Mathematical Model of Nerve Fiber Activation During Low Back Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation: Analysis of Electrode Implant Depth

Steering Toward Normative Wide-Dynamic-Range Neuron Activity in Nerve-Injured Rats With Closed-Loop Peripheral Nerve Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

Chronic pain is primarily treated with pharmaceuticals, but the effects remain unsatisfactory. A promising alternative therapy is peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), but it has been associated with suboptimal efficacy because its modulation mechanisms are not clear and the current therapies are primarily open loop (ie, manually adjusting the stimulation parameters). In this study, we developed a proof-of-concept computational modeling as the first step toward implementing closed-loop PNS in future biological studies. When developing new pain therapies, a useful pain biomarker is the wide-dynamic-range (WDR) neuron activity in the dorsal horn. In healthy animals, the WDR neuron activity occurs in a stereotyped manner; however, this response profile can vary widely after nerve injury to create a chronic pain condition. We hypothesized that if injury-induced changes of neuronal response can be normalized to resemble those of a healthy condition, the pathological aspects of pain may be treated while maintaining protective physiological nociception.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using an in vivo electrophysiology data set of WDR neuron recordings obtained in nerve-injured rats and naïve rats, we constructed sets of linear phenomenologic models of WDR firing rate during windup stimulation for both conditions. Then, we applied robust control systems techniques to identify a closed-loop PNS controller, which can drive the dynamics of WDR neuron response in neuropathic pain model into ranges associated with normal physiological pain.

RESULTS

The sets of identified linear models can accurately predict, in silico, nonlinear neural responses to electrical stimulation of the peripheral nerve. In addition, we showed that continuous closed-loop control of PNS can be used to normalize WDR neuron firing responses in three injured cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In this proof-of-concept study, we show how tractable, linear mathematical models of pain-related neurotransmission can be used to inform the development of closed-loop PNS. This new application of robust control to neurotechnology may also be expanded and applied across other neuromodulation applications.

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.

A review of the bioelectronic implications of stimulation of the peripheral nervous system for chronic pain conditions

Background

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation has been used to treat human disease including pain for several decades. Innovation has made it a more viable option for treatment of common chronic pain processes, and interest in the therapy is increasing.

Main body

While clinical data is forthcoming, understanding factors that influence successful outcomes in the use of PNS still needs to be delineated. This article reviews the evolution and bioelectronic principles of peripheral nerve stimulation including patient selection, nerve targets, techniques and guidance of target delivery. We collate the current evidence for outcomes and provide recommendations for salient topics in PNS.

Conclusion

Peripheral nerve stimulation has evolved from a surgically invasive procedure to a minimally invasive technique that can be used early in the treatment of peripheral nerve pain. This review identifies and addresses many of the variables which influence the success of PNS in the clinical setting.

A review on ultrasonic neuromodulation of the peripheral nervous system: enhanced or suppressed activities?

Ultrasonic (US) neuromodulation has emerged as a promising therapeutic means by delivering focused energy deep into the tissue. Low-intensity ultrasound (US) directly activates and/or inhibits neurons in the central nervous system (CNS). US neuromodulation of the peripheral nervous system (PNS) is less developed and rarely used clinically. Literature on the neuromodulatory effects of US on the PNS is controversy with some documenting enhanced neural activities, some showing suppressed activities, and others reporting mixed effects. US, with different range of intensity and strength, is likely to generate distinct physical effects in the stimulated neuronal tissues, which underlies different experimental outcomes in the literature. In this review, we summarize all the major reports that documented the effects of US on peripheral nerve endings, axons, and/or somata in the dorsal root ganglion. In particular, we thoroughly discuss the potential impacts by the following key parameters to the study outcomes of PNS neuromodulation by the US: frequency, pulse repetition frequency, duty cycle, intensity, metrics for peripheral neural activities, and type of biological preparations used in the studies. Potential mechanisms of peripheral US neuromodulation are summarized to provide a plausible interpretation to the seemly contradictory effects of enhanced and suppressed neural activities from US neuromodulation.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Subcutaneous Nerve Stimulation for Back Pain Due to Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: The SubQStim Study

Objectives

To compare the effectiveness of peripheral nerve stimulation utilizing a subcutaneous lead implant technique—subcutaneous nerve stimulation (SQS) plus optimized medical management (SQS + OMM arm) vs. optimized medical management alone (OMM arm) in patients with back pain due to failed back surgery syndrome.

