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

Suprascapular nerve peripheral nerve stimulation for pediatric cancer pain: a case series

Aim: Despite the growing evidence supporting the use of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for cancer pain in adults, it is underutilized in the pediatric oncology population. Method: We describe the use of temporary, percutaneous PNS for pain management in pediatric patients suffering from cancer related pain. Results: Two adolescent patients underwent an ultrasound-guided suprascapular nerve PNS placement utilizing the percutaneous 60-day therapy system. Both patients reported approximately 60% pain relief during the therapy, as well as up to 90 days post lead removal. Conclusion: PNS may play a crucial role in the pediatric oncology population. Further studies are warranted to investigate the efficacy and safety of PNS for various cancer-related pain conditions in pediatric populations.

Real-world evidence of durable multi-dimensional improvement after 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation treatment used for shoulder pain

Aim: This real-world analysis aims to quantify improvements in multiple health domains in patients who received 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for shoulder pain. Materials & methods: Patients reported percent pain relief and Patient Global Impression of Change in quality of life, physical function and sleep at the end of treatment (EOT), 3 months, and 6 months. Results: Of 768 patients, 80.7% were responders in at least one domain at EOT. In a subset who were followed up, a cumulative 75% continued to respond in at least one domain through 6 months (85% [n = 140/165] at 3 months and 88% [n = 53/60] at 6 months). Conclusion: 60-day PNS used for shoulder pain produced multi-dimensional improvements across health domains at EOT and through 6 months.

Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of 60-Day Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Treatment Indicates Relief of Persistent Postoperative Pain, and Improved Function After Knee Replacement

OBJECTIVES

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective surgery for end-stage knee osteoarthritis, but chronic postoperative pain and reduced function affect up to 20% of patients who undergo such surgery. There are limited treatment options, but percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is a promising nonopioid treatment option for chronic, persistent postoperative pain. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of a 60-day percutaneous PNS treatment in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial for treating persistent postoperative pain after TKA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with postoperative pain after knee replacement were screened for this postmarket, institutional review board-approved, prospectively registered (NCT04341948) trial. Subjects were randomized to receive either active PNS or placebo (sham) stimulation. Subjects and a designated evaluator were blinded to group assignments. Subjects in both groups underwent ultrasound-guided placement of percutaneous fine-wire coiled leads targeting the femoral and sciatic nerves on the leg with postoperative pain. Leads were indwelling for eight weeks, and the primary efficacy outcome compared the proportion of subjects in each group reporting ≥50% reduction in average pain relative to baseline during weeks five to eight. Functional outcomes (6-minute walk test; 6MWT and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) and quality of life (Patient Global Impression of Change) also were evaluated at end of treatment (EOT).

RESULTS

A greater proportion of subjects in the PNS groups (60%; 12/20) than in the placebo (sham) group (24%; 5/21) responded with ≥50% pain relief relative to baseline (p = 0.028) during the primary endpoint (weeks 5-8). Subjects in the PNS group also walked a significantly greater distance at EOT than did those in the placebo (sham) group (6MWT; +47% vs -9% change from baseline; p = 0.048, n = 18 vs n = 20 completed the test, respectively). Prospective follow-up to 12 months is ongoing.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that percutaneous PNS decreases persistent pain, which leads to improved functional outcomes after TKA at EOT.

A review of prospective studies regarding percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation treatment in the management of chronic pain

Conventionally, peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for treatment of chronic pain has involved a two-stage process: a short-term (e.g., 7 days) trial and, if significant pain relief is achieved, a permanent PNS system is implanted. A percutaneous PNS treatment is now available where a coiled lead may be implanted for up to 60 days with the goal of producing sustained relief. In the present review, published prospective trials using percutaneous PNS treatment were identified and synthesized. The collected evidence indicates that percutaneous PNS treatment for up to 60 days provides durable clinically significant improvements in pain and pain interference. Similar efficacy across diverse targets and etiologies supports the broad applicability for use within the chronic pain population using this nonopioid technology.

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.

Changing Stimulation Frequency Improves Implanted Peripheral Nerve Stimulator Effects After Posttraumatic Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Case Report

ABSTRACT

Total hip arthroplasty is an effective procedure to improve pain, range of motion, and function for a variety of conditions, including osteoarthritis and posttraumatic arthritis. Up to 28% of patients had persistent pain at the surgical site 12-18 mos after total hip arthroplasty, even in the absence of surgical complications. Currently, there are no widely accepted nonpharmacological treatments for persistent postoperative pain for total hip arthroplasty. This case report details the successful management of a 53-yr-old man with chronic pain and weakness after posttraumatic total hip arthroplasty. He was initially treated with a single-lead percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulator near the right femoral nerve for 4 weeks with 100-Hz frequency sensory-level parameters. Four weeks after implantation, the frequency was changed to 12 Hz with a goal of motor-level stimulation. During the after 3-week time period, his hip flexion strength improved from 10.36 kg to 23.04 kg. His Lower Extremity Functional Scale improved from 35/80 (43.75%) to 54/80 (67.5%) within a 5-wk time period. This case's success demonstrates how peripheral nerve stimulation may help improve postoperative persistent pain and weakness in many patients, including those with posttraumatic arthroplasty.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation of the Shoulder: A Technical Primer

