Burst Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Migraine and Chronic Cluster Headache

Occipital nerve stimulation for cluster headache: lessons to learn from the 'voltage tuners'

BACKGROUND

Cluster headache (CH) is a significant health concern due to its major socioeconomic consequences and most patients being refractory to conventional strategies. For treatment resistant CH, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is considered an effective treatment option. Whereas most patients do not adjust the amplitude of the ONS system, a subset changes the amplitude on a regular basis using their remote control, and are therefore referred to as 'voltage tuners'. Anxiety and self-control are thought to be central themes to this behavior. Research on this voltage tuning behavior could provide new insights in the use of ONS as acute attack treatment. To date, voltage tuning has not been assessed for CH. Hence this is a unique study aiming to investigate the occurrence and efficacy of voltage tuning in patients with CH and ONS.

METHODS

For this analysis, patients with CH who received ONS from 2020-2024, at our university medical center, were included. All patients underwent bilateral ONS implantation. Data on attack frequency, intensity and duration were collected retrospectively. Outcomes on the response, frequency, moment during the day, duration, rationale, sensation, average increase in amplitude, and efficacy of voltage tuning were collected with prospective interviews.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients (M = 20) (42 ± 12.7 years) were included in the current analysis. At 1y follow-up, an overall response rate of 70% (23/33) was found for ONS. In total, 48% (18/33) of patients were defined as voltage tuners. Voltage tuning was performed with an average increase in amplitude of 92 (20-360)%, a frequency of 1-20 times/month and duration of 20 minutes-48 hours. Sensations of voltage tuning were described as "tingling" and/or "pinching". The rationale for voltage tuning in patients varied from prevention and ceasing to lowering the intensity and enhance control of CH attack.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes show that voltage tuning may cease and/or terminate CH attacks and therefore raise interests in the use of ONS as acute attack treatment for patients with resistant CH treated with ONS. Future research on the occurrence and potential of voltage tuning will provide valuable insights for achieving optimal efficacy of ONS and quality of life in patients with CH.

Cluster headache: understandings of current knowledge and directions for whole process management

Cluster headache (CH) is a common primary headache that severely impacts patients' quality of life, characterized by recurrent, severe, unilateral headaches often centered around the eyes, temples, or forehead. Distinguishing CH from other headache disorders is challenging, and its pathogenesis remains unclear. Notably, patients with CH often experience high levels of depression and suicidal tendencies, necessitating increased clinical attention. This comprehensive assessment combines various reports and the latest scientific literature to evaluate the current state of CH research. It covers epidemiology, population characteristics, predisposing factors, and treatment strategies. Additionally, we provide strategic insights into the holistic management of CH, which involves continuous, individualized care throughout the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation stages. Recent advances in the field have revealed new insights into the pathophysiology of CH. While these findings are still evolving, they offer a more detailed understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms underlying this disorder. This growing body of knowledge, alongside ongoing research efforts, promises to lead to the development of more targeted and effective treatments in the future.

Burst Stimulation Evokes Increased Bladder and Urethral Pressure in Patients With Sacral Neuromodulation, Indicating Potential Activation of the Autonomic Nervous System: A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

Currently, sacral neuromodulation (SNM) outcomes are often suboptimal, and changing stimulation parameters might improve SNM efficacy. Burst stimulation mimics physiological burst firing of the nervous system and might therefore benefit patients treated with SNM. The purpose of the present pilot study was to evaluate the effect of various Burst SNM paradigms on bladder and urethral pressure in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) or nonobstructive urinary retention (NOUR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The bladder was filled to 50% of its capacity under general anesthesia in six patients with an implanted sacral lead for SNM purposes. Bladder pressure, and mid- and proximal urethral pressure were measured using conventional (Con-) SNM and various Burst SNM paradigms (10-20-40 Hz interburst frequency) with increasing amplitudes up to 5 mA for Con-SNM and 4 mA for Burst SNM.

