Peripheral Nerve Stimulation and Clinical Outcomes: A Retrospective Case Series

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Pain Management: A Survey of Clinical Practice Patterns

BACKGROUND

Clinical interest in and utilization of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for treating chronic pain has significantly increased in recent years owing to its potential for providing analgesia and improved function and quality of life in comparison with pharmacologic treatments. However, the relative infancy of PNS-specific systems and limited clinical practice guidance likely contribute to significant variation in PNS utilization patterns.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to conduct a survey study to characterize PNS-specific clinical practices and propose the next steps in standardizing key practices for PNS utilization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 19-question survey exploring PNS-relevant clinical parameters was disseminated online to pain physicians in practice. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results.

RESULTS

A total of 94 responses were collected. Regarding patient selection, most practitioners would apply PNS to treat nociceptive pain from major joint osteoarthritis (77.7%) and chronic low back pain (64.9%), but not for axial neck pain (50.0%). In contrast, most would apply PNS to treat neuropathic pain from peripheral neuralgia (94.7%), pericranial neuralgia (77.7%), and cancer-related neuropathic pain (64.9%). In treating complex regional pain syndrome, most practitioners would apply PNS before all other forms of neuraxial neuromodulation (>50% for each form). Similarly, for treating nonsurgical low back pain, most would apply PNS before neuraxial neuromodulation (>50% for each form) but not before radiofrequency ablation (19.2%). Most routinely performed nerve blocks before PNS, mainly to confirm anatomical coverage (84.0%), and regarded a 50% to 75% interquartile range as the minimum analgesic benefit required before proceeding with PNS. Regarding nerve target selection for treating complex regional pain syndrome of the wrist/hand or ankle/foot, or knee osteoarthritis, we observed a very wide variance of PNS target locations and discrete nerves. Regarding "minor" adverse events, most reported not changing PNS utilization on encountering skin/soft tissue reactions (85.1%), minor infections (76.6%), or lead migration/loss of efficacy (50.0%). In comparison, most reported reducing PNS utilization on encountering skin erosion (58.5%), major infections (58.5%), or lead fractures (41.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant practice variation regarding the utilization of PNS across numerous key clinical considerations. Future research that explores the reasons driving these differences might help optimize patient selection, target selection, periprocedural management, and ultimately outcomes.

Peripheral nerve stimulation for saphenous neuralgia

BACKGROUND

Injury to saphenous nerve branches is frequent during knee surgery and can result in chronic pain. This saphenous neuralgia remains challenging to treat. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is a new potential non-pharmacologic treatment option. We present our outcomes experience using this technology in 12 patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed PNS placement for saphenous neuralgia between 2000 and 2022 at a single institution. Demographic information was collected as well as response to the device. Four-question short-form Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Scores were collected before and 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 6 months postprocedure. Specific scores included pain interference and behavior, functional mobility, depression, anxiety, and sleep impairment. Change in pain interference measured by the short-form PROMIS tool at 6 months was chosen as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Twelve patients met inclusion criteria, with 10 patients having the full 6-month follow-up. In these 10 patients, the mean change from baseline in the short-form adjusted pain interference score (greater difference means improved pain) at 6 months was 5.8 (SD 6.5). Among all patients, average follow-up was 11.5 months (range 3-35 months). Most patients' symptoms developed after knee surgery (84%). Prior to PNS, patients underwent other treatments including cryoablation (8%), radiofrequency ablation (16%), saphenous neurectomy (16%), or surgical release of adjacent nerves (25%). Ten patients (83%) reported any improvement in symptoms while two reported no benefit. Complications occurred in four patients (33%). Two patients had the device removed and a third discontinued use. PROMIS Scores for pain, functional mobility, mood, and sleep impairment all improved.

DISCUSSION

Limited effective treatments exist for saphenous neuralgia. Our case series demonstrates the potential of PNS as a treatment for saphenous neuralgia. Comparative effectiveness studies are warranted to assess whether our effect size is clinically relevant.

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.