Scapulalgia or shoulder pain accounts for 16% of all musculoskeletal complaints in the healthy adult population and becomes more common as we age. When this pain exceeds 3 months in duration, it is deemed to be chronic, and typically treated in an escalating manner. Spanning a continuum of conservative and non-conservative measures, chronic shoulder pain treatments range from rest and physical therapy to surgery. Since each patient presents with a unique spectrum of symptoms a customized treatment plan is often required. Over the lifetime of many of these patients, a variety of treatment options are required. One of these treatment options, peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), is a minimally invasive procedure in which an electrical impulse is delivered through a percutaneously implanted, small caliber electrode to a peripheral nerve proximal to the lesion which interferes with the pain signals. Over the past several years, significant growth of PNS in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain has been observed. However, the procedural techniques have not been well described. The foundation of long-term, minimally invasive percutaneous PNS in patients with chronic shoulder pain, and procedural techniques for stimulating the suprascapular and axillary nerves using fluoroscopy or ultrasonography will be described in this report.

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.

Sustained Relief of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) Pain Following a 60-Day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: A Report of Three Cases

Patients who present to pain clinics with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) typically have debilitating pain, including hyperalgesia and allodynia, and additional substantial quality-of-life concerns related to the motor and autonomic-related symptoms of CRPS. Present treatments for CRPS such as neuropathic pain medications and sympathetic blocks are often unsatisfactory for managing symptoms. The present cases highlight the use of a 60-day percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment for three patients with CRPS Type I affecting the foot. In all three patients, the tibial and common peroneal nerves were targeted separately at the popliteal fossa with two percutaneous leads each placed a remote distance (~1 cm) from the target nerve under ultrasound guidance. All three patients reported substantial pain relief and resolution of autonomic symptoms (e.g., swelling, edema, erythema), with sustained relief lasting 8-10 months in two patients, and 34 months (as of this writing) in the third patient. There were no medical complications. These three cases suggest that 60-day PNS is a safe and efficacious treatment for CRPS.

A Side-Effect-Free Interventional Therapy for Precisely Eliminating Unresectable Cancer Pain

Of patients bearing unresectable tumors at advanced stages, most undergo serious pain. For unresectable tumors adjacent to vital organs or nerves, eliminating local cancer pain without adverse effects remains a formidable challenge. Interventional ablative therapies (IATs), such as radio frequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation, and irreversible electroporation, have been clinically adopted to treat various carcinomas. In this study, we established another palliative interventional therapy to eliminate local cancer pain, instead of relieving nociception temporarily. Here, we developed another interventional ablative therapy (termed nanoparticle-mediated microknife ablation) to locoregionally eliminate cancer pain and tumors. The IAT system was composed of self-assembled nanodrugs, infusion catheters, puncture needles, injection pump, and an empirical tumor ablation formula. Notably, the ablation formula established in the IAT system enables us to predict the essential nanoparticle (NP) numbers used for completely destroying tumors. In a mouse model of cancer pain, tumor-targeted nanodrugs made of Paclitaxel and Hematoporphyrin, which have an extremely high drug-loading efficiency (more than 60%), were infused into tumors through injection pumps under imaging guidance. In conclusion, when compared to classic chemotherapeutic agents, IAT showed significantly higher effectiveness in cancer pain removal. It also presented no damage to the nervous, sensory, and motor capabilities of the treated mice. All of these merits resulted from NPs' long-lasting retention, targeted ablation, and confined diffusion in tumor stroma. Therefore, this safe treatment modality has great potential to eradicate local cancer pain in the clinic.

Multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is multifactorial in nature, with recent research highlighting the role of multifidus dysfunction in a subset of nonspecific CLBP. This review aimed to provide a foundational reference that elucidates the pathophysiological cascade of multifidus dysfunction, how it contrasts with other CLBP etiologies and the role of restorative neurostimulation.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature.

RESULTS

In total, 194 articles were included, and findings were presented to highlight emerging principles related to multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation. Multifidus dysfunction is diagnosed by a history of mechanical, axial, nociceptive CLBP and exam demonstrating functional lumbar instability, which differs from other structural etiologies. Diagnostic images may be used to grade multifidus atrophy and assess other structural pathologies. While various treatments exist for CLBP, restorative neurostimulation distinguishes itself from traditional neurostimulation in a way that treats a different etiology, targets a different anatomical site, and has a distinctive mechanism of action.

