Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Primary Headache

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Postamputation Pain: A Systematic Review

ABSTRACT

Despite numerous first-line treatment interventions, adequately managing a patient's postamputation pain can be difficult. Peripheral nerve stimulation has emerged as a safe neuromodulatory intervention that can be used for many etiologies of chronic pain. We performed a systemic review to appraise the evidence of peripheral nerve stimulation use for improvement in postamputation pain. This was performed in Ovid, Cochrane databases, OVID, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and PubMed. The primary outcome was improvement in postamputation pain after use of peripheral nerve stimulation. Secondary outcomes included improvements in functional status, opioid usage, and mood. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed independently in a blinded manner. Of the 989 studies identified, 13 studies were included consisting of three randomized control trials, seven observational studies, and three case series. While large heterogeneity limited definitive conclusions, the included studies generally demonstrated favorable outcomes regarding pain reduction. Each included study that used an objective pain scale demonstrated clinically significant pain improvements. Per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria, there is very low-quality Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations evidence supporting that peripheral nerve stimulation is associated with improvements in pain intensity for postamputation pain. Future prospective, comparative, and well-powered studies assessing the use of peripheral nerve stimulation for postamputation pain are warranted.

Case report: Use of peripheral nerve stimulation for treatment of pain from vertebral plana fracture

Vertebral plana fractures are a severe form of compression fractures that can cause significant morbidity due to incapacitating pain. Due to the flattening of the vertebrae in a plana fracture, accessing the vertebral body transpedicularly can be difficult, making traditional vertebral augmentation treatment dangerous. These injuries also typically occur in elderly patients with contraindications to invasive procedures. Peripheral nerve stimulation is a relatively new and minimally invasive treatment that uses electrical stimulation to inhibit pain signals from reaching the somatosensory cortex. Our case describes an 80 Year old female with multiple comorbidities and refractory pain due to a vertebral planar fracture successfully treated with a 60 day course of peripheral nerve stimulation as evidenced by over 50% reduction in symptoms and discontinuation of opioid pain medication use.

Advances in Pain Medicine: a Review of New Technologies

Purpose of Review

This narrative review highlights the interventional musculoskeletal techniques that have evolved in recent years.

Recent Findings

The recent progress in pain medicine technologies presented here represents the ideal treatment of the pain patient which is to provide personalized care. Advances in pain physiology research and pain management technologies support each other concurrently.

Summary

As new technologies give rise to new perspectives and understanding of pain, new research inspires the development of new technologies

Mechanism of Action of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The number of applications for peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) in the pain management field is ever-growing. With the increasing number of clinical applications for peripheral nerve stimulation, the purpose of this article is to review the mechanism of action surrounding PNS, the recent literature from January 2018 to January 2021, and pertinent clinical outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

The authors searched articles identified from PubMed (January 2018-January 2021), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases (January 2018-January 2021), and Scopus (January 2018-January 2021) databases, and manually searched references of identified publications. Broad MeSH terms and Boolean operators were queried in each search, including the following terms and their respective synonyms: peripheral nerve stimulation, mechanism of action, biochemical pathway, and pain pathway. 15 consensus articles were selected for in-depth review and inclusion for qualitative analysis. PNS may activate and modulate higher central nervous system (CNS) centers, including the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex, somatosensory cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and parahippocampal areas. Neuromodulatory effects from PNS may also extend into the spinal columns. Also, PNS may lead to changes in endogenous neurotransmitters and affect the plasticity of NMDA pathways.

Clinical Effect of C2 Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation Using Electroacupuncture for Primary Headache

OBJECTIVE

We applied C2 peripheral nerve field stimulation using electroacupuncture (EA-C2-PNfS) for primary headache, and investigated its clinical effectiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-four primary headache patients (10 men, 44 women) with a mean age of 48.6 ± 15.0 years underwent EA-C2-PNfS for three months. We used questionnaires to assess outcomes; pain intensity (11-point numerical rating scale [NRS]), quality of daily life (Headache Impact Test [HIT-6]), depression (Self-Rating Depression Scale [SDS]). Monthly headache days and acute headache medication days were obtained from diaries.

