Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation of the Medial Branch Nerves for the Treatment of Chronic Axial Back Pain in Patients After Radiofrequency Ablation

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Stimulation of the Medial Branch of the Lumbar Dorsal Rami for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain

INTRODUCTION

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is often associated with impaired motor control and degeneration of the lumbar multifidus muscles. Several studies have reported on the utility of multifidus or medial branch stimulation as a treatment. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting on the change in low back pain intensity with multifidus stimulation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from 2010 to 2022 for randomized controlled trials or prospective reports in adults with CLBP, treated with multifidus or medial nerve stimulation through implanted or percutaneous device. Mean change (standard error) in pain intensity was extracted and data synthesized using a mixed effects regression with a random intercept for the study to account for repeated time points.

RESULTS

A total of 419 participants were enrolled in six studies; there were 25 effects (one to six time points per study), with follow-ups ranging from 1.5 to 48 months. The weighted pooled mean effect was a reduction in pain intensity (0-10 scale) of 2.9 units (95% CI: 2.1-3.7). The 95% prediction interval was a reduction in pain intensity of 0.6 to 5.2 units. The estimated probability of a reduction in pain of >two units in a new similar study is 0.84 (0.68-0.98). Meta-regression revealed that a longer follow-up time was associated with greater reductions in pain (0.25 units [0.16-0.34] per six months).

CONCLUSIONS

Medial branch stimulation for the treatment of CLBP shows a high probability of a clinically significant change in pain intensity. Longer duration of stimulation was associated with decreased low back pain intensities.

Is Response to a Pre-implant Diagnostic Peripheral Nerve Block Associated With Efficacy After Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Implantation? A Ten-Year Enterprise-Wide Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess whether patient response to targeted diagnostic peripheral nerve block before peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS) device implantation is associated with efficacy after PNS implantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The electronic medical records from the Mayo Clinic Enterprise (three quarternary care medical centers and additional satellite medical centers) were reviewed to identify patients who underwent PNS implantation between January 2014 and January 2023. A primary outcome of interest was to assess whether administration of a preimplant diagnostic peripheral nerve block predicted pain relief at three months and six months after temporary and permanent PNS implantation. Another primary outcome was to investigate whether there was an association between the pain relief from a preimplant diagnostic peripheral nerve block and pain relief after three and six months after temporary or permanent PNS therapy. Linear regression analysis was conducted for outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Of 193 eligible patients who underwent PNS therapy, a total of 173 patients were included in the final analysis and were stratified into either the temporary PNS cohort (n = 112) or the permanent PNS cohort (n = 61). Overall, 77.5% of all patients (134/173) underwent a preimplant diagnostic peripheral nerve block and reported a mean percentage relief of 70.1 ± 27.0 from the diagnostic block. Of patients in the temporary PNS cohort, there was no difference in postimplant percentage pain relief between patients who received a diagnostic block (n = 93) and control patients (n = 19) at three months (35.4 ± 36.0 vs 49.8 ± 36.1, respectively; β -14.45, 95% CI -32.98 to 4.07, p = 0.125) or at six months (23.3 ± 30.8 vs 45.7 ± 40.0, respectively; β -22.39, 95% CI -46.86 to 2.08, p = 0.072). Of patients in the permanent PNS cohort, there was no difference in postimplant percentage pain relief between patients who received a diagnostic block (n = 41) and control patients (n = 20) at three months (42.4 ± 34.3 vs 43.2 ± 42.4, respectively; β -0.79, 95% CI -23.56 to 21.99, p = 0.945) or at six months (44.3 ± 35.0 vs 38.8 ± 40.9, respectively; β 5.42, 95% CI -20.04 to 30.88, p = 0.669). Pain relief from preimplant diagnostic blocks was associated with postimplant pain relief from temporary PNS at three months (β 0.33, 95% CI 0.04-0.61, p = 0.025). However, pain relief from preimplant diagnostic blocks did not predict postimplant pain relief from temporary PNS at six months, or permanent PNS at three months and six months.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of a diagnostic block is not associated with superior pain relief at three or six months after PNS implantation to that of an approach without diagnostic block. Pain relief from a diagnostic block may potentially predict short-term pain relief after temporary PNS therapy, although future prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the prognostic utility of diagnostic blocks.