Patients and Methods

Patients were recruited from 21 centers, in Europe, Israel, and Australia. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to SQS + OMM or OMM arms. Those in the SQS arm were implanted with a neurostimulator and up to two subcutaneous percutaneous cylindrical leads in the area of pain. Patients were evaluated pre‐randomization and at one, three, six, and nine months post‐randomization. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with a ≥50% reduction in back pain intensity (“responder”) from baseline to nine months. Secondary outcomes included proportion of responders with a ≥50% reduction in back pain intensity at six months and ≥30% reduction at nine months, and the mean change from baseline in back pain intensity at six and nine months between the two arms.

Results

Due to the slow rate of recruitment, the study was terminated early with 116 subjects randomized. A total of 33.9% (19/56, missing: n = 20 [36%]) of subjects in the SQS + OMM arm and 1.7% (1/60, missing: n = 24 [40%]) in the OMM arm were responders at Month 9 (p < 0.0001). Secondary objectives showed a significant difference in favor of SQS + OMM arm.

Conclusion

The results indicate that the addition of SQS to OMM is more effective than OMM alone in relieving low back pain at up to nine months.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: Two Clinical Case Reports of Sustained Pain Relief

As the leading cause of disability among U.S. adults, chronic low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent and challenging musculoskeletal conditions. Neuromodulation provides an opportunity to reduce or eliminate the use of opioids to treat chronic LBP, but the cost and invasiveness of existing methods have limited its broad adoption, especially earlier in the treatment continuum. The present case report details the results of a novel method of short-term percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) in 2 subjects with chronic LBP. At the end of the 1-month therapy, stimulation was discontinued and the leads were withdrawn. PNS produced clinically significant improvements in pain (62% average reduction in Brief Pain Inventory Question #5, average pain), and functional outcomes (73% reduction in disability, Oswestry Disability Index; 83% reduction in pain interference, Brief Pain Inventory). Both subjects reduced nonopioid analgesic use by 83%, on average, and the one subject taking opioids ceased using all opioids. The only adverse event was minor skin irritation caused by a topical dressing. The clinically significant improvements were sustained at least 4 months after start of therapy (79% average reduction in pain; both reported minimal disability; 100% reduction in opioids; 74% reduction nonopioids). The results reveal the utility of this novel, short-term approach and its potential as a minimally invasive neuromodulation therapy for use earlier in the treatment continuum to produce sustained pain relief and reduce or eliminate the need for analgesic medications, including opioids, as well as more expensive and invasive surgical or therapeutic alternatives.

Review of Recent Advances in Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS)

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for the treatment of chronic pain has become an increasingly important field in the arena of neuromodulation, given the ongoing advances in electrical neuromodulation technology since 1999 permitting minimally invasive approaches using an percutaneous approach as opposed to implantable systems. Our review aims to provide clinicians with the recent advances and studies in the field, with specific emphasis on clinical data and indications that have been accumulated over the last several years. In addition, we aim to address key basic science studies to further emphasize the importance of translational research outcomes driving clinical management.

Functional and Histological Effects of Chronic Neural Electrode Implantation

Objectives

Permanent injury to the cranial nerves can often result in a substantial reduction in quality of life. Novel and innovative interventions can help restore form and function in nerve paralysis, with bioelectric interfaces among the more promising of these approaches. The foreign body response is an important consideration for any bioelectric device as it influences the function and effectiveness of the implant. The purpose of this review is to describe tissue and functional effects of chronic neural implantation among the different categories of neural implants and highlight advances in peripheral and cranial nerve stimulation.

Data Sources: PubMed, IEEE, and Web of Science literature search.

Review Methods: A review of the current literature was conducted to examine functional and histologic effects of bioelectric interfaces for neural implants.

Results

Bioelectric devices can be characterized as intraneural, epineural, perineural, intranuclear, or cortical depending on their placement relative to nerves and neuronal cell bodies. Such devices include nerve‐specific stimulators, neuroprosthetics, brainstem implants, and deep brain stimulators. Regardless of electrode location and interface type, acute and chronic histological, macroscopic and functional changes can occur as a result of both passive and active tissue responses to the bioelectric implant.

