n=72 patients need to be included. The recruitment period will be 24 months with a subsequent 12 months follow-up. The beginning of enrolment is planned for October 2022.Ethics and disseminationThe PROMISE trial is the first randomised rater blinded multicentre study comparing the functional effectiveness of spinal instrumentation versus neuromodulation in patients with PSPS2 in order to achieve high-level evidence for these commonly used treatment options in this severely disabling condition. Patient recruitment will be performed at regular outpatient clinic visits. No further (print, social media) publicity is planned. The study is approved by the local ethics committee (LMU Munich, Germany) and will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki.Trial registration numberNCT05466110.
| S-EPMC10083801 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough results of case series support the use of spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome patients with predominant low back pain, no confirmatory randomized controlled trial has been undertaken in this patient group to date. PROMISE is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group study designed to compare the clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation plus optimal medical management with optimal medical management alone in patients with failed back surgery syndrome and predominant low back pain.Method/designPatients will be recruited in approximately 30 centers across Canada, Europe, and the United States. Eligible patients with low back pain exceeding leg pain and an average Numeric Pain Rating Scale score ≥5 for low back pain will be randomized 1:1 to spinal cord stimulation plus optimal medical management or to optimal medical management alone. The investigators will tailor individual optimal medical management treatment plans to their patients. Excluded from study treatments are intrathecal drug delivery, peripheral nerve stimulation, back surgery related to the original back pain complaint, and experimental therapies. Patients randomized to the spinal cord stimulation group will undergo trial stimulation, and if they achieve adequate low back pain relief a neurostimulation system using the Specify® 5-6-5 multi-column lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) will be implanted to capture low back pain preferentially in these patients. Outcome assessment will occur at baseline (pre-randomization) and at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months post randomization. After the 6-month visit, patients can change treatment to that received by the other randomized group. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in low back pain at the 6-month visit. Additional outcomes include changes in low back and leg pain, functional disability, health-related quality of life, return to work, healthcare utilization including medication usage, and patient satisfaction. Data on adverse events will be collected. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Healthcare use data will be used to assess costs and long-term cost-effectiveness.DiscussionRecruitment began in January 2013 and will continue until 2016.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov: NCT01697358 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).
| S-EPMC4226255 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite optimal medical management (OMM), low back pain (LBP) can be disabling, particularly after spinal surgery. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective in reducing neuropathic leg pain; however, evidence is limited for LBP. This prospective, open-label, parallel-group trial randomized (1:1) failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) patients with predominant LBP to SCS plus OMM (SCS group) or OMM alone (OMM group) at 28 sites in Europe and the Americas. If trial stimulation was successful, a multicolumn SCS system was implanted. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (before randomization) and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. Patients could change treatment groups at 6 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with ?50% reduction in LBP (responder) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included change in pain intensity, functional disability, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The results are posted at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT01697358. In the intent-to-treat analysis, there were more responders in the SCS group than in the OMM group (13.6%, 15/110 vs 4.6%, 5/108, difference 9% with 95% confidence interval 0.6%-17.5%, P = 0.036) at 6 months. The SCS group improved in all secondary outcomes compared with the OMM group. The OMM group only improved in HRQoL. In the SCS group, 17.6% (18/102) experienced SCS-related adverse events through 6 months, with 11.8% (12/102) requiring surgical reintervention. Adding multicolumn SCS to OMM improved pain relief, HRQoL, and function in a traditionally difficult-to-treat population of failed back surgery syndrome patients with predominant LBP. Improvements were sustained at 12 and 24 months.
| S-EPMC6553955 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSuccessful treatments for intractable chronic low back pain (CLBP) in patients who are not eligible for surgical interventions are scarce. The superior efficacy of differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM SCS) to conventional SCS (Conv-SCS) on the treatment of CLBP in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) who have failed surgical interventions (PSPS-T2) motivated the evaluation of DTM SCS versus Conv-SCS on PSPS patients who are non-surgical candidates (PSPS-T1).MethodsThis is a prospective, open label, crossover, post-market randomized controlled trial in 20 centers across the United States. Eligible patients were randomized to either DTM SCS or Conv-SCS in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was CLBP responder rate (percentage of subjects with ≥50% CLBP relief) at 3-month in randomized subjects who completed trialing (modified intention-to-treat population). Patients were followed up to 12 months. Secondary endpoints included change of CLBP and leg pain, responder rates, changes in disability, quality of life, patient satisfaction and global impression of change, and safety profile. An optional crossover was available at 6-month to all patients.ResultsAbout 121 PSPS-T1 subjects with CLBP and leg pain mostly associated with degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy and who were not eligible for spine surgery were randomized. CLBP responder rate with DTM SCS (93.5%) was superior to Conv-SCS (36.4%) at the primary endpoint. Superior CLBP responder rates (88.1%-90.5%) were obtained with DTM SCS at all other timepoints. Mean CLBP reduction with DTM SCS (6.52 cm) was superior to that with Conv-SCS (3.01 cm) at the primary endpoint. Similar CLBP reductions (6.23-6.43 cm) were obtained with DTM SCS at other timepoints. DTM SCS provided significantly better leg pain reduction and responder rate, improvement of disability and quality of life, and better patient satisfaction and global impression of change. 90.9% of Conv-SCS subjects who crossed over were CLBP responders at completion of the study. Similar safety profiles were observed between the two groups.ConclusionDTM SCS for chronic CLBP in nonsurgical candidates is superior to Conv-SCS. Improvements were sustained and provided significant benefits on the management of these patients.