RESULTS

The headache intensity significantly declined after the EA-C2-PNfS with reduction of NRS pain scale; 7.4 ± 1.9 at baseline, 4.9 ± 2.9 at three month (p < 0.001). Both HIT-6 and SDS showed significant improvement (p < 0.001). Some patients showed moderate depression in SDS before treatment, that was alleviated in patients with tension-type headache after the EA-C2-PNfS. Monthly headache days significantly decreased from 18.0 ± 9.0 at one month to 14.0 ± 10.2 at three months (p < 0.001), accompanied with reduction of the monthly acute headache medication days from 8.0 ± 6.7 to 6.4 ± 6.5 (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

EA-C2-PNfS was successfully used for reducing severity and disability in primary headache patients. We conclude that EA-C2-PNfS is a favorable option for medically intractable primary headache as less-invasive neuromodulation.

Subcutaneous trigeminal nerve field stimulation for refractory trigeminal pain: a cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Neurosurgical pain management of drug-resistant trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is highly challenging. Microvascular decompression is a first-line neurosurgical approach for classical TN with neurovascular conflict, but can show clinical relapse despite proper decompression. Second-line destructive techniques like radiofrequency thermocoagulation have become reluctantly used due to their potential for irreversible side effects. Subcutaneous peripheral nerve field stimulation (sPNFS) is a minimally invasive neuromodulatory technique which has been shown to be effective for chronic localised pain conditions. Reports on sPNFS for the treatment of trigeminal pain (sTNFS) are still sparse and primarily focused on pain intensity as outcome measure. Detailed data on the impact of sTNFS on attack frequency are currently not available.

METHODS

Patients were classified according to the International Headache Society classification (ICHD-3-beta). Three patients had classical TN without (n = 3) and another three TN with concomitant persistent facial pain (n = 3). Two patients suffered from post-herpetic trigeminal neuropathy (n = 2). All eight patients underwent a trial stimulation of at least 7 days with subcutaneous leads in the affected trigeminal area connected to an external neurostimulator. Of those, six patients received permanent implantation of a neurostimulator. During the follow-up (6-29 months, mean 15.2), VAS-scores, attack frequencies, oral drug intake, complications and side effects were documented.

RESULTS

Seven out of eight patients responded to sTNFS (i.e. ≥50 % pain reduction) during the test trial. The pain intensity (according to VAS) was reduced by 83 ± 16 % (mean ± SD) and the number of attacks decreased by 73 ± 26 % (mean ± SD). Five out of six patients were able to reduce or stop pain medication. One patient developed device infection. Two patients developed stimulation-related side effects which could be resolved by reprogramming.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment by sTNFS is a beneficial option for patients with refractory trigeminal pain. Prospective randomised trials are required to systematically evaluate efficacy rates and safety of this low-invasive neurosurgical technique.

Long-Term Clinical Outcome of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Headache and Complication Prevention

Background

Subcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has emerged as a useful tool in the treatment of intractable headaches. However, complications such as skin erosion, infection and lead migration have adversely affected clinical outcome, and occasionally led to treatment cessation.

Objectives

Here we report the results of peripheral nerve stimulator implantation performed on 24 patients with various chronic headaches at our center over a period of 9 years. We describe the complications of the procedure and their prevention with a modified surgical technique.

Patients and Methods

We searched our database for patients with chronic refractory headaches who had undergone PNS. Patients were assessed before being considered for PNS, and their pain characteristics were reviewed. Following a successful trial, patients were implanted with a permanent peripheral nerve stimulator. Selection of target nerves was based on headache diagnosis and head pain characteristics. Patients were followed for an average of 4.9 years. Headache characteristics before and after treatment were compared.

Results

Twenty four patients were included in the study. All patients reported on improvement in head pain intensity, duration and frequency three months after permanent device implantation Mean total pain index (TPI) decreased significantly, from 516 ± 131 before the procedure to 74.8 ± 61.6 at the last follow up (P < 0.00001). There were no acute post-operative infections. Three patients had their stimulator removed. The self-rated treatment satisfaction was excellent in 54% of the patients, very good or good in 42%, and fair in 4%.

Conclusions

Our results support the use of PNS in some patients with refractory chronic headaches. Appropriate surgical planning and technique are important to achieve good clinical outcome and to minimize complications.

Managing Chronic Headache Disorders

Headaches are a very common disorder, more common than asthma and diabetes combined. Migraine is the most common headache disorder, but it remains underdiagnosed and therefore undertreated. The treatment of migraines is divided into acute and prophylaxis. Patients who are experiencing 8 or more headaches a month or those who experience disability with their headaches as determined by the Migraine Disability Assistance Score or MIDAS should be placed on prophylaxis.