Temporary abolition of pain in man

Meta-analysis of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for relief of spinal pain

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis analysing the existing data on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) or interferential current (IFC) for chronic low back pain (CLBP) and/or neck pain (CNP) taking into account intensity and timing of stimulation, examining pain, function and disability. Seven electronic databases were searched for TENS or IFC treatment in non-specific CLBP or CNP. Four reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TENS or IFC intervention in adult individuals with non-specific CLBP or CNP. Primary outcomes were for self-reported pain intensity and back-specific disability. Two reviewers performed quality assessment, and two reviewers extracted data using a standardized form. Nine RCTs were selected (eight CLBP; one CNP), and seven studies with complete data sets were included for meta-analysis (655 participants). For CLBP, meta-analysis shows TENS/IFC intervention, independent of time of assessment, was significantly different from placebo/control (p < 0.02). TENS/IFC intervention was better than placebo/control, during therapy (p = 0.02), but not immediately after therapy (p = 0.08), or 1-3 months after therapy (p = 0.99). Analysis for adequate stimulation parameters was not significantly different, and there was no effect on disability. This systematic review provides inconclusive evidence of TENS benefits in low back pain patients because the quality of the studies was low, and adequate parameters and timing of assessment were not uniformly used or reported. Without additional high-quality clinical trials using sufficient sample sizes and adequate parameters and outcome assessments, the outcomes of this review are likely to remain unchanged.

SIGNIFICANCE

These data highlight the need for additional high-quality RCTs to examine the effects of TENS in CLBP. Trials should consider intensity of stimulation, timing of outcome assessment and assessment of pain, disability and function.

Electrical stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve reduces neuropathic pain in patients with polyneuropathy

Peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) is caused by neuronal damage to the peripheral nervous system and usually affects the distal extremities. This open-label study examined the effect of short-term peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) on individuals with PNP due to polyneuropathy. A total of 12 patients (mean age, 63.0 ± 10.0 years, 41.7% male) with daily bilateral PNP for at least 6 months (mean duration, 7.4 ± 7.8 years) received a total of six direct electrical stimulation therapies to the posterior tibial nerve at 3-4-day intervals. Eight patients completed the study and were included in the efficacy analysis. The average pain at baseline was 36.6 ± 3.80 estimated by the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. After the last stimulation, pain was significantly reduced by 85.5% to 4.88 ± 3.1 (p = 0.008). Six patients (75%) had over 50% decrease in pain after the first stimulation therapy and 99.2% after the final stimulation therapy. The patients also reported statistically significant decreases in pain level (measured by visual analog scale), ranging from 54.85% to 87.50% after each of the stimulations as compared to the pain experienced prior to the stimulations. The procedure was safe without any serious adverse events. PNS has demonstrated excellent efficacy and improvement of PNP symptoms. Further studies in larger patient populations are warranted.

Intraoperative Ultrasound for Peripheral Nerve Applications

Offering real-time, high-resolution images via intraoperative ultrasound is advantageous for a variety of peripheral nerve applications. To highlight the advantages of ultrasound, its extraoperative uses are reviewed. The current intraoperative uses, including nerve localization, real-time evaluation of peripheral nerve tumors, and implantation of leads for peripheral nerve stimulation, are reviewed. Although intraoperative peripheral nerve localization has been performed previously using guide wires and surgical dyes, the authors' approach using ultrasound-guided instrument clamps helps guide surgical dissection to the target nerve, which could lead to more timely operations and shorter incisions.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain, which is due to nerve disease or damage, represents a significant burden on people and society. It can be particularly unpleasant and achieving adequate symptom control can be difficult. Non-pharmacological methods of treatment are often employed by people with neuropathic pain and may include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). This review supersedes one Cochrane Review 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain' (Nnoaham 2014) and one withdrawn protocol 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults' (Claydon 2014). This review replaces the original protocol for neuropathic pain that was withdrawn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic effectiveness of TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, PEDro, LILACS (up to September 2016) and various clinical trials registries. We also searched bibliographies of included studies for further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials where TENS was evaluated in the treatment of central or peripheral neuropathic pain. We included studies if they investigated the following: TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all database search results and identified papers requiring full-text assessment. Subsequently, two review authors independently applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to these studies. The same review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies with 724 participants. We found a range of treatment protocols in terms of duration of care, TENS application times and intensity of application. Briefly, duration of care ranged from four days through to three months. Similarly, we found variation of TENS application times; from 15 minutes up to hourly sessions applied four times daily. We typically found intensity of TENS set to comfortable perceptible tingling with very few studies titrating the dose to maintain this perception. Of the comparisons, we had planned to explore, we were only able to undertake a quantitative synthesis for TENS versus sham TENS. Insufficient data and large diversity in the control conditions prevented us from undertaking a quantitative synthesis for the remaining comparisons.For TENS compared to sham TENS, five studies were suitable for pooled analysis. We described the remainder of the studies in narrative form. Overall, we judged 11 studies at high risk of bias, and four at unclear risk. Due to the small number of eligible studies, the high levels of risk of bias across the studies and small sample sizes, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the pooled analysis and very low individual GRADE rating of outcomes from single studies. For the individual studies discussed in narrative form, the methodological limitations, quality of reporting and heterogeneous nature of interventions compared did not allow for reliable overall estimates of the effect of TENS.Five studies (across various neuropathic conditions) were suitable for pooled analysis of TENS versus sham TENS investigating change in pain intensity using a visual analogue scale. We found a mean postintervention difference in effect size favouring TENS of -1.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.00001, n = 207, six comparisons from five studies) (very low quality evidence). There was no significant heterogeneity in this analysis. While this exceeded our prespecified minimally important difference for pain outcomes, we assessed the quality of evidence as very low meaning we have very little confidence in this effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from that reported in this review. Only one study of these five investigated health related quality of life as an outcome meaning we were unable to report on this outcome in this comparison. Similarly, we were unable to report on global impression of change or changes in analgesic use in this pooled analysis.Ten small studies compared TENS to some form of usual care. However, there was great diversity in what constituted usual care, precluding pooling of data. Most of these studies found either no difference in pain outcomes between TENS versus other active treatments or favoured the comparator intervention (very low quality evidence). We were unable to report on other primary and secondary outcomes in these single trials (health-related quality of life, global impression of change and changes in analgesic use).Of the 15 included studies, three reported adverse events which were minor and limited to 'skin irritation' at or around the site of electrode placement (very low quality evidence). Three studies reported no adverse events while the remainder did not report any detail with regard adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we reported on the comparison between TENS and sham TENS. The quality of the evidence was very low meaning we were unable to confidently state whether TENS is effective for pain control in people with neuropathic pain. The very low quality of evidence means we have very limited confidence in the effect estimate reported; the true effect is likely to be substantially different. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment modality.

