Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can provide long-term pain relief for various chronic pain conditions, but some patients have no relief with trial stimulation or lose efficacy over time. To "salvage" relief in patients who do not respond or have lost efficacy, alternative stimulation paradigms or anatomical targets can be considered. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) has a different mechanism of action and anatomical target than SCS. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We assessed DRG-S salvage therapy outcomes in patients who did not respond to SCS or had lost SCS efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We retrospectively included consecutive patients from 2016 to 2020 who were salvaged with DRG-S after failed SCS trials (<50% pain reduction) or who had lost efficacy after permanent SCS. We compared numerical rating scale (NRS) pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), health-related quality of life (EuroQol five-dimensions five-level), and oral morphine equivalent (OME) opioid requirements before DRG-S salvage and at patients' last follow-up. RESULTS:A total of 60 patients who had failed SCS were salvaged with DRG-S. The mean age was 56 ± 12 years, and the most common diagnoses were complex regional pain syndrome (n = 24) and failed back surgery syndrome (n = 24). The most common failed modalities included tonic (n = 32), Burst (n = 18), and high-frequency (n = 10) SCS. The median follow-up duration of salvage DRG-S was 34 months. With DRG-S, NRS decreased (8.7 ± 1.2 to 3.8 ± 2.1), and OME declined (median 23 mg to median 15 mg), whereas EuroQol 5D scores increased (0.40 ± 0.15 to 0.71 ± 0.15), and ODI improved (64 ± 14% to 31 ± 18%) (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:DRG-S can be used in patients with chronic pain who have previously failed to receive persistent benefit from SCS.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) is a form of neuromodulation used to treat chronic pain. A spinal cord stimulation (SCS) method with paresthesia-free waveform used in the dorsal columns, burst-SCS, recently demonstrated efficacy using intermittent stimulation, where stimulation is cycled on and off for set durations. Tonic SCS is a paresthesia-based therapy that is ineffective at sub-perception levels and when delivered in a cycled manner. DRG-S also uses a tonic waveform, yet unlike tonic SCS, it is effective at sub-perception levels. This study aimed to determine whether the cycling of stimulation at the DRG could maintain DRG-S efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:This study followed a prospective, randomized, and balanced, double-blinded (assessor) protocol. Twenty DRG-S responders were randomized to a sequence of three programs for consecutive two-week intervals: continuous stimulation; 1 minute on:1 minute off; or 1 minute on:2 minutes off. The primary outcome of this study was change in pain ratings with the cycled programs compared with continuous stimulation. Secondary outcomes included changes in function and scores for quality of life, and stimulation program preference. RESULTS:Mean scores were similar at the end of each two-week stimulation program for Numerical Rating Scale pain (continuous = 2.9 ± 0.8, 1:1 on-off = 2.6 ± 0.7, and 1:2 on-off = 2.7 ± 0.7 cm, p = 0.39), disability (p = 0.72), and general health (p = 0.95). No clinically significant differences were found from the upper boundaries of the 95% confidence intervals of the mean difference in pain, disability, and general health for each intermittent stimulation program vs the continuous program. At the end of the study, the continuous stimulation, 1:1 on-off dosing, and 1:2 on-off dosing programs were preferred by a similar number of patients. CONCLUSIONS:Intermittent DRG-S produces comparable results to continuous stimulation over a two-week period. Intermittent delivery may extend battery life and facilitate a smaller implantable pulse generator.

OBJECTIVE:A heightened and organized understanding of sacral anatomy could potentially lead to a more effective and safe method of dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) lead placement. The aim of this technical note is to describe a standardized access method for S1 DRG-S lead placement. DESIGN/METHODS:Technical note. METHODS:The described approach utilizes alignment of the lumbosacral prominence and is measurement- based, allowing for standardized sacral access, even when visualization is suboptimal. The medial-to-lateral needle trajectory is designed to limit interaction with the sensitive neural structures and allows for a more parallel orientation of the lead to the DRG and nerve root. CONCLUSIONS:The described technique potentially improves the safety of S1 DRG-S lead placement. The parallel lead orientation to the DRG may also increase efficacy while lowering energy requirements.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) is a relatively new neuromodulation modality. Therefore, data on long-term device explantation rates is limited. This investigation aimed to assess DRG-S device explantation rates at long-term follow-up. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed individuals implanted with DRG-S in four pain centers from different continuous periods between April 2016 to September 2020. We recorded patient demographics, diagnoses, duration to explantation or last follow-up, treatment complications, and failure etiologies. RESULTS:A total of 249 patients with 756 leads and a mean 27-month follow-up were included. The mean age was 55 ± 15 years; 148 (63%) were female. Leading diagnoses were CRPS (n = 106, 43%), followed by FBSS (n = 64, 26%), and non-surgical low back pain (n = 23, 9%). The explantation rate was ~2% per year (n = 10 total). At explantation, the average time from implantation was 13 ± 10 months. Six patients were explanted for inadequate pain relief. Two patients were explanted due to device-related complications. One patient was explanted secondary to infection and subsequently reimplanted. Five explanted patients experienced a therapy-related complication before eventual explantation: one transient post-procedural neuritis and pocket site pain, one lead fracture, two lead migrations, and one experienced a fracture, a migration, and pocket site pain. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:This large retrospective study of DRG-S revealed a low therapy-termination rate. The rate of infection leading to explantation was objectively very low at 0.4%. The leading cause of explantation was inadequate pain relief. Explanted patients often had a therapy-related complication. Therefore, minimizing adverse treatment events may reduce ultimate explantation rates.