RESULTS

Burst SNM caused a substantial increase in both bladder and urethral pressure. In contrast, Con-SNM caused a milder increase in urethral pressure, and only one patient showed a modest increase in bladder pressure. Furthermore, the pressure increase was higher in the proximal urethra than in the midurethra using Burst-SNM, whereas Con-SNM caused comparable increases in proximal and midurethra pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

Burst SNM induces bladder contraction compared with Con-SNM and induces higher pressure increases in bladder and proximal urethra than does Con-SNM in patients with OAB or NOUR, indicating a higher degree of autonomic nervous system stimulation. The observed responses could not be fully explained by the total charge of the Burst SNM paradigms, which suggests the importance of individual Burst SNM parameters, such as frequency and amplitude. Future studies should assess the feasibility and efficacy of Burst SNM in awake patients.

Four Decades of Occipital Nerve Stimulation for Headache Disorders: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic headaches are a significant source of disability worldwide. Despite the development of conventional strategies, a subset of patients remain refractory and/or experience side effects following these treatments. Hence, occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) should be considered as an alternative strategy for intractable chronic headaches. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness, safety, mechanisms and practical application of ONS for the treatment of headache disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

Overall response rate of ONS is 35.7-100%, 17-100%, and 63-100% in patients with cluster headache, chronic migraine and occipital neuralgia respectively. Regarding the long-term effectivity in all groups, 41.6-88.0% of patients remain responders after ≥ 18.3 months. The most frequently reported adverse events include lead migration/fracture (13%) and local pain (7.3%). Based on our results, ONS can be considered a safe and effective treatment for chronic intractable headache disorders. To support more widespread application of ONS, additional research with larger sample sizes should be conducted.

Atypical refractory occipital neuralgia treated with a unilateral dual-lead occipital nerve stimulator: a case report

Aim: To describe the successful treatment of atypical occipital neuralgia (ON) using a unilateral dual-lead occipital nerve stimulator.Setting: Outpatient clinic/operating room.Patient: A 53-year-old male with atypical ON.Case description: Patient was previously diagnosed with treatment-refractory left-sided trigeminal neuralgia with atypical occipital distribution. On presentation, his symptoms were consistent with ON with distribution to the left fronto-orbital area. He received a left-sided nerve stimulator implant targeting both the greater and lesser occipital nerves.Results: Patient reported pain relief from a numerical rating scale 10/10 to 3-4/10.Conclusion: ON with referred ipsilateral trigeminal distribution should be considered when patients present with simultaneous facial and occipital pain. Further, a dual-lead unilateral stimulator approach may be a viable treatment.

Neuromodulation for Craniofacial Pain and Headaches

Headaches and facial pain are highly prevalent diseases but are often difficult to treat. Though there have been significant advances in medical management, many continue to suffer from refractory pain. Neuromodulation has been gaining interest for its therapeutic purposes in many chronic pain conditions, including headaches and facial pain. There are many potential targets of neuromodulation for headache and facial pain, and some have more robust evidence in favor of their use than others. Despite the need for more high-quality research, the available evidence for the use of neuromodulation in treating headaches and facial pain is promising. Considering the suffering that afflicts patients with intractable headache, neuromodulation may be an appropriate tool to improve not only pain but also disability and quality of life.

Current Neurostimulation Therapies for Chronic Pain Conditions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neurostimulation treatment options have become more commonly used for chronic pain conditions refractory to these options. In this review, we characterize current neurostimulation therapies for chronic pain conditions and provide an analysis of their effectiveness and clinical adoption. This manuscript will inform clinicians of treatment options for chronic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Non-invasive neurostimulation includes transcranial direct current stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, while more invasive options include spinal cord stimulation (SCS), peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation, motor cortex stimulation, and deep brain stimulation. Developments in transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, spinal cord stimulation, and peripheral nerve stimulation render these modalities most promising for the alleviating chronic pain. Neurostimulation for chronic pain involves non-invasive and invasive modalities with varying efficacy. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to delineate the outcomes of neurostimulatory modalities more precisely.