CONCLUSIONS

Multifidus dysfunction has been proposed to result from loss of neuromuscular control, which may manifest clinically as muscle inhibition resulting in altered movement patterns. Over time, this cycle may result in potential atrophy, degeneration and CLBP. Restorative neurostimulation, a novel implantable neurostimulator system, stimulates the efferent lumbar medial branch nerve to elicit repetitive multifidus contractions. This intervention aims to interrupt the cycle of dysfunction and normalize multifidus activity incrementally, potentially restoring neuromuscular control. Restorative neurostimulation has been shown to reduce pain and disability in CLBP, improve quality of life and reduce health care expenditures.

Investigation into the Effectiveness of Combining Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation as Treatment Options for Poststroke Shoulder Pain by Utilizing Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy

Objective

The aim of this study is to explore the therapeutic effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on post stroke shoulder pain (PSSP).

Methods

We enrolled 13 individuals in this study who underwent three different treatments in a random sequence: active tDCS+active TENS, active tDCS+sham TENS, and sham tDCS+active TENS. Each treatment was administered once, with a 3-day washout period between interventions. A blinded rater assessed the visual analog scale (VAS) scores, fNIRS readings, and sensory and pain tolerance thresholds of the participants before and after the stimulation.

Results

All three treatment methods can significantly alleviate PSSP (p<0.05). Compared with using tDCS alone, tDCS+TENS can significantly improve pain, with a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). In the 2KHz PTT task, the three treatment methods showed significant differences (p<0.05) in the mean oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO) levels in the false premotor cortex (PMC)/auxiliary motor area (SMA) before and after intervention.

Conclusion

The combination of tDCS+TENS can increase the pain-relieving impact on PSSP when compared to using tDCS alone. TENS may contribute an additional effect on the inhibitory systems influenced by tDCS that help reduce pain.

Clinical Registration Number

Registration website: https://www.chictr.org.cn. Registration date: 2022-02-25. Registration number: ChiCTR2200056970.

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.

The Role of Ultrasound in Cancer and Cancer-Related Pain-A Bibliometric Analysis and Future Perspectives

Ultrasound has a deep penetrating ability with minimal or no tissue injury, while cancer-mediated complications during diagnosis, therapy, and surgery have become a serious challenge for clinicians and lead to the severity of the primary condition (cancer). The current study highlights the importance of ultrasound imaging and focused ultrasound therapy during cancer diagnosis, pain reduction, guidance for surgical resection of cancer, and the effectiveness of chemotherapy. We performed the bibliometric analysis on research domains involving ultrasound, cancer management, pain, and other challenges (chemotherapy, surgical guidance, and postoperative care), to observe the trend by which the research field has grown over the years and propose a possible future trend. The data was obtained from the Web of Science, processed, and exported as plain text files for analysis in the Bibliometrix R web interface using the Biblioshiny package. A total of 3248 documents were identified from 1100 journal sources. A total of 390 articles were published in 2022, with almost a 100% growth rate from previous years. Based on the various network analysis, we conclude that the outcome of the constant research in this domain will result in better patient care during the management of various diseases, including cancer and other co-morbidities.

Mediation of lateral hypothalamus orexin input to lateral habenula in the inhibitory effects of mechanical stimulation on psychomotor responses induced by cocaine

Introduction

The lateral hypothalamus (LH) plays an important physiological role in brain function and also plays an important role in substance abuse. The neuropeptides called orexin (or hypocretins) have been identified as being located exclusively in the cell bodies of the LH. Our previous studies have demonstrated that mechanical stimulation (MS) of the ulnar nerve produces strong inhibitory effects on cocaine addiction-like behaviors through activation of LH projection to the lateral habenula (LHb).

Methods

Therefore, the present study hypothesized that ulnar MS would suppress the psychomotor responses induced by cocaine through the orexinergic LH-to-LHb pathway.

Results

Ulnar MS attenuated cocaine enhancement of locomotor activity and 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations, which was prevented by antagonism of orexin-receptor type 2 (OX2R) in the LHb. Injection of orexin-A into the LHb reduced the cocaine-induced psychomotor responses. MS of the ulnar nerve excited LH orexinergic neurons. In addition, the excitation of LHb neurons by MS was blocked by the systemic administration of an OX2R antagonist.

Discussion

These findings suggest that MS applied to the ulnar nerve recruits an orexinergic LH-to-LHb pathway to suppress the psychomotor responses induced by cocaine.

Magnetic Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (mPNS) for Chronic Pain

Purpose

To assess magnetic peripheral nerve stimulation (mPNS) for the treatment of chronic or chronic and intractable neuropathic pain with a retrospective review case series.

