Safety and Efficacy of Occipital Nerves Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Migraines: Randomized, Double-blind, Controlled Single-center Experience

Literature Review: Mechanism, Indications, and Clinical Efficacy of Peripheral Nerve Stimulators in Lower Extremity Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lower extremity pain is deemed by Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to be a significant source of chronic pain in adults. If not appropriately managed, patients are subjected to risks of prolonged musculoskeletal dysfunction, disruption to quality of life, and elevated healthcare expenditures. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has shown great potential in recent years demonstrating efficacy in multiple diagnoses ranging from acute post-surgical pain to complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). This study seeks to delineate efficacy of peripheral neuromodulation in the context of chronic lower extremity pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prevailing clinical studies demonstrate evidence levels ranging from II to V (Oxford Centre of Level of Evidence) in lower limb PNS, attaining positive outcomes in pain scores, opioid use, and quality of life measures. Nerves most frequently targeted are the sciatic and femoral nerves with post-amputation pain and CRPS most commonly investigated for efficacy. PNS is a promising therapeutic modality demonstrated to be effective for a variety of nociceptive and neuropathic pain conditions in the lower extremity. PNS offers chronic pain physicians a powerful tool in the multi-modal management of lower limb chronic pain.

Anatomo-physiological basis and applied techniques of electrical neuromodulation in chronic pain

Chronic pain, a complex and debilitating condition, poses a significant challenge to both patients and healthcare providers worldwide. Conventional pharmacological interventions often prove inadequate in delivering satisfactory relief while carrying the risks of addiction and adverse reactions. In recent years, electric neuromodulation emerged as a promising alternative in chronic pain management. This method entails the precise administration of electrical stimulation to specific nerves or regions within the central nervous system to regulate pain signals. Through mechanisms that include the alteration of neural activity and the release of endogenous pain-relieving substances, electric neuromodulation can effectively alleviate pain and improve patients' quality of life. Several modalities of electric neuromodulation, with a different grade of invasiveness, provide tailored strategies to tackle various forms and origins of chronic pain. Through an exploration of the anatomical and physiological pathways of chronic pain, encompassing neurotransmitter involvement, this narrative review offers insights into electrical therapies' mechanisms of action, clinical utility, and future perspectives in chronic pain management.

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.

Nonpharmacologic Treatments for Chronic and Episodic Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques for treatment-resistant migraine have been developed on recent insights into the peripheral pathogenesis of migraines. Although there is a growing body of evidence supporting these techniques, no study has yet compared the effects of these treatments on headache frequency, severity, duration, and cost.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify randomized placebo-controlled trials that compared radiofrequency ablation, botulinum toxin type A (BT-A), nerve block, neurostimulation, or migraine surgery to placebo for preventive treatment. Data on changes from baseline to follow-up in headache frequency, severity, duration, and quality of life were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 30 randomized controlled trials and 2680 patients were included. Compared with placebo, there was a significant decrease in headache frequency in patients with nerve block ( P = 0.04) and surgery ( P < 0.001). Headache severity decreased in all treatments. Duration of headaches was significantly reduced in the BT-A ( P < 0.001) and surgery cohorts ( P = 0.01). Quality of life improved significantly in patients with BT-A, nerve stimulator, and migraine surgery. Migraine surgery had the longest lasting effects (11.5 months) compared with nerve ablation (6 months), BT-A (3.2 months), and nerve block (11.9 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine surgery is a cost-effective, long-term treatment to reduce headache frequency, severity, and duration without significant risk of complication. BT-A reduces headache severity and duration, but it is short-lasting and associated with greater adverse events and lifetime cost. Although efficacious, radiofrequency ablation and implanted nerve stimulators have high risks of adverse events and explantation, whereas benefits of nerve blocks are short in duration.

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.

Neurosurgical Treatment of Pain

The aim of this review is to draw attention to neurosurgical approaches for treating chronic and opioid-resistant pain. In a first chapter, an up-to-date overview of the main pathophysiological mechanisms of pain has been carried out, with special emphasis on the details in which the surgical treatment is based. In a second part, the principal indications and results of different surgical approaches are reviewed. Cordotomy, Myelotomy, DREZ lesions, Trigeminal Nucleotomy, Mesencephalotomy, and Cingulotomy are revisited. Ablative procedures have a limited role in the management of chronic non-cancer pain, but they continues to help patients with refractory cancer-related pain. Another ablation lesion has been named and excluded, due to lack of current relevance. Peripheral Nerve, Spine Cord, and the principal possibilities of Deep Brain and Motor Cortex Stimulation are also revisited. Regarding electrical neuromodulation, patient selection remains a challenge.