The HortONS study. Treatment of chronic cluster headache with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and occipital nerve stimulation: study protocol for a prospective, investigator-initiated, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a debilitating primary headache disorder. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has shown the potential to reduce attack frequency, but the occipital paresthesia evoked by conventional (tonic) stimulation challenges a blinded comparison of active stimulation and placebo. Burst ONS offers paresthesia-free stimulation, enabling a blinded, placebo-controlled study. Identification of a feasible preoperative test would help select the best candidates for implantation. This study aims to explore ONS as a preventive treatment for CCH, comparing burst stimulation to tonic stimulation and placebo, and possibly identifying a potential preoperative predictor.

METHODS

An investigator-initiated, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial is conducted, including 40 patients with CCH. Eligible patients complete a trial with the following elements: I) four weeks of baseline observation, II) 12 weeks of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) of the occipital nerves, III) implantation of a full ONS system followed by 2 week grace period, IV) 12 weeks of blinded trial with 1:1 randomization to either placebo (deactivated ONS system) or burst (paresthesia-free) stimulation, and V) 12 weeks of tonic stimulation. The primary outcomes are the reduction in headache attack frequency with TENS and ONS and treatment safety. Secondary outcomes are treatment efficacy of burst versus tonic ONS, the feasibility of TENS as a predictor for ONS outcome, reduction in headache pain intensity (numeric rating scale), reduction in background headache, the patient's impression of change (PGIC), health-related quality of life (EuroQoL-5D), self-reported sleep quality, and symptoms of anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS). Data on headache attack characteristics are registered weekly. Data on patient-reported outcomes are assessed after each trial phase.

DISCUSSION

The study design allows a comparison between burst ONS and placebo in refractory CCH and enables a comparison of the efficacy of burst and tonic ONS. It will provide information about the effect of burst ONS and explore whether the addition of this stimulation paradigm may improve stimulation protocols. TENS is evaluated as a feasible preoperative screening tool for ONS outcomes by comparing the effect of attack prevention of TENS and tonic ONS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (trial registration number NCT05023460, registration date 07-27-2023).

Treatment of chronic cluster headache with burst and tonic occipital nerve stimulation: A case series

OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND

Chronic cluster headache (CCH) is a rare but severely debilitating primary headache condition. A growing amount of evidence suggests that occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) can offer effective treatment in patients with severe CCH for whom conventional medical therapy does not have a sufficient effect. The paresthesia evoked by conventional (tonic) stimulation can be bothersome and may thus limit therapy. Burst ONS produces paresthesia-free stimulation, but the amount of evidence on the efficacy of burst ONS as a treatment for intractable CCH is scarce.

METHODS

In this case series, we report 15 patients with CCH treated with ONS at Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, from 2013 to 2020. Nine of these received burst stimulation either as primary treatment or as a supplement to tonic stimulation. The results were assessed in terms of the frequency of headache attacks per week and their intensity on the Numeric Rating Scale, as well as the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) with ONS treatment.

RESULTS

At a median (range) follow-up of 38 (16-96) months, 12 of the 15 patients (80%) reported a reduction in attack frequency of ≥50% (a reduction from a median of 35 to 1 attack/week, p < 0.001). Seven of these patients were treated with burst ONS. A significant reduction was also seen in maximum pain intensity. Overall, 10 patients stated a clinically important improvement in their headache condition following ONS treatment, rated on the PGIC scale. A total of 16 adverse events (nine of which were in the same patient) were registered.

CONCLUSION

Occipital nerve stimulation significantly reduced the number of weekly headache attacks and their intensity. Burst ONS seems to function well alone or as a supplement to conventional tonic ONS as a preventive treatment for CCH; however, larger prospective studies are needed to determine whether the effect can be confirmed and whether the efficacy of the two stimulation paradigms is even.

