Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain: Prospective Case Series With 1 Year of Sustained Relief Following Short-Term Implant

Use of Temporary Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in an Oncologic Population: A Retrospective Review

OBJECTIVES

Patients with an underlying cancer diagnosis may experience pain from many sources. Temporary, percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is a minimally invasive procedure that can control pain in those who have failed conservative management. The purpose of this retrospective review is to show the use of PNS in managing pain in the oncologic setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Temporary, percutaneous PNS was placed under fluoroscopic or ultrasound guidance for 15 patients at a cancer pain facility. Cases were grouped by subtypes of cancer pain (ie, tumor-related, treatment-related, cancer-associated conditions, and cancer-independent). Before PNS, patients were refractory to medical management or previous interventional treatments. Patients were observed with routine clinic visits to monitor pain levels via visual analog scale (VAS) and quality-of-life measures. PNS was removed after the indicated 60-day treatment period.

RESULTS

This retrospective review presents ten successful cases of oncologic-related pain treated with PNS. Patients with subtypes of pain that were tumor related, from cancer-associated conditions, and cancer independent all experienced a similar degree of pain relief. However, patients with cancer-treatment-related pain experienced the least analgesia from PNS. We also present six cases in which PNS did not provide adequate pain relief.

CONCLUSION

PNS is an emerging technology in neuromodulation that may be useful in managing pain, especially in the oncologic population. Patients with cancer-related and non-cancer-related pain localized to a specific nerve distribution should be considered appropriate candidates for PNS. Further research is needed to optimize patient selection and indications for PNS in the population with cancer.

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.

Mechanism of Action of Temporary Peripheral Nerve Stimulation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) refers to the technique of utilizing electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves to inhibit the transmission of pain signals. PNS is used to treat chronic intractable pain and post-surgical or post-traumatic pain alongside a variety of other pain conditions, including headaches, facial pain, pelvic and urogenital pain, chest wall pain, residual limb or phantom limb pain, and back pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

More recently, PNS has been used temporarily for periods of time less than 60 days to treat acute post-surgical pain. Peripheral nerve stimulation is believed to be effective due to its effects on both central and peripheral pathways. Centrally, it is proposed that the electrical pulses of PNS inhibit alpha-delta and C fibers, which decreases pain signaling in the higher centers of the central nervous system. Peripherally, gate theory is applied as it is theorized that PNS downregulates inflammatory mediators, endorphins, and neurotransmitters associated with pain signaling to decrease the transmission of efferent nociception and reduce pain sensations.

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 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.

Mechanism of Action of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Pain: A Narrative Review

The use of stimulation of peripheral nerves to test or treat various medical disorders has been prevalent for a long time. Over the last few years, there has been growing evidence for the use of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for treating a myriad of chronic pain conditions such as limb mononeuropathies, nerve entrapments, peripheral nerve injuries, phantom limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, back pain, and even fibromyalgia. The ease of placement of a minimally invasive electrode via percutaneous approach in the close vicinity of the nerve and the ability to target various nerves have led to its widespread use and compliance. While most of the mechanism behind its role in neuromodulation is largely unknown, the gate control theory proposed by Melzack and Wall in the 1960s has been the mainstay for understanding its mechanism of action. In this review article, the authors performed a literature review to discuss the mechanism of action of PNS and discuss its safety and usefulness in treating chronic pain. The authors also discuss current PNS devices available in the market today.

Long term outcomes of occipital nerve stimulation

Background

Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been investigated as a potential treatment for disabling headaches and has shown promise for disorders such as chronic migraine and cluster headache. Long term outcomes stratified by headache subtype have had limited exploration, and literature on outcomes of this neuromodulatory intervention spanning 2 or more years is scarce.