A review of prospective studies regarding percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation treatment in the management of chronic pain

Conventionally, peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for treatment of chronic pain has involved a two-stage process: a short-term (e.g., 7 days) trial and, if significant pain relief is achieved, a permanent PNS system is implanted. A percutaneous PNS treatment is now available where a coiled lead may be implanted for up to 60 days with the goal of producing sustained relief. In the present review, published prospective trials using percutaneous PNS treatment were identified and synthesized. The collected evidence indicates that percutaneous PNS treatment for up to 60 days provides durable clinically significant improvements in pain and pain interference. Similar efficacy across diverse targets and etiologies supports the broad applicability for use within the chronic pain population using this nonopioid technology.

Precision Rehabilitation After Neurostimulation Implantation for Multifidus Dysfunction in Nociceptive Mechanical Chronic Low Back Pain

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a debilitating, painful, and costly condition. Implantable neuromuscular electrical stimulation targeting the multifidus musculature is growing as a non-pharmacologic option for patients with recalcitrant nociceptive mechanical CLBP who have failed conservative treatments (including medications and physical therapy) and for whom surgery is not indicated. Properly selecting patients who meet specific criteria (based on historical results from randomized controlled trials), who diligently adhere to implant usage and precisely implement neuromuscular rehabilitation, improve success of significant functional recovery, as well as pain medication reductions. Patients with nociceptive mechanical CLBP who underwent implanted multifidus neurostimulation have been treated by physicians and rehabilitation specialists who have honed their experience working with multifidus neurostimulation. They have collaborated on consensus and evidence-driven guidelines to improve quality outcomes and to assist providers when encountering patients with this device. Physicians and physical therapists together provide precision patient-centric medical management with quality neuromuscular rehabilitation to encourage patients to be experts of both their implants and quality spine motion to help override long-standing multifidus dysfunction related to their CLBP.

The effectiveness, acceptability, and sustainability of non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain management in older adults in mainland China: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness, acceptability, and sustainability of non-pharmacological pain management interventions for older adults in mainland China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Articles searching was conducted across six databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and WanFangdata. Quality appraisal was performed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

A total of 26 articles met the inclusion criteria, involving 2,197 participants with a mean age of 69.19 years. The participants' ages ranged from 63.85 to 81.75 years. The evaluated non-pharmacological interventions included psychotherapy, acupuncture, exercise, massage, neurotherapy, and multidisciplinary interventions. The overall changes in pain intensity varied from -5.19 to -0.65 on a numeric rating scale ranging from zero to ten.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-pharmacological interventions proved effective in alleviating pain intensity among older adults in mainland China. The findings suggest that mindfulness, exercise and pain education can be promoted as viable strategies for enhancing the well-being of the elderly population.

Potential Role of Focal Microvibration (Equistasi®) in the Management of Chronic Pain: A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain is one of the leading causes of medical consultation with a dramatic psychophysical and socioeconomic impact. Focal microvibration (Equistasi®) is a revolutionary technology that converts the thermal energy of the skin into vibration. Equistasi® was shown to be effective in the treatment of gait and balance dysfunction in many pathological conditions such as Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. Our aim was to explore the efficacy of focal microvibration in the management of chronic pain.

METHODS

We randomized 60 patients with pain of different origin into two groups: an experimental group (group E) treated with Equistasi, and a control group (group C) treated with standard pharmacological therapy. Pain, disability, and working capacity were evaluated by Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Work Ability Index (WAI) at the baseline and after 7 (T7), 15 (T15), 30 (T30), 60 (T60), and 90 (T90) days.