Primary headache disorders: From pathophysiology to neurostimulation therapies

Primary headache disorders including migraine, cluster headache, and tension-type headache are among the most common disabling diseases worldwide. The unclear pathogenesis of primary headache disorders has led to high rates of misdiagnosis and limited available treatment options. In this review, we have summarized the pathophysiological factors for a better understanding of primary headache disorders. Advances in functional neuroimaging, genetics, neurophysiology have indicated that cortical hyperexcitability, regional brain dysfunction, central sensitization and neuroplasticity changes play vital roles in the development of primary headache disorders. Moreover, we have also discussed a series of neurostimulation approaches with their stimulation mechanism, safety and efficacy for prevention and treatment of primary headache disorders. Noninvasive or implantable neurostimulation techniques show great promise for treating refractory primary headache disorders.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation: An Alternative Treatment of Chronic Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This paper will examine the efficacy and safety of occipital nerve stimulation as a non-pharmacological alternative treatment for migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Migraine is characterized as a primary headache disorder with possible premonitory and aura phases, both of which vary greatly in symptomatology. The most common treatments for chronic migraine are pharmacological and are aimed at both acute relief (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, triptans, and ergots) and prophylaxis (e.g., propranolol, valproic acid, and topiramate). For patients with medically refractory migraine, acute relief medication overuse can increase the risk of developing more severe and more frequent migraine attacks. Occipital nerve stimulation is a non-pharmacological alternative treatment for chronic migraine, which could eliminate the risk of adverse effects from acute relief medication overuse. Neurostimulation is thought to prevent pain by blocking signal transduction from small nociceptive fibers with non-painful signaling in larger adjacent fibers. Existing data from clinical trials support the overall safety and efficacy of occipital nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic migraine. However, few large controlled, double-blinded studies have been conducted, due to both practical and ethical concerns. Currently, occipital nerve stimulation is available as an off-label use of neurostimulation for pain prevention but is not approved by the FDA specifically for the treatment of chronic migraine.

Neurostimulation Treatment in Chronic Cluster Headache-a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this narrative review, the current literature on neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is evaluated. These neurostimulation methods include deep brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, greater occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, supraorbital nerve stimulation, and cervical spinal cord stimulation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Altogether, only nVNS and SPG stimulation are supported by at least one positive sham-controlled clinical trial for preventive and acute attack (only SPG stimulation) treatment. Other clinical trials either did not control at all or controlled by differences in the stimulation technique itself but not by a sham-control. Case series report higher responder rates. The evidence for these neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic cluster headache is poor and in part contradictive. However, except deep brain stimulation, tolerability and safety of these methods are good so that in refractory situations application might be justified in individual cases.

Update of Neuromodulation in Chronic Migraine

Purpose of Review

Neuromodulation devices have become an attractive alternative to traditional pharmacotherapy for migraine, especially for patients intolerant to medication or who prefer non-pharmacological options. In the past decades, many studies demonstrated the efficacy of neuromodulation devices in patients with episodic migraine (EM). However, the benefit of these devices on chronic migraine (CM), which is typically more debilitating and refractory than EM, remains not well studied.

Recent Findings

We reviewed the literature within the last five years on using FDA-cleared and investigational devices for CM. There were eight randomized controlled trials and 15 open-label observational studies on ten neuromodulation devices.

Summary

Neuromodulation is promising for use in CM, although efficacy varies among devices or individuals. Noninvasive devices are usually considered safe with minimal adverse events. However, stimulation protocol and methodology differ between studies. More well-designed studies adhering to the guideline may facilitate FDA clearance and better insurance coverage.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Treatment of Headaches: An Evidence-Based Review

Headaches are one of the most common medical complaints worldwide, and treatment is often made difficult because of misclassification. Peripheral nerve stimulation has emerged as a novel treatment for the treatment of intractable headaches in recent years. While high-quality evidence does exist regarding its use, efficacy is generally limited to specific nerves and headache types. While much research remains to bring this technology to the mainstream, clinicians are increasingly able to provide safe yet efficacious pain control.