Measures

We performed a narrative review on long term outcomes with ONS for treatment of headache disorders. We surveyed the available literature for studies that have outcomes for 24 months or greater to see if there is a habituation in response over time. Review of the literature revealed evidence in treatment of occipital neuralgia, chronic migraine, cluster headache, cervicogenic headache, short lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks (SUNHA) and paroxysmal hemicrania. While the term "response" varied per individual study, a total of 17 studies showed outcomes in ONS with long term sustained responses (as defined per this review) in the majority of patients with specific headache types 177/311 (56%). Only 7 studies in total (3 cluster, 1 occipital neuralgia, 1 cervicogenic headache, 1 SUNHA, 1 paroxysmal hemicrania) provided both short-term and long-term responses up to 24 months to ONS. In cluster headache, the majority of patients (64%) were long term responders (as defined per this review) and only a minority of patients 12/62 (19%) had loss of efficacy (e.g., habituation). There was a high number 313/439 (71%) of adverse events per total number of patients in the studies including lead migration, requirements of revision surgery, allergy to surgical materials, infection and intolerable paresthesias.

Conclusions

With the evidence available, the response to ONS was sustained in the majority of patients with cluster headache with low rates of loss of efficacy in this patient population. There was a high percent of adverse events per number of patients in long term follow-up and likely related to the off-label use of leads typically used for spinal cord stimulation. Further longitudinal assessments of outcomes in occipital nerve stimulation with devices labelled for use in peripheral nerve stimulation are needed to evaluate the extent of habituation to treatment in headache.

Implantable Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review of Prospective Studies

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been utilized for over 50 years with accumulating evidence of efficacy in a variety of chronic pain conditions. The level and strength of evidence supporting the use of PNS for peripheral neuropathic pain remains unclear. The purpose of this review is to synthesize data from prospective studies on the efficacy of PNS for neuropathic pain as it pertains to pain intensity, neurological deficits/neuropathy (e.g., weakness, sensory deficits, gait/balance), and other secondary outcomes (quality of life, satisfaction, emotional functioning, and adverse events). In compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, this review identified articles from MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. Overall, per the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, pooled results demonstrate very low quality or low quality of evidence supporting modest to substantial improvement in pain and neurological function after PNS implantation for treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain. PNS for phantom limb pain was the only indication that had moderate level evidence. Future prospective and well-powered studies are warranted to assess the efficacy of PNS for peripheral neuropathic 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.

The painful shoulder arthroplasty: appropriate work-up and review of interventional pain treatments

Shoulder arthroplasty is a successful surgical procedure for several conditions when patients become refractory to conservative management modalities. Unfortunately, some patients experience persistent chronic pain after shoulder arthroplasty. These individuals should undergo a comprehensive evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon to determine whether structural pathology is responsible for the pain and to decide whether reoperation is indicated. At times, a surgical solution does not exist. In these circumstances, a thorough and specific plan for the management of persistent chronic pain should be developed and instituted. In this article, we review common reasons for persistent pain after shoulder arthroplasty and outline the evaluation of the painful shoulder arthroplasty. We then provide a thorough review of interventional pain management strategies. Finally, we hypothesize developments in our field that might provide better outcomes in the future for patients suffering with chronic intractable pain after shoulder arthroplasty.

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.

Considerations in Permanent Implantation of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: An International Cross Sectional Survey of Implanters

INTRODUCTION

Novel minimally invasive short-term and long-term peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) systems have revolutionized targeted treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. We present an international survey of PNS-implanting pain physicians to assess what factors they consider when offering permanent PNS.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study consisted of a survey (Qualtrics) that was distributed to PNS-implanting physicians in a device supplier's entire email database on November 13, 2020, with 3 weeks of response time. Physicians' contact information in the form of their email addresses had been previously collected by the supplier upon device distribution with permission to use survey responses for research.

RESULTS

Of 2,032 database physicians, 40 physicians representing 37 institutions responded to the survey. The most common application of PNS was mononeuropathic pain (57%). The most frequently targeted nerve was the suprascapular nerve (29%). 14% of physicians reported 81-100% of their implants were dual-lead. The representative physicians ranged broadly in their most frequently-targeted nerves. Although mononeuropathic pain was the most common indication for PNS, there was still varied response regarding other indications such as CRPS and post-surgical chronic pain.

CONCLUSION

In context of a low response rate, identifying such factors can help update the prevailing treatment algorithm for interventional therapies, assist pain physicians in better identifying which patients are the best candidates for PNS, and inform future clinical trial design on PNS efficacy.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: The Evolution in Pain Medicine

Electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves has been utilized for a variety of indications for over five decades [...].

