Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Back Pain

Retrospective Evaluation of Bipolar Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Nociceptive and Neuropathic Pain: A Pilot Study

Purpose

This retrospective review evaluates pain and patient-defined functional goal improvement utilizing bipolar peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) in chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain states.

Patients and Methods

Our dataset includes 24 patients who underwent implantation of a permanent peripheral nerve stimulator from January 2018 through December 2022. A total of 29 leads were implanted amongst 24 patients, with 5 patients having leads at 2 different dermatomes. Fifteen leads were placed for primarily neuropathic pain, and 14 leads were placed for nociceptive pain. Inclusion criteria were the following: pain duration greater than 6 months, documented peri-procedural Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and greater than 60 days follow-up post implant.

Results

Data was collected and analyzed showing that 89.6% of implants at 6 months follow-up and 70% at 12 months follow-up achieved 50% or greater pain relief. A significant reduction in NPRS scores when comparing pre-procedure pain scores (Median = 7, n = 29) to 6-month follow-up data (Median = 2, n = 29), p<0.001 with a large effect size, r = 0.61. Ninety-three percent of patients reported achieving their personal functional goal. Twelve of the fourteen (86%) leads implanted for primary nociceptive pain and fourteen of the fifteen (93%) leads implanted for neuropathic pain achieved ≥50% relief at 6 months. At twelve months, seven leads in each group provided ≥50% sustained pain relief. Of the 14 patients that were on opioids, 6 discontinued, while another 2 had a reduction in oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME) at the 12-month follow-up.

Conclusion

This retrospective review demonstrates the potential clinical application of PNS in both nociceptive and neuropathic pain states. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate the effectiveness of PNS in the treatment of refractory nociceptive and neuropathic pain states.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain

Introduction

Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety.

Objective

The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented.

Results

After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain.

Conclusion

The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

Efficacy of Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain and Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVES

Various approaches have been developed with a view to treating the back pain component in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS). Emerging evidence shows that peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) may be an efficacious therapeutic modality against axial low back pain. Hence, the aim of the review was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of PNFS, when used alone or as an adjunct to spinal cord stimulation (SCS), for managing CLBP and PSPS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search for clinical studies on PNFS and PNFS + SCS used for the management of CLBP and/or PSPS was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE via Proquest, and Web of Science.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies were included, of which four were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nine were observational studies, and two were case series. For patients receiving PNFS, a significant decrease in back pain intensity and analgesic consumption, together with a significant improvement in physical functioning, was observed upon implant of the permanent system. Meanwhile, the addition of PNFS to SCS in refractory cases was associated with a significant reduction in back and leg pain, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that PNFS, when used alone or in combination with SCS, appears to be effective in managing back pain. However, high-quality evidence that supports the long-term analgesic efficacy and safety is still lacking. Hence, RCTs with a larger patient population and of a longer follow-up duration are warranted.

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.

Effects of Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Countermovement Jump and Squat Performance Speed in Male Soccer Players: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

It has been suggested that Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (PENS) can increase muscle strength. No previous study has investigated changes in performance in semiprofessional soccer players. This study compares the effects of adding two sessions of PENS to a training program versus the single training program over sport performance attributes (e.g., jump height and squat speed) in healthy soccer players. A cluster-randomized controlled trial was conducted on twenty-three semiprofessional soccer players who were randomized into an experimental (PENS + training program) or control (single training program) group. The training program consisted of endurance and strength exercises separated by 15-min recovery period, three times/week. The experimental group received two single sessions of PENS one-week apart. Flight time and vertical jump height during the countermovement jump and squat performance speed were assessed before and after each session, and 30 days after the last session. Male soccer players receiving the PENS intervention before the training session experienced greater increases in the flight time, and therefore, in vertical jump height, after both sessions, but not one month after than those who did not receive the PENS intervention (F = 4.289, p = 0.003, η 2 p: 0.170). Similarly, soccer players receiving the PENS intervention experienced a greater increase in the squat performance speed after the second session, but not after the first session or one month after (F = 7.947, p < 0.001, η 2 p: 0.275). Adding two sessions of ultrasound-guided PENS before a training strength program improves countermovement jump and squat performance speed in soccer players.

Chronic electrical stimulation reduces hyperalgesia and associated spinal changes induced by peripheral nerve injury

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate if different protocols of electrical stimulation following nerve injury might improve neuropathic pain outcomes and modify associated plastic changes at the spinal cord level.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult rats were subjected to sciatic nerve transection and repair, and distributed in four groups: untreated (SNTR, n = 12), repeated acute electrical stimulation (rAES, 50 Hz, one hour, n = 12), chronic electrical stimulation (CES, 50 Hz, one hour, n = 12), and increasing-frequency chronic electrical stimulation (iCES, one hour, n = 12) delivered during two weeks following the lesion. The threshold of nociceptive withdrawal to mechanical stimuli was evaluated by means of a Von Frey algesimeter during three weeks postlesion. Spinal cord samples were processed by immunohistochemistry for labeling glial cells, adrenergic receptors, K⁺ -Cl^- cotransporter 2 (KCC2) and GABA.

RESULTS

Acute electrical stimulation (50 Hz, one hour) delivered at 3, 7, and 14 days induced an immediate increase of mechanical pain threshold that disappeared after a few days. Chronic electrical stimulation given daily reduced mechanical hyperalgesia until the end of follow-up, being more sustained with the iCES than with constant 50 Hz stimulation (CES). Chronic stimulation protocols restored the expression of β2 adrenergic receptor and of KCC2 in the dorsal horn, which were significantly reduced by nerve injury. These treatments decreased also the activation of microglia and astrocytes in the dorsal horn.

CONCLUSION

Daily electrical stimulation, especially if frequency-patterned, was effective in ameliorating hyperalgesia after nerve injury, and partially preventing the proinflammatory and hyperalgesic changes in the dorsal horn associated to neuropathic pain.

Spinal Cauda Equina Stimulation for Alternative Location of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Intractable Phantom Limb Pain Syndrome: A Case Report

Phantom limb pain is a phenomenon in which patients experience pain in a part of the body that no longer exists. In several treatment modalities, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been introduced for the management of intractable post-amputation pain. A 46-year-old male patient complained of severe ankle and foot pain, following above-the-knee amputation surgery on the right side amputation surgery three years earlier. Despite undergoing treatment with multiple modalities for pain management involving numerous oral and intravenous medications, nerve blocks, and pulsed radiofrequency (RF) treatment, the effect duration was temporary and the decreases in the patient's pain score were not acceptable. Even the use of SCS did not provide completely satisfactory pain management. However, the trial lead positioning in the cauda equina was able to stimulate the site of the severe pain, and the patient's pain score was dramatically decreased. We report a case of successful pain management with spinal cauda equina stimulation following the failure of SCS in the treatment of intractable phantom limb pain.