Safety and efficacy of occipital nerve stimulation for attack prevention in medically intractable chronic cluster headache (ICON): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, electrical dose-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has shown promising results in small uncontrolled trials in patients with medically intractable chronic cluster headache (MICCH). We aimed to establish whether ONS could serve as an effective treatment for patients with MICCH.

METHODS

The ONS in MICCH (ICON) study is an investigator-initiated, international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3, electrical dose-controlled clinical trial. The study took place at four hospitals in the Netherlands, one hospital in Belgium, one in Germany, and one in Hungary. After 12 weeks' baseline observation, patients with MICCH, at least four attacks per week, and history of being non-responsive to at least three standard preventive drugs, were randomly allocated (at a 1:1 ratio using a computer-generated permuted block) to 24 weeks of occipital nerve stimulation at either 100% or 30% of the individually determined range between paraesthesia threshold and near-discomfort (double-blind study phase). Because ONS causes paraesthesia, preventing masked comparison versus placebo, we compared high-intensity versus low-intensity ONS, which are hypothesised to cause similar paraesthesia, but with different efficacy. In weeks 25-48, participants received individually optimised open-label ONS. The primary outcome was the weekly mean attack frequency in weeks 21-24 compared with baseline across all patients and, if a decrease was shown, to show a group-wise difference. The trial is closed to recruitment (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01151631).

FINDINGS

Patients were enrolled between Oct 12, 2010, and Dec 3, 2017. We enrolled 150 patients and randomly assigned 131 (87%) to treatment; 65 (50%) patients to 100% ONS and 66 (50%) to 30% ONS. One of the 66 patients assigned to 30% ONS was not implanted and was therefore excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. Because the weekly mean attack frequencies at baseline were skewed (median 15·75; IQR 9·44 to 24·75) we used log transformation to analyse the data and medians to present the results. Median weekly mean attack frequencies in the total population decreased from baseline to 7·38 (2·50 to 18·50; p<0·0001) in weeks 21-24, a median change of -5·21 (-11·18 to -0·19; p<0·0001) attacks per week. In the 100% ONS stimulation group, mean attack frequency decreased from 17·58 (9·83 to 29·33) at baseline to 9·50 (3·00 to 21·25) at 21-24 weeks (median change from baseline -4·08, -11·92 to -0·25), and for the 30% ONS stimulation group, mean attack frequency decreased from 15·00 (9·25 to 22·33) to 6·75 (1·50 to 16·50; -6·50, -10·83 to -0·08). The difference in median weekly mean attack frequency between groups at the end of the masked phase in weeks 21-24 was -2·42 (95% CI -5·17 to 3·33). In the masked study phase, 129 adverse events occurred with 100% ONS and 95 occurred with 30% ONS. None of the adverse events was unexpected but 17 with 100% ONS and eight with 30% ONS were labelled as serious, given they required brief hospital admission for minor hardware-related issues. The most common adverse events were local pain, impaired wound healing, neck stiffness, and hardware damage.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with MICCH, both 100% ONS intensity and 30% ONS intensity substantially reduced attack frequency and were safe and well tolerated. Future research should focus on optimising stimulation protocols and disentangling the underlying mechanism of action.

FUNDING

The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Ministry of Health, the NutsOhra Foundation from the Dutch Health Insurance Companies, and Medtronic.

Temperature-Mediated Nerve Blocks in the Treatment of Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Analgesic hot and cold temperatures have been used for both conservative and ablative therapies for millennia. There are well-known locoregional neurovascular changes associated with the application of heat or ice in the literature and in practice. The oscillation between heat and cold has recently been identified as a synergistic mechanism of action with early translational results in humans.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent mechanistic work in the feline model has demonstrated that a reliable, reversible nerve block can be achieved within a temperature range that is non-destructive (15-45°C). The underlying mechanism is a newly described hysteresis in the responsiveness of peripheral nerves to alternating thermal stimuli resulting in nerve blockade. Recently presented feasibility data reports positive results in subjects with occipital pain and peripheral scar pain in terms of pain and associated symptom improvement. Temperature-mediated changes in pain and sensation have been observed for hot and cold applications at a variety of temperatures. Recent insights into the synergy between preheating followed by cooling resulting in peripheral nerve fiber block has potential in a variety of conditions in which peripheral nerve etiology is noted. Recent findings in chronic headache patients report decreased pain and symptom improvement. Further studies are ongoing to understand the indications for this novel therapy.