RESULTS

According to BPI, average and worst pain in the last 24 h significantly decreased in group E at T15 and this result persisted up to T90; pain interference on general activity, mood, waling ability, normal work, relations with other people, sleep, and enjoyment of life decreased in group E with a significant improvement from T15. Lifting activity and work ability in relation to demands also significantly improved in group E. No significant changes in BPI, ODI, and WAI scores were recorded in group C during the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Focal microvibration can be an effective tool for managing chronic pain in combination with other therapies.

Multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is multifactorial in nature, with recent research highlighting the role of multifidus dysfunction in a subset of nonspecific CLBP. This review aimed to provide a foundational reference that elucidates the pathophysiological cascade of multifidus dysfunction, how it contrasts with other CLBP etiologies and the role of restorative neurostimulation.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature.

RESULTS

In total, 194 articles were included, and findings were presented to highlight emerging principles related to multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation. Multifidus dysfunction is diagnosed by a history of mechanical, axial, nociceptive CLBP and exam demonstrating functional lumbar instability, which differs from other structural etiologies. Diagnostic images may be used to grade multifidus atrophy and assess other structural pathologies. While various treatments exist for CLBP, restorative neurostimulation distinguishes itself from traditional neurostimulation in a way that treats a different etiology, targets a different anatomical site, and has a distinctive mechanism of action.

CONCLUSIONS

Multifidus dysfunction has been proposed to result from loss of neuromuscular control, which may manifest clinically as muscle inhibition resulting in altered movement patterns. Over time, this cycle may result in potential atrophy, degeneration and CLBP. Restorative neurostimulation, a novel implantable neurostimulator system, stimulates the efferent lumbar medial branch nerve to elicit repetitive multifidus contractions. This intervention aims to interrupt the cycle of dysfunction and normalize multifidus activity incrementally, potentially restoring neuromuscular control. Restorative neurostimulation has been shown to reduce pain and disability in CLBP, improve quality of life and reduce health care expenditures.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Pain Management: A Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Peripheral nerve stimulation has seen a recent upsurge in utilization for various chronic pain conditions, specifically from a neuropathic etiology, where a single peripheral nerve can be pinpointed as a culprit for pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is conflicting evidence about the efficacy and long-term outcomes of peripheral nerve stimulation for chronic pain, with most studies being small sized. The focus of this article is to review available evidence for the utilization of peripheral nerve stimulation for chronic pain syndromes as well as upcoming evidence in the immediate postoperative realm. The indications for the use of PNS have expanded from neuropathic pain such as occipital neuralgia and post-amputation pain, to more widespread disease processes such as chronic low back pain. Percutaneous PNS delivered over a 60-day period may provide significant carry-over effects including pain relief, potentially avoiding the need for a permanently implanted system while enabling improved function in patients with chronic pain.

Clinical Approach to Chronic Pain due to Perioperative Nerve Injury

Perioperative nerve injuries are common and may be prevented. The estimated incidence of perioperative nerve injury is 10% to 50%. However, most of these injuries are minor and self-recovering. Severe injuries account for up to 10%. Potential mechanisms of injury are nerve stretch, compression, hypoperfusion, direct nerve trauma, or injury during vessel cannulation. Nerve injury pain usually presents as neuropathic pain ranging from mild to severe mononeuropathy and extends to the disabling complex regional pain syndrome. This review provides a clinical approach to subacute and chronic pain secondary to perioperative nerve injury, presentation, and management.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition that is associated with diminished physical function, poor mental health outcomes, and reduced quality of life. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an emerging modality that has been utilized to treat LBP. The primary objective of this systematic review is to appraise the level of evidence on the efficacy of PNS for treatment of LBP.