Temporary Peripheral Nerve Stimulation as Treatment for Chronic Pain

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain is a growing problem across the world, and in the midst of an opioid epidemic, it is imperative that alternative treatment measures are identified to help alleviate the pain experienced by these patients. Chronic pain greatly affects ones quality of life and many patients do not experience adequate relief with conventional treatment measures. The purpose of this retrospective analysis is to assess the efficacy of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) therapy in adult patients suffering from chronic pain refractory to conventional treatment measures who underwent therapy on various anatomical locations.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis consisted of data collected from electronic health records for n = 89 patients who underwent PNS therapy. Data collected relates to patient age, sex, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, targeted nerves, follow-up encounters, pain scores from before and after PNS therapy, and duration of improvement. Statistical analysis used SPSS software, version 26 (IBM), using a paired t test to assess significance between pre and post PNS therapy pain scores. P values were significant if found to be ≤ 0.05. Further analysis assessed the correlation between age and BMI with visual analog scale (VAS) pain improvement and subjective percentage pain relief.

RESULTS

The mean pre-operative (pre-op) pain score before PNS therapy was 6.36 (standard deviation (SD) = 2.18, SEM = 0.23) and the mean post-operative (post-op) pain score after PNS therapy was 4.19 (SD = 2.70, SEM = 0.29). The mean patient-reported percent improvement in pain following PNS therapy was 49.04% (SD = 34.79). The improvement in pain scores between pre-op and post-op was statistically significant (M = 2.17, SD = 2.82, SEM = 0.30, t(88) = 7.26, p < .001), 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.57, 2.76]. The mean duration of improvement for patients was 123 days after therapy initiation (min = 6, max = 683, SD = 126).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the potential role for PNS therapy in improving patient-reported pain levels for various neuropathies, targeting various nerves. With PNS therapy's use as a chronic pain treatment and available research being limited, further study needs to be done on the efficacy of PNS therapy for pain management and complications associated with PNS device placements at various locations.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in Chronic Knee Pain: A Case Series

Introduction Chronic knee pain is increasing in prevalence and is associated with substantial limitations in functional mobility. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been increasingly used to treat various chronic pain conditions. However, there is a paucity of research exploring the potential therapeutic benefit of PNS for chronic knee pain. Methods This research is a retrospective case series of all patients who received PNS for the treatment of chronic knee pain performed at a single-center academic medical institution between March 2021 and June 2022. The primary outcome was percent pain reduction six months after implantation. Outcome data was obtained via chart review and phone calls to patients. Secondary outcomes included percent pain reduction two weeks and two months after implantation and adverse medical events related to the procedure and nerve stimulation. Results Fourteen individual patients received PNS for chronic knee pain during the study period. Three of these patients received bilateral PNS for a total of 17 cases. The mean percent pain reduction six months after implantation was 52% (SD=28.2) (N=12). A total of 75.0% of participants (9/12) reported ≥50% reductions in pain six months after implantation. No adverse events were reported relating to the implantation procedure and/or nerve stimulation. Conclusion PNS is a safe and efficacious treatment modality for chronic knee pain with demonstrated long-term benefit. Further research should clarify patient factors associated with improved treatment response.

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.

Safety of Scrambler Therapy: A Systematic Review of Complications and Adverse Effects

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to qualitatively synthesize all reported cases of complications, adverse effects, side effects, or harms arising from the use of scrambler therapy (ST).

METHODS AND DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, United States National Library of Medicine clinical trials registry, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from database inception to December 10, 2021. Case reports/series, abstracts, retrospective studies, and prospective studies (e.g., open-label trials, randomized controlled trials) pertaining to ST and any description of a complication, adverse effect, side effect, or harm were screened. The search protocol was developed a priori and registered via the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021291838).

RESULTS

A total of six RCTs, 19 prospective open-label trials, and 11 case series / case reports met the inclusion criteria, comprising 1,152 total patients. Two patients experienced contact dermatitis, and one patient reported minor ecchymosis that resolved without intervention. This yielded a composite complication rate of 0.26% (3/1,152). There were zero reported serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

When used in accordance with the treatment protocols described by the United States Food and Drug Administration and device manual, ST is associated with a reported composite complication rate that is orders of magnitude lower than those of invasive neuromodulation devices. ST neuromodulation is a safe alternative for patients who cannot undergo invasive neuromodulation device implantation because of either risk or preference.

