A Case Series of Permanent Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation

Introduction Neuropathic pain commonly causes high levels of pain that impairs multiple facets of the lives of patients. Multiple first-line treatments such as physical therapy and pharmacological intervention exist. Treatment refractory to these interventions may be considered for spinal cord stimulation (SCS). However, modest rates of meaningful relief leave room for improvement. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) has been touted to be a viable alternative solution to SCS with more specific targets and, consequently, fewer side effects. Thus, DRGS has been accepted as a better alternative to spinal cord stimulation. In contrast, we report a series of DRGS patients who had lower rates of meaningful pain relief than what was reported in the literature. Methods We present a series of 11 patients who underwent both DRGS trial and subsequent permanent implantation with negative outcomes (defined by ≥ 50% of pre-surgical pain) in 55% of patients. Patient records were searched for comorbidities that could potentially affect the DRGS implant (diabetes, cancer, smoking, age > 70 years old). Once delineated, the predictive value of each comorbidity for negative outcomes was estimated. Results Eighteen patients had a successful DRGS trial which was defined as a ≥ 50% pain reduction as well as increased ability to perform daily activities. Seven patients elected not to proceed with the permanent DRGS. Of the 11 remaining patients that had the permanent DRGS, four patients reported being completely pain-free ≥ one month following implantation, one reported a significant increase in pain improvement at four months post-operation, and six patients reported pain that was ≥ 50% of their pre-surgical pain 4-12 months following implantation. Conclusion In our case series, we observed a discrepancy between DRGS trial outcomes and outcomes following permanent implantation. We found that a stronger correlation may exist between worse outcomes and smoking. Older age, the presence of diabetes, and cancer had more modest associations. These comorbidities may have value as tests for predicting negative outcomes of permanent DRGS implantation. Additionally, we hypothesized that this could also be due to the presence of psychological factors which obscure the true result of the DRGS trial. Thus, we suggest that DRGS be prescribed with caution in these patient populations, and use comorbidities to test for the likelihood of negative outcomes. Limitations of this study are those that are intrinsic to a retrospective case series.