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: A Review of Techniques and Clinical Efficacy

Chronic pain is a common source of morbidity in many patient populations worldwide. There are growing concerns about the potential side effects of currently prescribed medications and a continued need for effective treatment. Related to these concerns, peripheral nerve stimulation has been regaining popularity as a potential treatment modality. Peripheral nerve stimulation components include helically coiled electrical leads, which direct an applied current to afferent neurons providing sensory innervation to the painful area. In theory, the applied current to the peripheral nerve will alter the large-diameter myelinated afferent nerve fibers, which interfere with the central processing of pain signals through small-diameter afferent fibers at the level of the spinal cord. Multiple studies have shown success in the use of peripheral nerve stimulation for acute post-surgical pain for orthopedic surgery, including post total knee arthroplasty and anterior cruciate ligament surgery, and chronic knee pain. Many studies have investigated the utility of peripheral nerve stimulation for the management of chronic shoulder pain. Peripheral nerve stimulation also serves as one of the potential non-pharmacologic therapies to treat back pain along with physical therapy, application of transcutaneous electrical neurostimulation unit, radiofrequency ablation, epidural steroid injections, permanently implanted neurostimulators, and surgery. Studies regarding back pain treatment have shown that peripheral nerve stimulation led to significant improvement in all pain and quality-of-life measures and a reduction in the use of opioids. Further studies are needed as the long-term risks and benefits of peripheral nerve stimulation have not been well studied as most information available on the effectiveness of peripheral nerve stimulation is based on shorter-term improvements in chronic pain.

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.

Clinical comparison of unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for single l4/5-level lumbar disk herniation

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this research was to investigate the outcomes between unilateral biportal endoscopic discectomy (UBE) and percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the single L4/5-level lumbar disk herniation (sLDH).

METHODS

From January 2018 to January 2021, a total of 40 patients with sLDH were retrospectively analyzed in this study. All the patients had received spinal surgeries in Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University and Affiliated Nantong Hospital 3 of Nantong University. Among them, 20 patients were treated with PELD (PELD group), and 20 patients were treated with UBE discectomy (UBE group). Postoperative length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, operation time, and clinical complications of the patients were compared between the two groups. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were measured before surgeries and 3 days, 1, and 6 months after surgeries.

RESULTS

Compared with the UBE group, the PELD group had obviously less intraoperative blood loss, shorter operative time, and shorter hospital stay. The differences in the rate of complications were not statistically significant between the two groups. The VAS score and the ODI score of the two groups had a great reduction after operation. In addition, both the groups had satisfactory clinical outcome; the VAS score and ODI of the PELD group decreased more obviously.

CONCLUSION

The UBE for sLDH yielded similar clinical outcomes to PELD as minimally invasive surgeries; however, PELD is superior to UBE in terms of intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative hospitalization, and short-term postoperative pain relief. The advantages and disadvantages of the two surgeries should be circumspectly balanced when evaluating a patient for a minimally invasive surgery for sLDH, selecting the most appropriate surgical method for patients.

Neuromodulation Applications for Chronic Pain

Chronic back pain is highly prevalent worldwide, affecting over 10% of the global population. It is a complex medical problem that affects individuals, families, and communities and has a costly economic impact through an impaired workforce. Pain mechanisms are complicated and include biological, psychological, and social components that can combine to drive unique pain experiences. Beyond conservative management with multimodal pharmacotherapy and more invasive surgical intervention for an identifiable anatomical abnormality, there are limited therapies for the resolution of chronic pain. However, exciting technological developments in spinal cord stimulation have renewed interest in neuromodulation for patients with refractory pain after both conservative and surgical management. Here, we review the efficacy of spinal cord stimulator technologies and other related technologies, including dorsal root ganglion stimulators and peripheral nerve stimulators, as well as highlight future areas of research.

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.

