
==== Front
Interv Pain Med
Interv Pain Med
Interventional Pain Medicine
2772-5944
Elsevier

S2772-5944(23)00067-5
10.1016/j.inpm.2023.100241
100241
Commentary
Commentary on recent spinal cord stimulation publications
Sherwood David dhs988@gmail.com
∗
University Health - Lakewood Medical Center, Department of Orthopedics, 7900 Lee's Summit Rd, Kansas City, MO, 64139, United States
Rivers W. Evan
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States
Hunt Christine
Mayo Clinic of Jacksonville, FL, United States
McCormick Zach
University of Utah Health, United States
de Andres Jose
General University Hospital Consortium of Valencia, Spain
Schneider Byron J.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States
∗ Corresponding author. dhs988@gmail.com
17 3 2023
3 2023
17 3 2023
2 1 1002413 2 2023
9 2 2023
15 2 2023
© 2023 The Authors
2023
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
==== Body
pmcWe commend Hara et al. for undertaking a complex and industry-independent randomized controlled trial (RCT) of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for persistent spinal pain following lumbar surgery [1]. We also wish to celebrate the recent publication by Dhurva et al. comparing SCS to conventional medical management [2]. However, we feel obligated to remark on methodological concerns and conclusions drawn from these publications to provide appropriate context and interpretation for providers, patients, and payers.

Hara et al. used a blinded design to compare sham stimulation to paresthesia-free stimulation described by the authors as “burst” stimulation. This “burst” stimulation was dissimilar to established SCS therapies and its efficacy has not been demonstrated [[3], [4], [5]]. Sham control is useful to assess the efficacy of this particular SCS setting, but inference cannot be made regarding any other stimulation parameter without additional research.

Another concern is that the SCS intervention in this study exclusively used one type of paresthesia-free stimulation, preventing optimization of the therapy based on individual responses to the full complement of available SCS settings, as per standard of care [6,7]. This element of study design led to patient selection that does not reflect SCS in practice. The findings therefore do not generalize to SCS standard of care, despite the authors’ assertion of such.

In contrast, De Andres et al. published the results of a prospective, blinded, and non-industry financed RCT on patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome demonstrated meaningful pain relief at conventional and high-frequency SCS settings [8]. The authors conclude that failed SCS at one setting or waveform does not translate to failed SCS with every waveform and encourage identifying the SCS setting(s) that lead to the best treatment outcomes for each patient [6,8].

Another recent article on SCS from Dhruva et al. retrospectively assessed opioid usage, interventional procedure usage, and cost following SCS implantation compared to a control cohort among patients with chronic pain. Their results revealed no statistically significant difference in opioid utilization and further spinal interventions 2 years after SCS placement compared to the control cohort[2]. These findings are in line with those published by Vu et al., showing no substantial reduction in opioid use after SCS implantation [9]. However, these results are dissimilar to previous publications which demonstrate varying levels of opiate reduction associated with SCS [[10], [11], [12]].

Moreover, we are not convinced that the cohorts are similar since they received dissimilar treatments. The supplemental data published along with the Dhruva et al. article paint a more complete picture. In the first year, SCS patients had a higher opioid dose than the non-SCS cohort, but similar in the second, which may indicate a decrease in opioid dose. Further, non-SCS patients were more likely to undergo spine surgery in the first year compared to the SCS cohort, which was not pointed out by the authors but may represent a very clinically significant outcome difference between the groups.

Finally, we must note that the outcomes reported (opioid dose and use of spinal injections) are worthwhile data points that may be useful for health systems and public health considerations but are not surrogates for the treatment's effects on pain or function. Thus, conclusions regarding efficacy in terms of pain and function should not be drawn.

Our hope is that these publications and our commentary may be used to guide future industry-independent studies to best evaluate the potential of SCS. We applaud efforts to provide real-world data as well as RCTs that are not sponsored by industry but encourage our colleagues against broad generalizations in their conclusions.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:Byron Schneider reports a relationship with Spine Intervention Society that includes: board membership and travel reimbursement. Zach McCormick reports a relationship with Spine Intervention Society that includes: board membership. Zach McCormick reports a relationship with 10.13039/100008497 Boston Scientific Corporation that includes: funding grants. Ad hoc editor for Interventional Pain Medicine - Byron Schneider Associate Editor, Biologics - Regenerative Medicine for Interventional Pain Medicine - Christine Hunt Associate Editor, Minimally Invasive Surgery for Interventional Pain Medicine - W. Evan Rivers.
==== Refs
References

1 Hara S. Andresen H. Solheim O. Effect of spinal cord burst stimulation vs placebo stimulation on disability in patients with chronic radicular pain after lumbar spine surgery: a randomized clinical trial JAMA 328 15 2022 1506 1514 10.1001/jama.2022.18231 36255427
2 Dhruva S.S. Murillo J. Ameli O. Long-term outcomes in use of opioids, nonpharmacologic pain interventions, and total costs of spinal cord stimulators compared with conventional medical therapy for chronic pain JAMA Neurol November 28, 2022 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.4166 Published online
3 Chakravarthy K. Malayil R. Kirketeig T. Deer T. Burst spinal cord stimulation: a systematic review and pooled analysis of real-world evidence and outcomes data Pain Med Malden Mass 20 Suppl 1 2019 S47 S57 10.1093/pm/pnz046
4 Deer T. Slavin K.V. Amirdelfan K. Success using neuromodulation with BURST (SUNBURST) study: results from a prospective, randomized controlled trial using a novel burst waveform Neuromodulation Technol Neural Interface 21 1 2018 56 66 10.1111/ner.12698
5 Eldabe S. Duarte R. Gulve A. Analgesic efficacy of "burst" and tonic (500 Hz) spinal cord stimulation patterns: a randomized placebo-controlled crossover study Neuromodulation J Int Neuromodulation Soc. 24 3 2021 471 478 10.1111/ner.13321
6 Miller J.P. Eldabe S. Buchser E. Johanek L.M. Guan Y. Linderoth B. Parameters of spinal cord stimulation and their role in electrical charge delivery: a review Neuromodulation J Int Neuromodulation Soc. 19 4 2016 373 384 10.1111/ner.12438
7 Clark J.D. Spinal cord stimulation: does frequency matter? Anesthesiology 119 2 2013 243 244 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31829bd9fb 23838719
8 De Andres J. Monsalve-Dolz V. Fabregat-Cid G. Prospective, randomized blind effect-on-outcome study of conventional vs high-frequency spinal cord stimulation in patients with pain and disability due to failed Back surgery Syndrome Pain Med 18 12 2017 2401 2421 10.1093/pm/pnx241 29126228
9 Vu T.N. Khunsriraksakul C. Vorobeychik Y. Association of spinal cord stimulator implantation with persistent opioid use in patients with postlaminectomy Syndrome JAMA Netw Open 5 1 2022 e2145876 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.45876
10 Adil S.M. Charalambous L.T. Spears C.A. Impact of spinal cord stimulation on opioid dose reduction: a nationwide analysis Neurosurgery 88 1 2020 193 201 10.1093/neuros/nyaa353 32866229
11 Sharan A.D. Riley J. Falowski S. Association of opioid usage with spinal cord stimulation outcomes Pain Med Malden Mass 19 4 2018 699 707 10.1093/pm/pnx262
12 Fraifeld E.M. Hatheway J.A. Ricker C.N. Systemic opioid prescribing patterns and total cost of care in patients initiating spinal cord stimulation therapy: a retrospective analysis Pain Med Malden Mass 22 4 2021 784 799 10.1093/pm/pnab033