Effects on neuromodulation, acupuncture, and aerobic exercises on migraine and tension-type headache outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Headache disorders are common diseases that cause a social burden. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of various non-pharmacological treatments to address or prevent acute headaches, including neuromodulation, acupuncture, and aerobic exercises in patients with episodic migraine and tension-type headache (TTH).

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG MEDICINE ONLINE, and Chinese Medical Journal database using Stata/SE 14.0 to obtain weighted mean differences (WMDs). The outcomes included monthly headache days, headache intensity, headache duration, days per month of acute medication use, and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey.

RESULTS

Of 872 identified articles, 27 were included in the meta-analysis. Neuromodulation was associated with reduced headache days (WMD: -1.274, 95% CI [-1.914, -0.634], P < .001), duration (WMD: -2.2, 95% CI [-3.32, -0.107], P < .001) and medication consumption (WMD: -1.808, 95% CI [-2.546, -1.071], P < .001) in cases of migraine. Acupuncture was associated with the alleviation of headache days (WMD: -0.677, 95% CI [-0.932, -0.422], P < .001) and intensity (WMD: -0.893, 95% CI [-1.573, -0.212], P = .01) in cases of migraine and acute medication use (WMD: -3.29, 95% CI [-4.86, -1.72], P < .001) in cases of TTH. Aerobic exercise was associated with reduced headache duration (WMD: -5.1, 95% CI [-8.97, -1.22], P = .01) in cases of TTH. The risk of bias for included articles was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

There is low- and moderate-quality evidence that neuromodulation, acupuncture, and aerobic exercises are associated with attenuated headache symptoms in patients with episodic migraine or TTH. However, high-quality studies are needed to draw more detailed conclusions.

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.

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.

Percutaneous Interventional Strategies for Migraine Prevention: A Systematic Review and Practice Guideline

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of percutaneous interventional treatments for prevention of migraine through a qualitative and (when possible) quantitative analysis.

METHODS

An expert panel was asked to develop recommendations for the multidisciplinary preventive treatment of migraine, including interventional strategies. The committee conducted a systematic review and (when evidence was sufficient) a meta-analytic review using GRADE criteria and the modified Cochrane risk of bias analysis available in the Covidence data management program. Clinical questions addressed adults with migraine who should be offered prevention. Examined outcomes included headache days, acute medication use, and functional impairment. Acute management of migraine was outside the scope of this guideline.

RESULTS

The committee screened 1195 studies and assessed 352 by full text, yielding 16 randomized controlled trials that met inclusion criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

As informed by evidence related to the preselected outcomes, adverse event profile, cost, and values and preferences of patients, onabotulinumtoxinA received a strong recommendation for chronic migraine prevention and a weak recommendation against use for episodic migraine prevention. Greater occipital nerve blocks received a weak recommendation for chronic migraine prevention. For greater occipital nerve block, steroid received a weak recommendation against use vs local anesthetic alone. Occipital nerve with supraorbital nerve blocks, sphenopalatine ganglion blocks, cervical spine percutaneous interventions, and implantable stimulation all received weak recommendations for chronic migraine prevention. The committee found insufficient evidence to assess trigger point injections in migraine prevention and highly discouraged use of intrathecal medication.

The Use of Electrical Nerve Stimulation to Treat Migraines: A Systematic Review

Migraines have been defined as an intense unilateral throbbing or pulsating sensation lasting anywhere between a few hours to multiple days. They are the sixth most prevalent disease in the United States, with approximately 18% of women and 6% of men experiencing some form of a migraine throughout their lifetime. In addition, they pose a significant economic burden, accounting for anywhere between $13 and $17 billion in medical costs annually in the United States. While there are a wide variety of treatments for migraines on the market, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), beta-blockers, and anti-epileptics, there is still no standard treatment. Moreover, each of these medications has a wide range of side effects, ranging from stomach ulcers to light-headedness. Within the last few decades, the presence of electrical nerve stimulation has emerged as a possible treatment option. These methods are almost free of harmful side effects and may be able to reduce the economic burden on those who suffer from migraines. However, studies have shown mixed results in regard to their efficacy. In this paper, we performed a systematic review to detail the current state of the literature regarding electrical nerve stimulation as a treatment modality for migraines.

