Real-world evidence of sustained improvement following 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation treatment for pain: a cross-sectional follow-up survey

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.

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.

Stimulating Superior Cluneal Nerves via Peripheral Nerve Stimulation as a Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain

Low back pain (LBP) is a challenging clinical condition for both patients and physicians. It requires a comprehensive initial diagnosis to avoid missing potential causes. One less common cause is superior cluneal neuralgia (SCN), which can present with limited lumbar motion, LBP, buttock pain, or an antalgic gait. While conservative therapies are often first line for LBP, neuromodulation, such as peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), can be considered for more refractory cases. This case report is unique in that SCN was treated with a temporary PNS system, which provided sustained analgesic benefits without the need for permanent implantation.

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.

Steering Toward Normative Wide-Dynamic-Range Neuron Activity in Nerve-Injured Rats With Closed-Loop Peripheral Nerve Stimulation

OBJECTIVES

Chronic pain is primarily treated with pharmaceuticals, but the effects remain unsatisfactory. A promising alternative therapy is peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), but it has been associated with suboptimal efficacy because its modulation mechanisms are not clear and the current therapies are primarily open loop (ie, manually adjusting the stimulation parameters). In this study, we developed a proof-of-concept computational modeling as the first step toward implementing closed-loop PNS in future biological studies. When developing new pain therapies, a useful pain biomarker is the wide-dynamic-range (WDR) neuron activity in the dorsal horn. In healthy animals, the WDR neuron activity occurs in a stereotyped manner; however, this response profile can vary widely after nerve injury to create a chronic pain condition. We hypothesized that if injury-induced changes of neuronal response can be normalized to resemble those of a healthy condition, the pathological aspects of pain may be treated while maintaining protective physiological nociception.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using an in vivo electrophysiology data set of WDR neuron recordings obtained in nerve-injured rats and naïve rats, we constructed sets of linear phenomenologic models of WDR firing rate during windup stimulation for both conditions. Then, we applied robust control systems techniques to identify a closed-loop PNS controller, which can drive the dynamics of WDR neuron response in neuropathic pain model into ranges associated with normal physiological pain.

RESULTS

The sets of identified linear models can accurately predict, in silico, nonlinear neural responses to electrical stimulation of the peripheral nerve. In addition, we showed that continuous closed-loop control of PNS can be used to normalize WDR neuron firing responses in three injured cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In this proof-of-concept study, we show how tractable, linear mathematical models of pain-related neurotransmission can be used to inform the development of closed-loop PNS. This new application of robust control to neurotechnology may also be expanded and applied across other neuromodulation applications.

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.

Efficacy of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation with a High Frequency Electromagnetic Coupled (HF-EMC) Powered Implanted Receiver in Treating Different Pain Targets/Neuralgias

Introduction

Chronic pain is a significant global public health problem. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been gaining popularity in recent years as it is effective, safe and less invasive than surgery for the treatment of chronic pain. The authors aimed to document and share a collection of patient-reported pain scores before and after implanting a percutaneous PNS lead/s with an external wireless generator at various target nerves.

Methods

The authors designed a retrospective study, reviewing electronic medical records. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 26; p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The mean baseline pain scores of 57 patients have reduced significantly after the procedure at different follow-up durations. Target nerves included genicular nerves, superior cluneal nerves, posterior tibial nerve ± sural nerve, middle cluneal nerves, radial and ulnar nerves and right common peroneal nerve. In the one-month follow-up group, mean pain score was reduced from 7.44 ± 1.48 pre-procedure to 1.6 ± 1.49, from 7.42 ± 1.5 pre-procedure to 1.6 ± 1.5 7.42 at 3 months, from 7.52 ± 1.5 to 1.72 ± 1.57 at 6 months, from 7.41 ± 1.53 to 1.7 ± 1.55 at 9 months, from 7.41 ± 1.58 to 1.76 ± 1.63 at 12 months, from 7.38 ± 1.59 to 1.69 ± 1.56 at 15 months and from 7.5 ± 1.7 to 1.45 ± 1.57 at 24 months (p ≤ 0.001). Patients also reported significant reduction in morphine milliequivalent, pre-procedure MME 47.75 ± 452.5 to 37.92 ± 43.51 at 6 months (p = 0.002, N = 57), pre-procedure MME 42.72 ± 43.19 to 30.38 ± 41.62 at 12 months (p = 0.003, N = 42), and pre-procedure MME 41.2 ± 46.12 to 21.19 ± 40.88 at 24 months (p ≤ 0.001, N = 27). The only complications occurred post procedure with 2 patients receiving an explant and 1 patient receiving a lead migration.

Conclusion

PNS has been shown to be safe and effective in treating chronic pain at different sites with sustained pain relief for up to 24 months. This study is unique in providing long-term follow-up data.

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.