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.

Effect of Occipital Nerve Stimulation (ONS) on the Orbicularis Oculi Reflex Triggered by a Standardized Air Flow in Patients with Chronic Migraine-A Prospective, Randomized, Interventional Study

Introduction

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a specific form of peripheral neuromodulation used in the treatment of chronic pain disorders. A particular field of application is in the therapy of treatment-refractory headaches, especially of chronic migraine. The precise mode of action is unknown. It is presumed that central and peripheral sensitization are reduced in patients with chronic headache. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of ONS on pain-modulatory mechanisms in the trigeminocervical area in patients with chronic migraine.

Methods

In a balanced repeated measurements design in eight patients with chronic migraine with and without active ONS, we analyzed which effects ONS had on the orbicularis oculi reflex dynamically elicited by corneal air flow.

Results

The orbicularis oculi reflex in active ONS (7.38 ± 20.14 eyelid closures/minute) compared to inactive ONS (18.73 ± 14.30 eyelid closures/minute) is significantly reduced (p = 0.021).

Conclusions

The results show that under active ONS compared to inactive ONS in patients with chronic migraine, the orbicularis oculi reflex, dynamically triggered by a standardized air flow, is significantly reduced. This suggests that ONS is able to directly counteract the trigeminally mediated central sensitization in chronic migraine and protectively reduce the effects of aversive peripheral stimulation.

Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Nerve Stimulation of Cervical, Thoracic, and Lumbar Spinal Nerves for Dermatomal Pain: A Case Series

OBJECTIVES

With the development of percutaneously inserted devices, peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been gaining attention within chronic pain literature as a less invasive neurostimulation alternative to spinal column and dorsal root ganglion stimulation. A majority of current PNS literature focuses on targeting individual distal nerves to treat individual peripheral mononeuropathies, limiting its applications. This article discusses our experience treating dermatomal pain with neurostimulation without needing to access the epidural space by targeting the proximal spinal nerve with peripheral nerve stimulation under ultrasound-guidance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A temporary, percutaneous PNS was used to target the proximal spinal nerve in 11 patients to treat various dermatomal pain syndromes in patients seen in an outpatient chronic pain clinic. Four patients received stimulation targeting the lumbar spinal nerves and seven patient received stimulation targeting the cervical or thoracic spinal nerves.

RESULTS

The case series presents 11 cases of PNS of the proximal spinal nerve. Seven patients, including a majority of the patients with lumbar radiculopathy, had analgesia during PNS. Four patients, all of whom targeted the cervical or thoracic spinal nerves, did not receive analgesia from PNS.

CONCLUSION

PNS of the proximal spinal nerve may be an effective modality to treat dermatomal pain in patients who are not candidates for other therapies that require access to the epidural space. This technique was used to successfully treat lumbar radiculopathy, post-herpetic neuralgia, and complex regional pain syndrome.

Occipital Nerve Stimulation in Chronic Migraine: The Relationship Between Perceived Sensory Quality, Perceived Sensory Location, and Clinical Efficacy-A Prospective, Observational, Non-Interventional Study

Introduction

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is used to treat therapy-resistant chronic migraine. Clinical use has resulted in a wide intraindividual and interindividual variation of clinical efficacy. The aim of this study was to analyze a potential relationship between sociodemographic variables, headache parameters, perceived sensory quality, perceived sensory location, as well as clinical efficacy.