No more tears from surgical site infections in interventional pain management

As the field of interventional pain management (IPM) grows, the risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) is increasing. SSI is defined as an infection of the incision or organ/space that occurs within one month after operation or three months after implantation. It is also common to find patients with suspected infection in an outpatient clinic. The most frequent IPM procedures are performed in the spine. Even though primary pyogenic spondylodiscitis via hematogenous spread is the most common type among spinal infections, secondary spinal infections from direct inoculation should be monitored after IPM procedures. Various preventive guidelines for SSI have been published. Cefazolin, followed by vancomycin, is the most commonly used surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in IPM. Diagnosis of SSI is confirmed by purulent discharge, isolation of causative organisms, pain/tenderness, swelling, redness, or heat, or diagnosis by a surgeon or attending physician. Inflammatory markers include traditional (C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and white blood cell count) and novel (procalcitonin, serum amyloid A, and presepsin) markers. Empirical antibiotic therapy is defined as the initial administration of antibiotics within at least 24 hours prior to the results of blood culture and antibiotic susceptibility testing. Definitive antibiotic therapy is initiated based on the above culture and testing. Combination antibiotic therapy for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria infections appears to be superior to monotherapy in mortality with the risk of increasing antibiotic resistance rates. The never-ending war between bacterial resistance and new antibiotics is continuing. This article reviews prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infection in pain medicine.

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation for chronic refractory neuropathic pain: a unique series

During the last two decades, with the advent of recent technology, peripheral nerve stimulation has become an appealing modality at the forefront of pain management. In this case series, we document the clinical rationale and technical considerations on three of the most challenging cases, refractory to previous interventions, that were treated by our team with an ultrasound-guided percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulator targeting the musculocutaneous, bilateral greater occipital and subcostal nerves. At the 6-month follow-up, all patients experienced greater than 50% relief of baseline pain, with a near-complete resolution of pain exacerbations. Furthermore, to our knowledge, this is the first report of an ultrasound-guided percutaneous technique of a peripheral nerve stimulator targeting the musculocutaneous and subcostal nerves.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in Painful Conditions of the Upper Extremity-An Overview

Our objective is to present a brief history of the evolution of peripheral nerve stimulation, the current understanding of peripheral nerve stimulation mechanisms in chronic pain, peripheral nerve stimulation applications in upper extremity chronic pain conditions, and complications of peripheral nerve stimulation. The evolution of peripheral nerve stimulation from the early ages to the current status has been facilitated by discoveries in neurobehavioral mechanisms of pain, advances in technology and percutaneous lead development, and the availability of high-quality portable ultrasound units. Peripheral nerve stimulation application in managing upper extremity pain of amputated limbs, post-stroke shoulder pain, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and median, ulnar, and radial neuropathies are discussed. Finally, we describe complications of peripheral nerve stimulation. The availability of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve stimulation techniques and superior peripheral nerve stimulation technology have opened up new and minimally invasive treatment options for chronic intractable neuropathic pain of the upper extremity. Additionally, the ability to place peripheral nerve stimulation leads percutaneously without open peripheral nerve surgery expands the pool of implanting physicians, while simultaneously decreasing the risks and complications that are associated with open surgery.

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 Lower Extremity Pain

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is rapidly increasing in use. This interventional pain treatment modality involves modulating peripheral nerves for a variety of chronic pain conditions. This review evaluated its use specifically in the context of chronic lower extremity pain. Studies continue to elucidate the utility of PNS and better define indications, contraindications, as well as short- and long-term benefits of the procedure for the lower extremity. While large, prospective evidence is still lacking, the best available evidence suggests that improvements may be seen in pain scores, functionality, and opioid consumption. Overall, evidence synthesis suggests that PNS for the lower extremities may be a viable option for patients with chronic lower extremity 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.