Neuromodulation for chronic pain

Neuromodulation is an expanding area of pain medicine that incorporates an array of non-invasive, minimally invasive, and surgical electrical therapies. In this Series paper, we focus on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies discussed within the framework of other invasive, minimally invasive, and non-invasive neuromodulation therapies. These therapies include deep brain and motor cortex stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and the non-invasive treatments of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. SCS methods with electrical variables that differ from traditional SCS have been approved. Although methods devoid of paraesthesias (eg, high frequency) should theoretically allow for placebo-controlled trials, few have been done. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that SCS is superior to reoperation or conventional medical management for failed back surgery syndrome, and conflicting evidence as to the superiority of traditional SCS over sham stimulation or between different SCS modalities. Peripheral nerve stimulation technologies have also undergone rapid development and become less invasive, including many that are placed percutaneously. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that peripheral nerve stimulation is effective for neuropathic pain in an extremity, low quality evidence that it is effective for back pain with or without leg pain, and conflicting evidence that it can prevent migraines. In the USA and many areas in Europe, deep brain and motor cortex stimulation are not approved for chronic pain, but are used off-label for refractory cases. Overall, there is mixed evidence supporting brain stimulation, with most sham-controlled trials yielding negative findings. Regarding non-invasive modalities, there is moderate quality evidence that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation does not provide meaningful benefit for chronic pain in general, but conflicting evidence regarding pain relief for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcranial direct current stimulation, there is low-quality evidence supporting its benefit for chronic pain, but conflicting evidence regarding a small treatment effect for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, there is low-quality evidence that it is superior to sham or no treatment for neuropathic pain, but conflicting evidence for non-neuropathic pain. Future research should focus on better evaluating the short-term and long-term effectiveness of all neuromodulation modalities and whether they decrease health-care use, and on refining selection criteria and treatment variables.

Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (PENS) as a Rehabilitation Approach for Reducing Mixed Chronic Pain in Patients with Musculoskeletal Disorders

“Mixed pain” is a term recently introduced to define the overlapping of nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic pain. To date, it has been reported that pharmacological treatments might have a modest effectiveness on patients affected by mixed chronic pain, with detrimental consequences in terms of disability, physical function and health-related quality of life. In this scenario, Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (PENS), a mini-invasive neuromodulation technique, has been recently suggested as a promising approach for the complex management of mixed pain in musculoskeletal disorders. Albeit PENS showed to be effective in reducing unspecified pain in several chronic pain conditions, there is still a lack of evidence in the literature about its role in the management of neuropathic or mixed pain not responsive to pharmacological treatments. Therefore, by the present scoping review, we portray the potential effects of PENS in the multidisciplinary and multidimensional management of mixed chronic pain in patients with musculoskeletal disorders.

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

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar radiofrequency ablation is a commonly used intervention for chronic back pain. However, the pain typically returns, and though retreatment may be successful, the procedure involves destruction of the medial branch nerves, which denervates the multifidus. Repeated procedures typically have diminishing returns, which can lead to opioid use, surgery, or implantation of permanent neuromodulation systems. The objective of this report is to demonstrate the potential use of percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) as a minimally invasive, nondestructive, motor-sparing alternative to repeat radiofrequency ablation and more invasive surgical procedures.

DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter trial.

METHODS

Individuals with a return of chronic axial pain after radiofrequency ablation underwent implantation of percutaneous PNS leads targeting the medial branch nerves. Stimulation was delivered for up to 60 days, after which the leads were removed. Participants were followed up to 5 months after the start of PNS. Outcomes included pain intensity, disability, and pain interference.

RESULTS

Highly clinically significant (≥50%) reductions in average pain intensity were reported by a majority of participants (67%, n = 10/15) after 2 months with PNS, and a majority experienced clinically significant improvements in functional outcomes, as measured by disability (87%, n = 13/15) and pain interference (80%, n = 12/15). Five months after PNS, 93% (n = 14/15) reported clinically meaningful improvement in one or more outcome measures, and a majority experienced clinically meaningful improvements in all three outcomes (i.e., pain intensity, disability, and pain interference).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous PNS has the potential to shift the pain management paradigm by providing an effective, nondestructive, motor-sparing neuromodulation treatment.