RECENT FINDINGS

Twenty-nine articles were included in this systematic review, consisting of 828 total participants utilizing PNS as the primary modality for LBP and 173 participants using PNS as salvage or adjunctive therapy for LBP after SCS placement. Different modalities of PNS therapy were reported across studies, including conventional PNS systems stimulating the lumbar medial branch nerves, peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS), and restorative neuromuscular stimulation of the multifidus muscles. All studies consistently reported positive modest to moderate improvement in pain intensity with PNS therapy when comparing baseline pain intensity to each study's respective primary follow-up period. There was a very low GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) quality of evidence supporting this finding. Inconsistency was present in some comparative studies that demonstrated no difference between PNS therapy versus control cohorts (sham or SCS therapy alone), which therefore highlighted the potential for placebo effect. This systematic review highlights that PNS, PNFS, and neuromuscular stimulation may provide modest to moderate pain relief in patients with LBP, although evidence is currently limited due to risk of bias, clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and inconsistency in data.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Back Pain in Patients With Multiple Myeloma as Bridge Therapy to Radiation Treatment: A Case Series

OBJECTIVES

Patients with spinal lesions or vertebral compression fractures from multiple myeloma often present with back pain that restricts their ability to lie flat and prevents them from undergoing cancer treatment. Temporary, percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been described for cancer pain secondary to oncologic surgery or neuropathy/radiculopathy from tumor invasion. The purpose of this case series is to show the use of PNS as an analgesic bridge therapy to treat myeloma-related back pain and allow patients to complete their course of radiation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Temporary, percutaneous PNS was placed under fluoroscopic guidance for four patients with unremitting low back pain secondary to myelomatous spinal lesions. Before PNS, the patients had pain refractory to medical management and were unable to tolerate radiation mapping and treatment owing to low back pain while supine. Patients were followed with routine clinic visits to monitor pain and progression through cancer therapy. PNS was removed after approximately 60 days or after completion of radiation.

RESULTS

This case series presents four successful cases of PNS to treat low back pain from myelomatous spinal lesions and associated vertebral compression fractures. PNS targeted the medial branch nerves to treat both nociceptive and neuropathic low back pain. All four patients successfully completed radiation therapy with PNS in place.

CONCLUSIONS

PNS can effectively treat low back pain secondary to myeloma-related spinal lesions as a bridge therapy to radiation. The use of PNS is a promising option for back pain from other primary or metastatic tumors. Further research is needed into the use of PNS for cancer-related back pain.

Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience for the Use of Implantable Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic Pain

The objective of this peripheral nerve stimulation consensus guideline is to add to the current family of consensus practice guidelines and incorporate a systematic review process. The published literature was searched from relevant electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from database inception to March 29, 2021. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies that described peripheral nerve stimulation in patients in terms of clinical outcomes for various pain conditions, physiological mechanism of action, surgical technique, technique of placement, and adverse events. Twenty randomized controlled trials and 33 prospective observational studies were included in the systematic review process. There is Level I evidence supporting the efficacy of PNS for treatment of chronic migraine headaches via occipital nerve stimulation; chronic hemiplegic shoulder pain via stimulation of nerves innervating the trapezius, supraspinatus, and deltoid muscles; failed back surgery syndrome via subcutaneous peripheral field stimulation; and lower extremity neuropathic and lower extremity post-amputation pain. Evidence from current Level I studies combined with newer technologies facilitating less invasive and easier electrode placement make peripheral nerve stimulation an attractive alternative for managing patients with complex pain disorders. Peripheral nerve stimulation should be used judiciously as an adjunct for chronic and acute postoperative pain following adequate patient screening and positive diagnostic nerve block or stimulation trial.

An Advanced Practice Provider Guide to Peripheral Nerve Stimulation

Objective

To describe the team approach of an interventional pain management practice, with particular emphasis on advanced practice providers (APPs), in the selection, education, care, and management of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) patients.

Materials and Methods

We devised an APP guide to PNS based on an in-depth search of multiple databases for studies on neuromodulation, pain management, and APPs.