An unusual case of lead migration in occipital nerve stimulation: A case report and literature review

Background:

Lead migration is a complication associated with occipital nerve stimulation (ONS). We present a rare case in which fibrosis in the stress relief loop caused lead migration in the treatment of occipital neuralgia.

Case Description:

A 30-year-old woman with a 5-year history of refractory occipital neuralgia, who had been under ONS therapy for 2 months, presented with a sudden onset of typical occipital neuralgia pain associated with cervical muscles spasms and myoclonus. A skull radiography showed lead migration. The patient underwent surgery for lead repositioning. During surgery, we identified extensive fibrosis throughout the stress relief loop that produced several constriction points. The fibrosis in the stress relief loop increased tension on the lead during head-and-neck movement, causing progressive migration of the lead.

Conclusion:

Although lead migration is a common complication of ONS, its association with fibrosis in the stress relief loop has not, to the best of our knowledge, been reported before. Lead migration can directly affect treatment outcome and it is, therefore, important to fully understand the possible mechanisms that can cause it and how to promptly manage them.

Long-Term Experience with Occipital and Supraorbital Nerve Stimulation for the Various Headache Disorders-A Retrospective Institutional Case Series of 96 Patients

OBJECTIVE

We have provided long-term data on clinically meaningful pain alleviation for drug-refractory headache disorders using occipital (ONS) and supraorbital nerve stimulation (SONS).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 96 patients with migraine, cervicogenic headache, cluster headache, neuropathic pain of the scalp, tension-type headache, and new daily persistent headache who had undergone ONS (61.5%), SONS (11.5%), or combined ONS plus SONS (27.1%) trial implantation and definitive implantation from 2007 to 2017. Changes in pain perception over time were monitored using the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 60.4% women and 39.6% men, with a mean age of 46.9 ± 11.5 years and pain duration of 14 ± 14.1 years. Of the 96 patients, 65 (67.7%) were treatment responders to a trial (≥30% amelioration in the average or maximum VAS score for pain and/or number of headache days) that had lasted 22.5 ± 8.8 days. The reduction in their average VAS score for pain was to 37% ± 24.4% of baseline compared with 99.1% ± 24.1% of baseline for those without a response (P < 0.01). Of the 56 patients who had undergone implantation and had long-term follow-up data available for ≤10 years, 32 (57.1%) reported a ≥50% reduction in their average VAS score for pain. Four patients (6.5%) had requested hardware explantation. Stage II complications included 1 infection (1.6%) and 6 electrode dislocations (9.7%). The study limitations included the retrospective nature, lack of controls receiving placebo intervention, and randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

After careful patient selection according to a positive response to a trial of ONS and/or SONS, clinically meaningful long-term benefit was achieved in 57.1% of our patients with various chronic headache conditions.

A Systematic Literature Review of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain

Objective

To conduct a systematic literature review of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for pain.

Design

Grade the evidence for PNS.

Methods

An international interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for PNS. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meaningful clinical outcomes that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, had less than two months of follow-up, or existed only as abstracts. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria.

Results

Peripheral nerve stimulation was studied in 14 RCTs for a variety of painful conditions (headache, shoulder, pelvic, back, extremity, and trunk pain). Moderate to strong evidence supported the use of PNS to treat pain.

Conclusion

Peripheral nerve stimulation has moderate/strong evidence. Additional prospective trials could further refine appropriate populations and pain diagnoses.

[Peripheral neurostimulation in headache treatment]

According to rough estimates, at least one third of the population in developed countries suffers, to varying degrees, from certain forms of primary headache, the modern pharmacotherapy of which is not always effective and has a number of limitations. The non-pharmacological treatment of headache can be an alternative to the prescription of pharmacological agents and the only possible assistance option for patients developing drug-resistant cephalalgias. This review describes various methods of electrical neuromodulation that are used for the management of primary headaches. The authors provide information on current stages in implementation of implantable and non-invasive equipment into clinical practice, which makes possible electrical stimulations of peripheral nerves and of the sphenopalatine ganglion, as well as allows transcranial magnetic stimulation. Also the appearance and usage of portable electrical devices available on the world market are described, and mechanisms that can underlie anticephalgic action of neuromodulation therapy are discussed. Special attention is paid to the methods that are applied for electrostimulation of the vagus nerve and occipital nerves.