Peripherally Induced Reconditioning of the Central Nervous System: A Proposed Mechanistic Theory for Sustained Relief of Chronic Pain with Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an effective tool for the treatment of chronic pain, although its efficacy and utilization have previously been significantly limited by technology. In recent years, purpose-built percutaneous PNS devices have been developed to overcome the limitations of conventional permanently implanted neurostimulation devices. Recent clinical evidence suggests clinically significant and sustained reductions in pain can persist well beyond the PNS treatment period, outcomes that have not previously been observed with conventional permanently implanted neurostimulation devices. This narrative review summarizes mechanistic processes that contribute to chronic pain, and the potential mechanisms by which selective large diameter afferent fiber activation may reverse these changes to induce a prolonged reduction in pain. The interplay of these mechanisms, supported by data in chronic pain states that have been effectively treated with percutaneous PNS, will also be discussed in support of a new theory of pain management in neuromodulation: Peripherally Induced Reconditioning of the Central Nervous System (CNS).

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: A New Treatment for Meralgia Paresthetica

BACKGROUND

Meralgia paresthetica is a condition caused by entrapment of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve that leads to paresthesia along the anterolateral portion of the thigh. Because of advancements in neuromodulation, peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been considered a new treatment option for meralgia paresthetica. Newer PNS technology targets peripheral nerves directly yet in a minimally invasive manner. We report a case in which a PNS device provided more than 12 months of complete pain relief in a patient with meralgia paresthetica and helped the patient avoid a neurolysis procedure.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 57-year-old male presented to clinic with a 6-year history of "painful numbness [and] burning" along the right lateral thigh. He rated his pain as 8 out of 10, which decreased to a rating of 2 out of 10 with the use of gabapentin, but unwanted side effects motivated him to seek alternative treatment. On the basis of his history, physical exam, and imaging results, he was diagnosed with meralgia paresthetica. He was offered neurolysis; however, after seeing a pain specialist, he agreed to the implantation of a SPRINT peripheral nerve stimulator. After the implantation procedure, his pain reduced to 0 out of 10, and his quality of life improved, with better sleep and less somnolence. The device was removed after 60 days, as planned. He continued to have complete resolution of pain at 12 months after the date of device implantation.

CONCLUSION

With recent advancements, PNS can be used to treat meralgia paresthetica in an effective yet minimally invasive manner. As newer PNS technology becomes more familiar to physicians and pain specialists, it is likely to be used as a mainstay treatment for meralgia paresthetica.

Cryoneurolysis and Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation to Treat Acute Pain

Two regional analgesic modalities currently cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration hold promise to provide postoperative analgesia free of many of the limitations of both opioids and local anesthetic-based techniques. Cryoneurolysis uses exceptionally low temperature to reversibly ablate a peripheral nerve, resulting in temporary analgesia. Where applicable, it offers a unique option given its extended duration of action measured in weeks to months after a single application. Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation involves inserting an insulated lead through a needle to lie adjacent to a peripheral nerve. Analgesia is produced by introducing electrical current with an external pulse generator. It is a unique regional analgesic in that it does not induce sensory, motor, or proprioception deficits and is cleared for up to 60 days of use. However, both modalities have limited validation when applied to acute pain, and randomized, controlled trials are required to define both benefits and risks.

A Review of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Techniques Targeting the Medial Branches of the Lumbar Dorsal Rami in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVES

The lumbar medial branch nerve has historically been a focus for ablative techniques in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) of facetogenic origin. Recent developments in the field of neuromodulation have been employed to target these nerves for analgesia and/or functional restoration in broader populations of CLBP patients. The objective of this article was to provide an introductory review of procedural techniques and devices employed for peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the lumbar medial branch of the dorsal ramus for the treatment of CLBP.

METHODS

A literature search via PubMed.gov was performed through September 2019 with key words focusing on peripheral nerve stimulation for chronic low back pain. This was refined to include only those articles that focused specifically on stimulation of the lumbar medial branch of the dorsal ramus. References within selected articles and unpublished data currently in the peer review process were also utilized.

RESULTS

Ninety articles from PubMed.gov were obtained. Two approaches to PNS of the medial branch of the dorsal ramus were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review of the current literature regarding techniques for neuromodulation of the medial branch of the dorsal ramus revealed two dominant methods: a temporarily implanted percutaneous coiled-lead approach and a permanently implanted system. The two techniques share some similarities, such as targeting the medial branch of the dorsal ramus, and also have some differences, such as indwelling time, stimulation parameters, duration of treatment, image guidance, and degrees of invasiveness, but they are both demonstrating promising results in clinical trials.