Results

Of 65 articles captured in the search strategy, three articles were pertinent to the topic of APP involvement in neuromodulation. More specifically, only one of the three publications on neuromodulation discussed APP involvement in PNS. This single publication was from 1995 and focused on electrical stimulation of the trigeminal ganglion using a permanent percutaneously placed electrode.

Conclusion

PNS is growing in clinical indication and use for both acute and chronic pain conditions. With the increasing need for APPs in both general and specialty medicine, it is imperative that APPs are well educated on PNS. Here, we have outlined ways in which APPs can optimize the care of PNS patients and how the skillset of the APP in a PNS practice can potentially improve patient outcomes.

Sciatic nerve stimulation alleviates acute neuropathic pain via modulation of neuroinflammation and descending pain inhibition in a rodent model

Background

Neuropathic pain (NP) is characterized by abnormal activation of pain conducting pathways and manifests as mechanical allodynia and thermal hypersensitivity. Peripheral nerve stimulation is used for treatment of medically refractory chronic NP and has been shown to reduce neuroinflammation. However, whether sciatic nerve stimulation (SNS) is of therapeutic benefit to NP remains unclear. Moreover, the optimal frequency for SNS is unknown. To address this research gap, we investigated the effect of SNS in an acute NP rodent model.

Methods

Rats with right L5 nerve root ligation (NRL) or Sham surgery were used. Ipsilateral SNS was performed at 2 Hz, 20 Hz, and 60 Hz frequencies. Behavioral tests were performed to assess pain and thermal hypersensitivity before and after NRL and SNS. Expression of inflammatory proteins in the L5 spinal cord and the immunohistochemical alterations of spinal cord astrocytes and microglia were examined on post-injury day 7 (PID7) following NRL and SNS. The involvement of the descending pain modulatory pathway was also investigated.

Results

Following NRL, the rats showed a decreased pain threshold and latency on the von Frey and Hargreaves tests. The immunofluorescence results indicated hyperactivation of superficial spinal cord dorsal horn (SCDH) neurons. Both 2-Hz and 20-Hz SNS alleviated pain behavior and hyperactivation of SCDH neurons. On PID7, NRL resulted in elevated expression of spinal cord inflammatory proteins including NF-κB, TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6, which was mitigated by 2-Hz and 20-Hz SNS. Furthermore, 2-Hz and 20-Hz SNS suppressed the activation of spinal cord astrocytes and microglia following NRL on PID7. Activity of the descending serotoninergic pain modulation pathway showed an increase early on PID1 following 2-Hz and 20-Hz SNS.

Conclusions

Our results support that both 2-Hz and 20-Hz SNS can alleviate NP behaviors and hyperactivation of pain conducting pathways. We showed that SNS regulates neuroinflammation and reduces inflammatory protein expression, astrocytic gliosis, and microglia activation. During the early post-injury period, SNS also facilitates the descending pain modulatory pathway. Taken together, these findings support the therapeutic potential of SNS for acute NP.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12974-022-02513-y.

Real-world evidence of sustained improvement following 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation treatment for pain: a cross-sectional follow-up survey

Objective: This study presents real-world data from a cross-sectional follow-up survey of patients who previously received 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment for pain. Materials & methods: A survey including validated pain and other related outcome measures was distributed to patients who previously underwent implantation of temporary PNS leads for 60-day PNS treatment. Results: Among survey respondents who were at least 3 months from the start of treatment, most reported sustained clinically significant improvements in pain and/or quality of life, with the length of follow-up at the time of survey completion ranging from 3 to 30 months. Conclusion: These real-world data support recent prospective studies indicating that 60-day percutaneous PNS provides significant and sustained relief across a wide range of pain conditions.

