Active clinical trials for "Failed Back Surgery Syndrome"

Low back pain affects people of all ages and has become the leading cause of living with disability worldwide. Patients, suffering from persistent pain after spinal surgery in the absence of any clear spinal pathology are defined of having a "failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS)" and treatment of FBSS remains a great controversy in the spinal community. Apart from conservative treatment, spinal fusion remains as therapeutic option. Furthermore, minimal invasive Neuromodulation techniques might be a promising alternative. Aim of this randomized interventional multi center study is to compare treatment success in FBSS patients with either spinal cord stimulation (SCS) or fusion surgery, 12 months after intervention according to the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and other scales and scores. Radiological and health economic outcome also will be analysed for thorough comparison of techniques. Additionally, the safety of the interventions needs to be compared.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown to be an effective treatment for patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome Type 2 (PSPS Type 2). The method used to deliver electrical charge in SCS is important. One such method is burst stimulation. Two variations of burst waveforms are currently in use: one that employs active recharge and one that uses passive recharge. It is still unknown if there are clinical differences between active recharge and passive recharge burst SCS. To date, no clinical studies have been performed that directly compared these two burst stimulation waveforms. The objective of this Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT) is to assess and compare effect of passive recharge burst SCS with active recharge burst SCS on pain relief and motivational-emotional facets of pain

Given the substantial socioeconomic impact of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) implantations and given that currently no direct high-quality evidence with a relevant outcome measurement is available to guide the treatment choice between subthreshold SCS versus best medical treatment in patients with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2 (PSPS-T2), we here propose a scientifically well-constructed randomized controlled trial to answer this question. The primary scientific objective is to examine whether subthreshold SCS, compared to best medical treatment, provided to patients with PSPS-T2 results in a higher percentage of clinical holistic responders at 6 months. The secondary objective of the study is to examine if subthreshold SCS compared with BMT is having more efficacy in improving patients' individual competencies for self-management, increasing the likelihood to return to work, work status and healthcare expenditure, improving pain relief, obtaining pain medication reduction, decreasing anxiety and depression, increasing quality of life and decreasing disability.

Postoperative lumbar spine pain syndrome (FBSS) refers to patients who have undergone surgery for lumbar spine disease one or more times and still have intractable lumbosacral pain after surgery, with or without lower limb sensory and motor dysfunction. Pain is the main reason for reducing patients' quality of life. Hussain and Erdek believe that despite up to 3 months of postoperative intervention, pain may still exist. Since persistent pain seriously affects patients' daily life and work, optimizing the FBSS treatment plan and improving the quality of life of FBSS patients cannot be ignored. At present, the treatment methods for neuropathic pain radiated to the lower extremity after lumbar spine surgery mainly include oral drug therapy, nerve block, pulsed radio frequency (PRF) and spinal cord electrical stimulation, and other minimally invasive interventional methods. Still, there is no domestic or foreign treatment method is reported in the literature to be effective.

Recently a new form of spinal cord stimulation therapy called burst spinal cord stimulation (Burst-SCS) is available to treat chronic pain. The goal of this study is to learn more about how Burst-SCS works to reduce chronic pain. The study will examine chronic pain patients who have been deemed candidates for Burst-SCS therapy, and who have already been selected to receive a temporary externalized trial of Burst-SCS from their own doctors as part of their standard clinical care for chronic pain management. During the study, participants will be asked to complete a variety of evaluations at certain time points. In addition, there will be a randomized, double blind, crossover phase, where the particular effects of Burst-SCS and sham SCS will be evaluated. The device used to deliver Burst-SCS and sham SCS is the St. Jude Medical Invisible Trial System.

Doctors sometimes treat chronic pain with devices that send mild electrical currents into the spinal cord. This type of treatment is referred to as neurostimulation. A common form of neurostimulation therapy is spinal cord stimulation (SCS). In this study, researchers want to learn more about how SCS affects pain processing and relieves pain. The researchers will examine multiple forms of SCS in chronic pain patients who are receiving SCS from their own doctors as part of their standard of care. During the study, participants will be asked to complete a variety of evaluations at certain time points.

A multicenter randomized controlled trial will be conducted to evaluate whether the ability to work in Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type II (PSPS-T2) patients after SCS implantation is different after a personalized biopsychosocial rehabilitation program specifically targeting return to work (RTW) compared with usual care.

The regional methods of anesthesia for the neurosurgical operations of the spine and spinal cord reducing the needs for opioids intra operatively and reducing pain in the postoperative period, decrease the numbers of failed back syndrome.

Failed Back Surgery Syndrome is commonly defined as new, recurrent, or persistent pain in the back and/or leg(s) of at least 6-month duration following spinal surgery. The literature estimates that 10-50% of patients undergoing spinal surgery are likely to develop such pain, representing a substantial financial burden. Among them, 5-10% would suffer from severe pain, which are intense, neuropathic and generally refractory to conventional therapeutic strategies considerably affect patients' functional capacity as well as their psychological and social well-being. Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy to alleviate severe intractable neuropathic pain such as FBSS. SCS is a safe and reversible treatment option, which leads to improvement in pain relief and quality of life for patients with FBSS. Despite encouraging results in a chronic painful patient population that is refractory to conventional therapies, the literature estimates that only 58% [53% - 64%] of patients implanted with SCS devices achieved adequate pain relief. FBSS population characterization and stratification and predictive modeling of SCS outcome are thus crucial to delineate future treatment options and to deliver neuromodulation therapy to the right patient. The investigators designed a clinical prospective project based on SCS outcome optimization and SCS candidates' stratification: PREDIBACK 2. This study would be a following part of a continuous project (PREDIBACK) that aims to better understand and stratify the therapies (drugs, surgery, psychological therapy or SCS) proposed to FBSS patients. The goal of PREDIBACK 1 was to develop a decision tool that simplifies the therapeutic decision process. PREDIBACK 2 will focus on the neuromodulation pathway. Easing and helping patient orientation should improve referral yielding to specialists and accelerate patient flow through care pathway. Hence, facilitating access to adequate therapies for FBSS patients who usually have a longstanding history of pain.

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate safety and efficacy of a new spinal cord stimulation paddle electrode which is able to target the dorsal horns, dorsal nerve roots, and dorsal columns. The research electrode ("Study Electrode") is designed to answer basic physiological clinical research questions. It may inform future device therapy development, but the Study Electrode is not a product that will be marketed or sold. The Investigators believe the protocol is a Non-Significant Risk study answering basic physiological research questions, which may be performed under hospital IRB approval.