| S-EPMC11369449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsEvoke 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.DiscussionThe 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.
| S-EPMC10498882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment for chronic intractable pain of the trunk and/or limbs; however, low back pain (LBP) is difficult to treat using traditional SCS. Differential Target Multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM SCS) is an advanced approach inspired from animal studies demonstrating improved pain-related behavior and pain-relevant biological processes.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of DTM SCS and traditional SCS in treating chronic LBP and leg pain (LP).MethodsThis prospective, postmarket randomized controlled trial compared DTM SCS to traditional SCS in patients with chronic LBP and LP. Primary end point was LBP responder rate (percentage of subjects with ≥ 50% relief) at 3 months. Noninferiority and superiority were assessed. Other outcomes included mean change in back and leg pain, responder rates, disability, global health, satisfaction, and safety profile throughout the 12-month follow-up.ResultsOne hundred twenty-eight subjects were randomized across 12 centers (67 DTM SCS and 61 traditional SCS). Of the 94 patients implanted, 46 subjects in each group completed the 3-month assessment. LBP responder rate of 80.1% with DTM SCS was superior to 51.2% with traditional SCS (p = 0.0010). Mean LBP reduction (5.36 cm) with DTM SCS was greater than reduction (3.37 cm) with traditional SCS (p < 0.0001). These results were sustained at 6 months and 12 months. Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups.ConclusionSuperiority of DTM SCS compared with traditional SCS for chronic LBP was demonstrated. Clinical improvements provided by DTM SCS were sustained over 12 months and are expected to significantly impact the management of chronic LBP.
| S-EPMC9290817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic severe pain results in a detrimental effect on the patient's quality of life. Such patients have to take a large number of medications, including opioids, often without satisfactory effect, sometimes leading to medication abuse and the pain worsening. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is one of the most effective technologies that, unlike other interventional pain treatment methods, achieves long-term results in patients suffering from chronic neuropathic pain. The first described mode of SCS was a conventional tonic stimulation, but now the novel modalities (high-frequency and burst), techniques (dorsal root ganglia stimulations), and technical development (wireless and implantable pulse generator-free systems) of SCS are becoming more popular. The improvement of SCS systems, their miniaturization, and the appearance of new mechanisms for anchoring electrodes results in a significant reduction in the rate of complications and revision surgeries, and the appearance of new waves of stimulation allows not only to avoid the phenomenon of addiction, but also to improve the long-term results of chronic SCS. The purpose of this review is to describe the current condition of SCS and up-to-date technical advances.
| S-EPMC7136296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionNeuropathic pain is a common complication of spinal cord injury (SCI), and is notoriously difficult to adequately treat. Gunshot wounds (GSW) near the spinal cord may cause intractable chronic pain through spinal/nerve root transection, or reactive tissue formation resulting in nerve root compression from retained bullet fragments (RBF).Case presentationThis case report describes a 30-year-old man with a T12 AIS B incomplete spinal cord injury with paraplegia secondary to multiple GSW who presented with severe bilateral lower extremity dysesthesias and muscle spasms. Symptoms failed to improve with oral antispasmodic medications. After being diagnosed with Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I secondary to an SCI via GSW, he underwent a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trial, which improved his symptoms by greater than 80%.DiscussionNeuropathic pain refractory to conservative treatment may benefit from SCS. Effects of therapy go beyond gate-theory in SCI patients, and may benefit patients at the cellular and molecular level. Our case demonstrates the effectiveness of SCS treatment in a patient who developed CRPS type 1 after GSW resulting in SCI.
| S-EPMC9478097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an evidence-based, reversible but invasive procedure for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes: for example, in patients with failed-back-surgery syndrome or complex regional pain syndrome. A more recent, similar technique uses high-frequency stimulation for SCS and follows a different mechanism of action that does not result in paresthesia. This Technical Note and video present surgical instructions of a "2-way cut-down" technique for a high-frequency SCS trial period and permanent implantation of an implantable pulse generator.
| S-EPMC6948134 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We sought to assess the extent to which pain relief in chronic back and leg pain (CBLP) following spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is influenced by patient-related factors, including pain location, and technology factors. A number of electronic databases were searched with citation searching of included papers and recent systematic reviews. All study designs were included. The primary outcome was pain relief following SCS, we also sought pain score (pre- and post-SCS). Multiple predictive factors were examined: location of pain, history of back surgery, initial level of pain, litigation/worker's compensation, age, gender, duration of pain, duration of follow-up, publication year, continent of data collection, study design, quality score, method of SCS lead implant, and type of SCS lead. Between-study association in predictive factors and pain relief were assessed by meta-regression. Seventy-four studies (N = 3,025 patients with CBLP) met the inclusion criteria; 63 reported data to allow inclusion in a quantitative analysis. Evidence of substantial statistical heterogeneity (P < 0.0001) in level of pain relief following SCS was noted. The mean level of pain relief across studies was 58% (95% CI: 53% to 64%, random effects) at an average follow-up of 24 months. Multivariable meta-regression analysis showed no predictive patient or technology factors. SCS was effective in reducing pain irrespective of the location of CBLP. This review supports SCS as an effective pain relieving treatment for CBLP with predominant leg pain with or without a prior history of back surgery. Randomized controlled trials need to confirm the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SCS in the CLBP population with predominant low back pain.
| S-EPMC4238825 | biostudies-literature