60-Day PNS Treatment May Improve Identification of Delayed Responders and Delayed Non-Responders to Neurostimulation for Pain Relief

Objective

Conventional neurostimulation typically involves a brief (eg, ≤10-day) trial to assess presumed effectiveness prior to permanent implantation. Low trial conversion rates and high explant rates due to inadequate pain relief highlight the need for improved patient identification strategies. The development of a 60-day percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) system enables evaluation of outcomes following an extended temporary treatment period of up to 60 days, that may obviate or validate the need for permanent implant. The present study provides the first real-world evidence regarding patient response throughout a 60-day PNS treatment period.

Methods

Anonymized data listings were compiled from patients who underwent implantation of temporary percutaneous leads and opted-in to provide real-world data to the device manufacturer during routine interactions with device representatives throughout the 60-day treatment.

Results

Overall, 30% (222/747) of patients were early responders (≥50% pain relief throughout treatment). Another 31% (231/747) of patients initially presented as non-responders but surpassed 50% pain relief by the end of treatment. Conversely, 32% (239/747) of patients were non-responders throughout treatment. An additional 7% (55/747) of patients initially presented as responders but fell below 50% relief by the end of the treatment period.

Conclusion

An extended, 60-day PNS treatment may help identify delayed responders, providing the opportunity for sustained relief and improving access to effective PNS treatment. Compared to a conventionally short trial of ≤10 days, a longer 60-day PNS treatment may also help reduce explant rates by identifying delayed non-responders unlikely to benefit long-term. These scenarios support the importance of an extended 60-day temporary PNS stimulation period to help inform stepwise treatment strategies that may optimize outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Non-Spinal Neuromodulation of the Lumbar Medial Branch Nerve for Chronic Axial Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review

Chronic low back pain remains highly prevalent, costly, and the leading cause of disability worldwide. Symptoms are complex and treatment involves an interdisciplinary approach. Due to diverse anatomical etiologies, treatment outcomes with interventional options are highly variable. A novel approach to treating chronic axial low back pain entails the use of peripheral nerve stimulation to the lumbar medial branch nerve, and this review examines the clinical data of the two different, commercially available, non-spinal neuromodulation systems. This review provides the clinician a succinct narrative that presents up-to-date data objectively. Our review found ten clinical studies, including one report of two cases, six prospective studies, and three randomized clinical trials published to date. Currently, there are different proposed mechanisms of action to address chronic axial low back pain with different implantation techniques. Evidence suggests that peripheral nerve stimulation of the lumbar medial branch nerve may be effective in improving pain and function in patients with chronic axial low back pain symptoms at short and long term follow up, with good safety profiles. Further long-term data is needed to consider this intervention earlier in the pain treatment algorithm, but initial data are promising.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness and Safety

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) was the first application of neuromodulation. Widespread application of PNS was limited by technical concerns. Recent advances now allow the percutaneous placement of leads with ultrasound or fluoroscopic guidance, while the transcutaneous powering of these leads removes the need for leads to cross major joints. This systematic review was written to assess the current status of high-quality evidence supporting the use of PNS for pain conditions treated by interventional pain physicians. The available literature on PNS, limited to conditions treated by interventional pain physicians, was reviewed and the quality assessed. Literature from 1966 to June 2021 was reviewed. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional improvement. One hundred and two studies were identified. Five randomized controlled trials (RCT) and four observational studies, all case series, met the inclusion criteria. One RCT was of high quality and four were of moderate quality; all four case series were of moderate quality. Three of the RCTs and all four case series evaluated peripheral nerve neuropathic pain. Based upon these studies, there is level II evidence supporting the use of PNS to treat refractory peripheral nerve injury. One moderate-quality RCT evaluated tibial nerve stimulation for pelvic pain, providing level III evidence for this indication. One moderate-quality RCT evaluated surgically placed cylindrical leads for cluster headaches, providing level III evidence for this indication. The evidence suggests that approximately two-thirds of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain will have at least 50% sustained pain relief. Adverse events from PNS are generally minor. A major advantage of PNS over spinal cord stimulation is the absence of any risk of central cord injury. The study was limited by the paucity of literature for some indications. No studies dealt with joint-related osteoarthritic pain.