Conclusion

A variety of chronically implantable electrodes have been developed to treat disorders of the peripheral and cranial nerves, to varying degrees of efficacy. Consideration and mitigation of detrimental effects at the neural interface with further optimization of functional nerve stimulation will facilitate the development of these technologies and translation to the clinic.

Level of Evidence

3.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) Safety Guidelines for the Reduction of Severe Neurological Injury

INTRODUCTION

Neurostimulation involves the implantation of devices to stimulate the brain, spinal cord, or peripheral or cranial nerves for the purpose of modulating the neural activity of the targeted structures to achieve specific therapeutic effects. Surgical placement of neurostimulation devices is associated with risks of neurologic injury, as well as possible sequelae from the local or systemic effects of the intervention. The goal of the Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) is to improve the safety of neurostimulation.

METHODS

The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) is dedicated to improving neurostimulation efficacy and patient safety. Over the past two decades the INS has established a process to use best evidence to improve care. This article updates work published by the NACC in 2014. NACC authors were chosen based on nomination to the INS executive board and were selected based on publications, academic acumen, international impact, and diversity. In areas in which evidence was lacking, the NACC used expert opinion to reach consensus.

RESULTS

The INS has developed recommendations that when properly utilized should improve patient safety and reduce the risk of injury and associated complications with implantable devices.

CONCLUSIONS

On behalf of INS, the NACC has published recommendations intended to reduce the risk of neurological injuries and complications while implanting stimulators.

Muscle Activation During Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation Occurs Due to Recruitment of Efferent Nerve Fibers, Not Direct Muscle Activation

BACKGROUND

Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) is a potential treatment for chronic low-back pain. Pain relief using PNFS is dependent on activation of non-nociceptive Aβ-fibers. However, PNFS may also activate muscles, causing twitches and discomfort. In this study, we developed a mathematical model, to investigate the activation of sensory and motor nerves, as well as direct muscle fiber activation.

METHODS

The extracellular field was estimated using a finite element model based on the geometry of CT scanned lumbar vertebrae. The electrode was modeled as being implanted to a depth of 10-15 mm. Three implant directions were modeled; horizontally, vertically, and diagonally. Both single electrode and "between-lead" stimulation between contralateral electrodes were modeled. The extracellular field was combined with models of sensory Aβ-nerves, motor neurons and muscle fibers to estimate their activation thresholds.

RESULTS

The model showed that sensory Aβ fibers could be activated with thresholds down to 0.563 V, and the lowest threshold for motor nerve activation was 7.19 V using between-lead stimulation with the cathode located closest to the nerves. All thresholds for direct muscle activation were above 500 V.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that direct muscle activation does not occur during PNFS, and concomitant motor and sensory nerve fiber activation are only likely to occur when using between-lead configuration. Thus, it may be relevant to investigate the location of the innervation zone of the low-back muscles prior to electrode implantation to avoid muscle activation.

Peripheral nerve field stimulation for trigeminal neuralgia, trigeminal neuropathic pain, and persistent idiopathic facial pain

Objective

Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) is a promising modality for treatment of intractable facial pain. However, evidence is sparse. We are therefore presenting our experience with this technique in a small patient cohort.

Methods

Records of 10 patients (five men, five women) with intractable facial pain who underwent implantation of one or several subcutaneous electrodes for trigeminal nerve field stimulation were retrospectively analyzed. Patients’ data, including pain location, etiology, duration, previous treatments, long-term effects and complications, were evaluated.

Results

Four patients suffered from recurrent classical trigeminal neuralgia, one had classical trigeminal neuralgia and was medically unfit for microvascular decompression. Two patients suffered from trigeminal neuropathy attributed to multiple sclerosis, one from post-herpetic neuropathy, one from trigeminal neuropathy following radiation therapy and one from persistent idiopathic facial pain. Average patient age was 74.2 years (range 57–87), and average symptom duration was 10.6 years (range 2–17). Eight patients proceeded to implantation after successful trial. Average follow-up after implantation was 11.3 months (range 5–28). Using the visual analog scale, average pain intensity was 9.3 (range 7–10) preoperatively and 0.75 (range 0–3) postoperatively. Six patients reported absence of pain with stimulation; two had only slight constant pain without attacks.

Conclusion

PNFS may be an effective treatment for refractory facial pain and yields high patient satisfaction.