Evaluating the evidence: is phrenic nerve stimulation a safe and effective tool for decreasing ventilator dependence in patients with high cervical spinal cord injuries and central hypoventilation?

Breath-by-breath comparison of a novel percutaneous phrenic nerve stimulation approach with mechanical ventilation in juvenile pigs: a pilot study

About one in three critically ill patients requires mechanical ventilation (MV). Prolonged MV, however, results in diaphragmatic weakness, which itself is associated with delayed weaning and increased mortality. Inducing active diaphragmatic contraction via electrical phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) not only provides the potential to reduce diaphragmatic muscular atrophy but also generates physiological-like ventilation and therefore offers a promising alternative to MV. Reasons why PNS is not yet used in critical care medicine are high procedural invasiveness, insufficient evidence, and lack of side-by-side comparison to MV. This study aims to establish a minimal-invasive percutaneous, bilateral electrode placement approach for sole PNS breathing and thereby enable, for the first time, a breath-by-breath comparison to MV. Six juvenile German Landrace pigs received general anesthesia and orotracheal intubation. Following the novel ultrasound-guided, landmark-based, 4-step approach, two echogenic needles per phrenic nerve were successfully placed. Stimulation effectiveness was evaluated measuring tidal volume, diaphragmatic thickening and tomographic electrical impedance in a breath-by-breath comparison to MV. Following sufficient bilateral phrenic nerve stimulation in all pigs, PNS breaths showed a 2.2-fold increase in diaphragmatic thickening. It induced tidal volumes in the lung-protective range by negative pressure inspiration and improved dorso-caudal regional ventilation in contrast to MV. Our study demonstrated the feasibility of a novel ultrasound-guided, percutaneous phrenic nerve stimulation approach, which generated sufficient tidal volumes and showed more resemblance to physiological breathing than MV in a breath-by-breath comparison.

Diaphragm Pacing: A Safety, Appropriateness, Financial Neutrality, and Efficacy Analysis of Treating Chronic Respiratory Insufficiency

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and applicability of treating chronic respiratory insufficiency with diaphragm pacing relative to mechanical ventilation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature review and analysis were conducted using the safety, appropriateness, financial neutrality, and efficacy principles.

RESULTS

Although mechanical ventilation is clearly indicated in acute respiratory failure, diaphragm pacing improves life expectancy, increases quality of life, and reduces complications in patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency.

CONCLUSION

Diaphragm pacing should be given more consideration in appropriately selected patients with chronic respiratory insufficiency.

Phrenic Nerve Stimulator Placement via the Cervical Approach: Technique and Anatomic Considerations

BACKGROUND

Diaphragmatic pacing via phrenic nerve stimulation can help improve breathing and facilitate mechanical ventilation weaning in patients with respiratory failure secondary to brainstem injury, high cervical spinal cord injury, or congenital central hypoventilation. Devices can be placed utilizing several techniques; however, nuances regarding placement are not well published.

OBJECTIVE

To describe our experience with phrenic nerve stimulator placement via the cervical approach with a focus on surgical anatomy, variations, and technique.

METHODS

Placement of phrenic nerve stimulator via a cervical approach is described in detail.

RESULTS

Successful placement of phrenic nerve stimulator without complication.

CONCLUSION

The cervical approach for the placement of a phrenic nerve stimulator is a safe and effective option for patients. Detailed knowledge of anatomy and anatomic variations is required. Potential advantages and disadvantages are discussed.

A Review of Different Stimulation Methods for Functional Reconstruction and Comparison of Respiratory Function after Cervical Spinal Cord Injury

Background

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a common severe trauma in clinic, hundreds of thousands of people suffer from which every year in the world. In terms of injury location, cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI) has the greatest impact. After cervical spinal cord injury, the lack of innervated muscles is not enough to provide ventilation and other activities to complete the respiratory function. In addition to the decline of respiratory capacity, respiratory complications also have a serious impact on the life of patients. The most commonly used assisted breathing and cough equipment is the ventilator, but in recent years, the functional electrical stimulation method is being used gradually and widely.

Methods

About hundred related academic papers are cited for data analysis. They all have the following characteristics: (1) basic conditions of patients were reported, (2) patients had received nerve or muscle stimulation and the basic parameters, and (3) the results were evaluated based on some indicators.

Results

The papers mentioned above are classified as four kinds of stimulation methods: muscle electric/magnetic stimulation, spinal dural electric stimulation, intraspinal microstimulation, and infrared light stimulation. This paper describes the stimulation principle and application experiment. Finally, this paper will compare the indexes and effects of typical stimulation methods, as well as the two auxiliary methods: training and operation.

Conclusions

Although there is limited evidence for the treatment of respiratory failure by nerve or muscle stimulation after cervical spinal cord injury, the two techniques seem to be safe and effective. At the same time, light stimulation is gradually applied to clinical medicine with its strong advantages and becomes the development trend of nerve stimulation in the future.

Evaluating the evidence: is neurolysis or neurectomy a better treatment for meralgia paresthetica?

BACKGROUND

Meralgia paresthetica is a mononeuropathy of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LCFN). Surgical treatment involves transection or decompression of the LCFN. There is no clear consensus on the superiority of one technique over the other. We performed a systematic review of the literature to answer this question.

METHODS

Eligible studies included those that compared neurolysis versus neurectomy for the treatment of meralgia paresthetica after failure of conservative therapy. Our outcome of interest was resolution of symptoms. We performed a computerized search of MEDLINE (PubMed; all years) and of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies had to include the words "meralgia paresthetica" and "surgery." All patients regardless of age were included, and there was no language restriction. We then reviewed the articles' titles and abstracts. All studies that compared neurolysis to neurectomy were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Of the studies identified, none were randomized controlled trials. There were two German language articles that were translated by a third researcher. Each study was evaluated by two independent researchers who assigned a level of evidence according to American Association of Neurologist algorithm and also performed data extraction (neurolysis vs. neurectomy and resolution of pain symptoms). Each study was found to be level four evidence.

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the data, there was insufficient evidence to recommended one method of treatment over the other. This highlights the importance of keeping a national registry in order to compare outcomes between the two methods of treatment.