Methods

Thirty-two subjects (21.9% male, mean age 45.77 years) suffering from chronic migraine refractory to other treatment and therefore treated with ONS were included in this study. We used a computer-based imaging method for mapping the ONS-induced perceived sensory location, the perceived spatial sensory field size, as well as the perceived sensory quality in a long-term course over 21 months in weekly time intervals. Additionally, the effect of ONS on the migraine headache was documented weekly by the participants using a verbal rating scale. Over the observation period, a total of 808 individual weekly data sets were recorded and a potential relationship between ONS-induced perceptions and headache parameters could be analyzed.

Results

We found that 48.9% of stimulation intervals were reported as effective by patients. Women displayed a significantly higher responder rate than men. The reported effectiveness did not differ depending on age, the average number of migraine days per month, the MIDAS score, or the duration of the migraine disorder prior to ONS treatment. Implantation with trial period led to significantly lower responder rates than without the trial period. The most frequently perceived sensory quality of “tingling” was found significantly more frequently in non-responders than in responders. Responders displayed significantly lower pleasantness scores for their reported perceptions than non-responders. Sensations that were spatially perceived above the line connecting the external acoustic meati with the external occipital protuberance (MOP line) led to patients reporting a positive clinical effect significantly more frequently than sensations spatially perceived below the MOP line. Spatially small fields of sensory perception were correlated with a higher responder rate than those covering broader areas.

Conclusions

The ONS-induced sensory location, the size of the spatial sensory field, as well as the sensory quality are significantly correlated with the reported clinical effectiveness. The results suggest that besides surgical technique, the individual and continuous programming of the stimulation parameters is clinically relevant in increasing the therapeutic effectiveness.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Occipital Neuralgia

Background

Chronic headaches are the second most prevalent disease and second most common cause for years lived with disability worldwide. Occipital neuralgia can cause headaches or be present in addition to other more prevalent causes of headache. If these headaches fail to respond to conservative and pharmacological therapy, physicians proceed to more invasive treatments, starting with infiltration of the greater occipital nerve with local anesthetic with or without corticosteroids, followed by nerve ablation or stimulation. Occipital nerve stimulation gained more popularity as the technology improved and more pain physicians received training on interventional procedures.

Methods

In this manuscript, we are presenting our experience with ultrasound-guided implant of occipital nerve stimulators using peripheral nerve stimulator systems. After confirming appropriateness of treatment by a successful occipital nerve block (i.e., resulting in &gt;50% relief in patients’ pain intensity), we implanted five stimulator systems in three patients (two bilateral).

Results

We followed these patients for an average of eight months, and the average pain reduction was ∼50%. We did not observe any adverse events during or immediately after surgery. One patient developed an adverse reaction to the adhesive of the battery transmitter, but it was not severe enough to stop her from using the stimulator.

Conclusions

Considering the ease of implant and minimal side effects, implant of peripheral nerve stimulators to stimulate the occipital nerve is a promising treatment modality for patients with chronic headache who present with features of occipital neuralgia. However, wider use of this treatment modality is subject to further studies.

Spinal cord stimulation programming: a crash course

The aim of this comprehensive review is to provide an instructional guide for providers regarding the parameters and programming of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices. Knowing these fundamentals will aid in providing superior pain relief to patients. SCS has four programmable parameters: contact (electrode) selection, amplitude, pulse width, and frequency. Each parameter needs to be accounted for when assessing which program works for which patient. Traditional open-loop systems allow for different "programs," or combinations of these four parameters, to be pre-set by the provider and medical device representative. These allow for flexibility in the type of stimulation delivered to the patient depending on activity. Patients are also given control over programs and changing the amplitudes of these programs. However, some open-loop systems place the burden of toggling between programs to manage pain control on patients, though this tends to be less in subparesthesia programs. Newer closed-loop systems make it possible for stimulation settings to automatically adjust in response to accelerometry and evoked compound action potential feedback, and therefore have the potential to streamline the patient experience. This article provides practitioners with the basic knowledge of SCS parameters and programming systems. Understanding their use is essential to providing optimal pain relief to patients.