Impact of Auricular Neurostimulation in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery with an Enhanced Recovery Protocol: A Pilot Randomized, Controlled Trial

Percutaneous auricular neuromodulation (nerve stimulation) for the treatment of pain following total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous auricular nerve stimulation (neuromodulation) is an analgesic technique involving the percutaneous implantation of multiple leads at various points on/around the ear followed by the delivery of electric current using an external pulse generator. A device is currently available within the USA cleared to treat symptoms from opioid withdrawal, and multiple reports suggest a possible postoperative analgesic effect. The current randomized, controlled pilot study was undertaken to (1) determine the feasibility and optimize the protocol for a subsequent definitive clinical trial and (2) estimate the treatment effect of auricular neuromodulation on postoperative pain and opioid consumption following total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

Within the recovery room following primary, unilateral, total knee arthroplasty, an auricular neuromodulation device (NSS-2 Bridge, Masimo, Irvine, California, USA) was applied using three percutaneous leads and one ground electrode. Participants were randomized to 5 days of either electrical stimulation or sham stimulation in a double-masked fashion. Participants were discharged with the stimulator in situ and removed the disposable devices at home. The dual primary treatment effect outcome measures were the cumulative opioid use (oral oxycodone) and the mean of the "average" daily pain measured with the Numeric Rating Scale for the first 5 postoperative days.

RESULTS

During the first five postoperative days, oxycodone consumption in participants given active stimulation (n=15) was a median (IQR) of 4 mg (2-12) vs 13 mg (5-23) in patients given sham (n=15) treatment (p=0.039). During this same period, the average pain intensity in patients given active stimulation was a median (IQR) of 2.5 (1.5-3.3) vs 4.0 (3.6-4.8) in those given sham (p=0.014). Awakenings due to pain over all eight postoperative nights in participants given active stimulation was a median (IQR) of 5 (3-8) vs 11 (4-14) in those given sham (p<0.001). No device-related localized cutaneous irritation, systemic side effects, or other adverse events were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous auricular neuromodulation reduced pain scores and opioid requirements during the initial week after total knee arthroplasty. Given the ease of application as well as the lack of systemic side effects and reported complications, a definitive clinical trial appears warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05521516.

Percutaneous auricular neuromodulation (nerve stimulation) for the treatment of pain following cholecystectomy and hernia repair: a randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous auricular nerve stimulation (neuromodulation) involves implanting electrodes around the ear and administering an electric current. A device is currently available within the USA cleared to treat symptoms from opioid withdrawal, and multiple reports suggest a possible postoperative analgesic effect. The current randomized controlled pilot study was undertaken to (1) determine the feasibility and optimize the protocol for a subsequent definitive clinical trial; and (2) estimate the treatment effect of auricular neuromodulation on postoperative pain and opioid consumption following two ambulatory surgical procedures.

METHODS

Within the recovery room following cholecystectomy or hernia repair, an auricular neuromodulation device (NSS-2 Bridge, Masimo, Irvine, California, USA) was applied. Participants were randomized to 5 days of either electrical stimulation or sham in a double-blinded fashion.

RESULTS

In the first 5 days, the median (IQR) pain level for active stimulation (n=15) was 0.6 (0.3-2.4) vs 2.6 (1.1-3.7) for the sham group (n=15) (p=0.041). Concurrently, the median oxycodone use for the active stimulation group was 0 mg (0-1), compared with 0 mg (0-3) for the sham group (p=0.524). Regarding the highest pain level experienced over the entire 8-day study period, only one participant (7%) who received active stimulation experienced severe pain, versus seven (47%) in those given sham (p=0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous auricular neuromodulation reduced pain scores but not opioid requirements during the initial week after cholecystectomy and hernia repair. Given the ease of application as well as a lack of systemic side effects and reported complications, a definitive clinical trial appears warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05521516.

[Clinical efficacy of auricular vagus nerve stimulation in the treatment of chronic and acute pain : A systematic review]

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend a personalized, multimodal, and interdisciplinary approach for the treatment of chronic pain. Already in the acute treatment of postoperative pain, it can be useful to minimize risk factors for chronification. Auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) could be an effective non-drug therapy for the treatment of chronic and acute pain.

AIM OF THE WORK

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of aVNS in chronic and acute pain as well as its effect on medication intake.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out on the application of auricular electrical stimulation in chronic and acute pain. Studies were classified according to their level of evidence and evaluated via the Jadad scale as well as their scientific validity, and then analyzed in terms of indication, method, stimulation parameters, duration of treatment, efficacy, and safety.

RESULTS

Twenty studies on chronic pain indications, ten studies on acute postoperative pain, as well as seven studies on experimental acute pain were identified and analyzed. The search revealed a total of n = 1105 aVNS-treated patients. The best evidence on the efficacy of aVNS is available for the indications chronic low back pain, chronic cervical syndrome, chronic abdominal pain, and chronic migraine as well as acute postoperative pain in oocyte aspiration, laparoscopic nephrectomy, and open colorectal surgery. Additionally a significant reduction in analgesic or opiate intake was evident in most studies. In three randomized controlled trials in chronic pain patients, a sustainable pain reduction over a period of up to 12 months was shown. Overall, aVNS was very well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This review indicates that aVNS can be a complementary and effective non-drug treatment for patients with chronic and acute postoperative pain. Future studies in these indications should focus on standardizing and optimizing treatment parameters, inclusion of quality-of-life outcome parameters, and longer follow-up periods to better understand the sustainable therapeutic effect of aVNS.