Patients and methods

Twenty-four patients with predominantly neuropathic post-traumatic or postoperative pain were treated as per protocol and followed for 3 months.

Results

Data were analyzed as an observational, one-armed, convenience sample. Graphical evidence backed up by a mixed model for repeated measures statistical analysis showed a highly significant reduction of pain at one month out from initial treatment with mPNS. At one month, there was a 3.8 average reduction in pre-pain scores using a visual analogue scale (VAS), and that relief was generally durable measured out to three months. Two-thirds of patients, deemed responders, showed an 87% reduction in pain. Opioid reduction was seen in 58.3% of responders as well.

Conclusion

mPNS appears promising for the treatment of chronic or chronic and intractable neuropathic pain for many of the same indications as traditional electrical peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). No invasive techniques or implants are needed for mPNS.

Activation of a hypothalamus-habenula circuit by mechanical stimulation inhibits cocaine addiction-like behaviors

BACKGROUND

Mechanoreceptor activation modulates GABA neuron firing and dopamine (DA) release in the mesolimbic DA system, an area implicated in reward and substance abuse. The lateral habenula (LHb), the lateral hypothalamus (LH), and the mesolimbic DA system are not only reciprocally connected, but also involved in drug reward. We explored the effects of mechanical stimulation (MS) on cocaine addiction-like behaviors and the role of the LH-LHb circuit in the MS effects. MS was performed over ulnar nerve and the effects were evaluated by using drug seeking behaviors, optogenetics, chemogenetics, electrophysiology and immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

Mechanical stimulation attenuated locomotor activity in a nerve-dependent manner and 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs) and DA release in nucleus accumbens (NAc) following cocaine injection. The MS effects were ablated by electrolytic lesion or optogenetic inhibition of LHb. Optogenetic activation of LHb suppressed cocaine-enhanced 50 kHz USVs and locomotion. MS reversed cocaine suppression of neuronal activity of LHb. MS also inhibited cocaine-primed reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior, which was blocked by chemogenetic inhibition of an LH-LHb circuit.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that peripheral mechanical stimulation activates LH-LHb pathways to attenuate cocaine-induced psychomotor responses and seeking behaviors.

A Review of Chronic Pain and Device Interventions: Benefits and Future Directions

Chronic pain is a debilitating condition with a growing prevalence both in the USA and globally. The complex nature of this condition necessitates a multimodal approach to pain management that extends beyond the established pharmaceutical interventions currently employed. A variety of devices comprising both invasive and noninvasive approaches are available to patients, serving as adjuvants to existing regimens. The benefits of these interventions are notable for their lack of addiction potential, potential for patient autonomy regarding self-administration, minimal to no drug interaction, and overall relative safety. However, there remains a need for further research and more robust clinical trials to assess the true efficacy of these interventions and elucidate if there is an underlying physiological mechanism to their benefit in treating chronic pain or if their effect is predominantly placebo in nature. Regardless, the field of device-based intervention and treatment remains an evolving field with much promise for the future chronic pain management.

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.

Birds of a Feather Redux: Defining Ways to Stimulate the Peripheral Nervous System

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has become an essential component in the pain management plan for individuals suffering from peripheral nerve-mediated pain. The recent surge in interest in PNS can be attributed to the advancements in imaging techniques and the availability of minimally invasive stimulation systems along with a deeper grasp of PNS physiology. These advancements have made PNS more accessible to clinicians and patients alike. However, it is important to note that PNS requires a different set of technical requirements and skills compared to other pain management procedures. The work, knowledge, and surgical and interventional skillset required for PNS are in a class of their own. This article aims to educate and clarify the differences between procedures that may have similar names but are vastly different in terms of technology, expertise, and skill sets necessary for their safe implementation. Some of the procedures that this article will cover include indirect peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNfS), indirect percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), PENS-Field Stimulation (PENFS), and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). By understanding the differences between these procedures, patients and health-care providers can make informed decisions about the best approach for managing pain.

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.

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.

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.

Cancer Pain Management-New Therapies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the rapid advance in anti-cancer treatment in recent years, the treatment to cancer-related pain remains largely unchanged. One systemic review has shown that approximately 32% of patient with cancer-related pain were undertreated. While in patients responding to strong opioids, long-term use of opioids will lead to many undesired side effects such as constipation, tolerance, and addiction. The goals of this review are to re visit the current algorism of cancer pain management and bring attention to the emerging interventional pain management techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been successfully used to treat certain types of chronic non-cancer pain with long-term analgesic effect. PNS has also brought some promising results in treating localized cancer-related pain in a pilot study. More studies are needed to advance the novel and safe treatment of cancer-related pain. Incorporating interventional techniques such as PNS properly can optimize the current treatment strategy and improve outcomes.

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.

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.