The Franco-Canadian multicolumn spinal cord stimulation prospective study: a subgroup analysis focusing on the decisive role of lead positioning

Introduction: Multicolumn spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is now considered to be effective for the treatment of the radicular and back component in refractory Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) patients. The relationship between the paresthesia coverage of the back and clinical outcomes has recently been confirmed by an international prospective study. However, significant disparities in outcomes were identified and could result from the heterogeneity of lead implantation parameters which are dependant on local practices and experience. We therefore sought to analyse the impact of lead implantation level and its lateralization on the ability to address back pain with multicolumn SCS leads.

Study objectives, materials and methods: The present study was a retrospective subgroup analysis from an observational, prospective non-randomized trial that included 76 patients with refractory FBSS, implanted with multicolumn SCS between 2008 to 2011 in three neurosurgical pain centres (Poitiers, France, Montreal, Canada and Regina, Canada). A subgroup of 21 patients with "optimized lead positioning" (OLP) was identified, distinguished from the rest of the main study population (NON OLP subgroup; n=51) and submitted to specific data analysis. Baseline characteristics of both groups were strictly comparable. Our primary objective was to analyse the impact of lead positioning (vertebral level and lateralization) on the back paresthesia coverage. The secondary objectives were to compare the analgesic and functional efficacy of multicolumn stimulation in these OLP and NON OLP subgroups and to determine if a paresthesia coverage improvement leads to better clinical outcomes in these difficult-to-treat patients.

Results: In this subgroup analysis, unilateral coverage of the low back area was achieved in 85.0% of OLP patients vs. 76.5% in the NON OLP group. Bilateral and complete coverage of the low back area was achieved in 60% of OLP patients vs. 51% in the NON OLP group but these differences were not statistically significant. At 6months, 81.0% of OLP patients vs. 69.4% in the NON OLP group presented at least 30% improvement of the low back VAS, while 52.4% of them achieved at least 50% improvement of the low back VAS vs. 38.8% in the NON OLP group. Functional improvement at 6months, available and calculated only in the French group of OLP patients (n=14) by the Oswestry Disability Index, was significant, decreasing from 60.67% to 33.43%.

Conclusion: Despite limitations in this retrospective subgroup analysis, this study suggests that the vertebral level (T8-T9) and midline positioning of the lead during implantation could be decisive factors to optimize paresthesia coverage and finally, clinical and functional outcomes. While sophistication has been responsible for an increase of the size and the programming possibilities of surgical SCS leads during the past years, multicolumn SCS lead implantation should in fact be considered as a "functional neurosurgical" procedure and could benefit from intraoperative patient cooperation, as in the case for deep brain stimulation procedures, due to minimally invasive implantation techniques.