Chronic Headache: a Review of Interventional Treatment Strategies in Headache Management

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

To provide an overview of current interventional pain management techniques for primary headaches with a focus on peripheral nerve stimulation and nerve blocks.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite a plethora of treatment modalities, some forms of headaches remain intractable to conservative therapies. Interventional pain modalities have found a niche in treating headaches. Individuals resistant to common regimens, intolerant to pharmaceutical agents, or those with co-morbid factors that cause interactions with their therapies are some instances where interventions could be considered in the therapeutic algorithm. In this review, we will discuss these techniques including peripheral nerve stimulation, third occipital nerve block (TON), lesser occipital nerve block (LON), greater occipital nerve block (GON), sphenopalatine block (SPG), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and cervical epidural steroid injections (CESI). Physicians have used several interventional techniques to treat primary headaches. While many can be treated pharmacologically, those who continue to suffer from refractory or severe headaches may see tremendous benefit from a range of more invasive treatments which focus on directly inhibiting the painful nerves. While there is a plethora of evidence suggesting these methods are effective and possibly durable interventions, there is still a need for large, prospective, randomized trials to clearly demonstrate their efficacy.

Effectiveness of Neurostimulation Technologies for the Management of Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To describe the state of the literature for clinical effectiveness of neurostimulation used for the management of chronic pain.

METHODS

A systematic review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS), and supraorbital transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with cancer and noncancer chronic pain was conducted. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials were searched, using terms like "electrical stimulation therapy" and "pain management." Direction of effect, consistency across studies, and strength of evidence for effects of neurostimulation on chronic pain were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining SCS, 7 RCTs examining PNS/PNFS, and 1 nonrandomized trial examining supraorbital transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) were included. In nine SCS studies, neurostimulation had positive effects on pain. In three studies, neurostimulation did not significantly reduce pain. For PNS/PNFS, five studies found improvements in pain offered by neurostimulation; pain outcomes were not reported in two studies. In the TENS study, neurostimulation reduced headaches per month and medication consumption. Overall, 21 studies were of low or unclear risk of bias, 4 were high risk of bias, and the TENS study was not appropriate for assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

CONCLUSIONS

A robust body of evidence examining SCS and PNS was identified. Only one study for PNFS and TENS was identified; both reported pain reductions. Generally, neurostimulation improved pain control. Future studies should examine the effectiveness of neurostimulation offered early in the trajectory of chronic pain.

Treatment of migraine attacks and prevention of migraine: Guidelines by the German Migraine and Headache Society and the German Society of Neurology

In collaboration with some of the leading headache centres in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, we have established new guidelines for the treatment of migraine attacks and the prevention of migraine. A thorough literature research of the last 10 years has been the basis of the current recommendations. At the beginning, we present therapeutic novelties, followed by a summary of all recommendations. After an introduction, we cover topics like drug therapy and practical experience, non-effective medication, migraine prevention, interventional methods, non-medicational and psychological methods for prevention and therapies without proof of efficacy.

Effects of Tonic Spinal Cord Stimulation on Sensory Perception in Chronic Pain Patients: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Even if spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is widely used and effective in treating intractable chronic neuropathic pain conditions, little is known about its possible impacts on sensory perception. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a useful tool to assess this issue. The aim of this study was to review the impact of tonic SCS on somatosensory perception quantified by QST in chronic pain patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant articles and abstracts were searched in all languages from CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Knowledge data bases. Data were extracted and included studies were assessed for risk of bias.

RESULTS

Out of 5610 records, 15 peer-reviewed articles were eligible and included. The results are heterogeneous due to inadequate comparability among studies for populations (a total of 224 patients diagnosed with more than 13 chronic pain conditions), QST parameters (22 measured with 25 different devices) and experimental procedures (study design, comparator, evaluation time, and area tested). The wide variety of studies, designs, populations, and measures included in this review did not lead to strong evidence on how conventional ("tonic") SCS affects sensory processing in patients with chronic pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The data available tend to suggest that conventional SCS does not interfere with perception of external stimuli. New studies that follow a standardized procedure and consider the possible influence of sensory profile, after-effect bias, and confounding factors are required to confirm this observation. Moreover, the impact on sensory perception of other SCS modalities and alternative electrical neuromodulation therapies could also be explored.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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