Treatment of chronic axial back pain with 60-day percutaneous medial branch PNS: Primary end point results from a prospective, multicenter study

Background

The objective of this prospective, multicenter study is to characterize responses to percutaneous medial branch peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) to determine if results from earlier, smaller single‐center studies and reports were generalizable when performed at a larger number and wider variety of centers in patients recalcitrant to nonsurgical treatments.

Materials & Methods

Participants with chronic axial low back pain (LBP) were implanted with percutaneous PNS leads targeting the lumbar medial branch nerves for up to 60 days, after which the leads were removed. Participants were followed long‐term for 12 months after the 2‐month PNS treatment. Data collection is complete for visits through end of treatment with PNS (primary end point) and 6 months after lead removal (8 months after start of treatment), with some participant follow‐up visits thereafter in progress.

Results

Clinically and statistically significant reductions in pain intensity, disability, and pain interference were reported by a majority of participants. Seventy‐three percent of participants were successes for the primary end point, reporting clinically significant (≥30%) reductions in back pain intensity after the 2‐month percutaneous PNS treatment (n = 54/74). Whereas prospective follow‐up is ongoing, among those who had already completed the long‐term follow‐up visits (n = 51), reductions in pain intensity, disability, and pain interference were sustained in a majority of participants through 14 months after the start of treatment.

Conclusion

Given the minimally invasive, nondestructive nature of percutaneous PNS and the significant benefits experienced by participants who were recalcitrant to nonsurgical treatments, percutaneous PNS may provide a promising first‐line neurostimulation treatment option for patients with chronic axial back pain.

Neuroskeletal Effects of Chronic Bioelectric Nerve Stimulation in Health and Diabetes

Background/Aims

Bioelectric nerve stimulation (eStim) is an emerging clinical paradigm that can promote nerve regeneration after trauma, including within the context of diabetes. However, its ability to prevent the onset of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) has not yet been evaluated. Beyond the nerve itself, DPN has emerged as a potential contributor to sarcopenia and bone disease; thus, we hypothesized that eStim could serve as a strategy to simultaneously promote neural and musculoskeletal health in diabetes.

Methods

To address this question, an eStim paradigm pre-optimized to promote nerve regeneration was applied to the sciatic nerve, which directly innervates the tibia and lower limb, for 8 weeks in control and streptozotocin-induced type 1 diabetic (T1D) rats. Metabolic, gait, nerve and bone assessments were used to evaluate the progression of diabetes and the effect of sciatic nerve eStim on neuropathy and musculoskeletal disease, while also considering the effects of cuff placement and chronic eStim in otherwise healthy animals.

Results

Rats with T1D exhibited increased mechanical allodynia in the hindpaw, reduced muscle mass, decreased cortical and cancellous bone volume fraction (BVF), reduced cortical bone tissue mineral density (TMD), and decreased bone marrow adiposity. Type 1 diabetes also had an independent effect on gait. Placement of the cuff electrode alone resulted in altered gait patterns and unilateral reductions in tibia length, cortical BVF, and bone marrow adiposity. Alterations in gait patterns were restored by eStim and tibial lengthening was favored unilaterally; however, eStim did not prevent T1D-induced changes in muscle, bone, marrow adiposity or mechanical sensitivity. Beyond this, chronic eStim resulted in an independent, bilateral reduction in cortical TMD.

Conclusion

Overall, these results provide new insight into the pathogenesis of diabetic neuroskeletal disease and its regulation by eStim. Though eStim did not prevent neural or musculoskeletal complications in T1D, our results demonstrate that clinical applications of peripheral neuromodulation ought to consider the impact of device placement and eStim on long-term skeletal health in both healthy individuals and those with metabolic disease. This includes monitoring for compounded bone loss to prevent unintended consequences including decreased bone mineral density and increased fracture risk.