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) is widely accepted for treating focal pain syndromes. We present the case of a 46-year-old woman with severe lumbar radiculopathy with an implanted spinal cord stimulator (SCS) that had lost efficacy. She developed an incisional hernia after undergoing a minimally invasive, extreme lateral interbody fusion and SCS explant. After herniorrhaphy, she presented with severe pain at the T10-T11 dermatomes, which we treated with DRG-S. One-year after lumbar fusion, her refractory lumbar and radicular pain returned, which we ultimately treated with bilateral T12+S1 DRG-S. DRG-S was thus used to successfully treat focal postsurgical and diffuse chronic pain.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), has demonstrated superiority in the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia. Lead migration and fracture impact DRG-S therapeutic stability. Lead anchoring reduces DRG-S lead migration without increasing lead fracture. Lead fracture may be related to lead entrapment in the superficial fascial plane. A novel medialized approach for lead placement and anchoring is presented to address these issues. METHODS:We suggest an alternative technique for implanting percutaneous DRG-S leads at the T10-L5 levels. RESULTS:A novel medialized ipsilateral technique for lead placement and anchoring for single, bilateral, and adjacent segment placement is presented. The Tuohy needle puncture site is medial to the pedicle and adjacent to the spinous process, two vertebral levels caudad to the target foramen. Trajectory is maintained in the sagittal plane, to access the caudad interlaminar space near the midline. This technique allows for ipsilateral or contralateral lead placement. After epidural access, the introducer sheath is rotated toward the targeted foramen and advanced. The guidewire followed by the lead is passed, and once lead position is confirmed, tension 'S' loops are created, followed by anchoring to the deep fascia. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:We describe a new paramedian technique for DRG-S lead placement. We propose it will decrease DRG-S complication rates through anchoring to reduce migration and by avoiding the fascial planes thought to be responsible for fracture. Long-term outcomes applying our proposed techniques are required for determining the true impact, however, early anecdotal results suggest that these new techniques are favorable.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) is a neuromodulation technique introduced in the last decade with evolving implant methods. Initial prospective research found low incidences of lead migration and lead fracture with DRG-S. However, several recent studies have highlighted high lead migration and lead fracture rates with DRG-S. We investigated the influence of lead anchoring on migrations and fractures. METHODS:We performed a retrospective review between 2016 and 2020 of individuals implanted with DRG-S leads by 4 experienced implanters. The implanters independently changed their standard practice regarding lead anchoring over time, with opposing trends (no anchoring > anchoring, anchoring > no anchoring). We compared lead migration and lead fracture rates between anchored and unanchored DRG-S leads in the entire study cohort. Cox regression was performed on lead migration and fracture distributions. RESULTS:We included 756 leads (n = 565 anchored and n = 191 unanchored) from 249 patients. In unanchored leads, migration occurred in 16 leads (8.4%) from 13 patients (21.0%). In anchored leads, migration occurred in 8 leads (1.4%) from 5 patients (2.7%). Fracture in unanchored leads occurred in 6 leads (3.1%) from 6 patients (9.7%). Fractures in anchored leads occurred in 11 leads (1.9%) from 9 patients (4.8%). The migration survival distributions for the anchored and unanchored leads were statistically significantly different (p < 0.01) with decreased survival for unanchored leads (hazard ratio = 5.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.2-15.5). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:We found that anchoring DRG-S leads significantly reduces lead migration when compared to leads placed without an anchor. There was no significant difference in fracture rate between anchored and unanchored leads.