Was it less painful for knights? Influence of appearance on pain perception

BACKGROUND

Pain perception is a subjective experience shaped by different factors. In this study, we investigated the influence of a visually manipulated appearance of a virtual arm on pain perception. Specifically, we investigated how pain perception and vegetative skin responses were modified by inducing a virtual protection on the right arm by a virtual armour.

METHODS

Participants (n = 32) immersed in virtual reality embodied a virtual arm, which appeared in three different versions (uncovered, neutral or protected). During the virtual reality simulation, the participants received electrical stimulations of varying intensities. Skin conductance level (SCL) was analysed for the phase anticipation (from the moment the arm appeared until the electric stimulation) and perception of pain (after the electric stimulation). Pain ratings were acquired after the painful stimuli occurred.

RESULTS

The sense of embodiment was positive for the unprotected and neutral condition and lower for the protected than for the neutral arm. Pain ratings were significantly decreased in the protected arm condition compared with both the unprotected arm and the neutral arm conditions. The SCL measurements showed no significant differences for the three arm types.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the pain ratings, participants felt significantly less pain in the covered arm condition compared with the unprotected and the neutral arm condition. Subjective pain perception was decreased by a virtual protection of the arm in VR. The simplicity of the manipulation suggests possible practical uses in pain therapy by strengthening the patients' own capacities to influence their pain using simple cognitive manipulations via virtual reality.

SIGNIFICANCE

A virtual, covered arm causes differences in reported pain ratings. Physiological measurements do not confirm the findings. Visual information about body protection can have an impact on pain perception.

Electroacupuncture Promotes Central Nervous System-Dependent Release of Mesenchymal Stem Cells

Electroacupuncture (EA) performed in rats and humans using limb acupuncture sites, LI-4 and LI-11, and GV-14 and GV-20 (humans) and Bai-hui (rats) increased functional connectivity between the anterior hypothalamus and the amygdala and mobilized mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) into the systemic circulation. In human subjects, the source of the MSC was found to be primarily adipose tissue, whereas in rodents the tissue sources were considered more heterogeneous. Pharmacological disinhibition of rat hypothalamus enhanced sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activation and similarly resulted in a release of MSC into the circulation. EA-mediated SNS activation was further supported by browning of white adipose tissue in rats. EA treatment of rats undergoing partial rupture of the Achilles tendon resulted in reduced mechanical hyperalgesia, increased serum interleukin-10 levels and tendon remodeling, effects blocked in propranolol-treated rodents. To distinguish the afferent role of the peripheral nervous system, phosphoinositide-interacting regulator of transient receptor potential channels (Pirt)-GCaMP3 (genetically encoded calcium sensor) mice were treated with EA acupuncture points, ST-36 and LIV-3, and GV-14 and Bai-hui and resulted in a rapid activation of primary sensory neurons. EA activated sensory ganglia and SNS centers to mediate the release of MSC that can enhance tissue repair, increase anti-inflammatory cytokine production and provide pronounced analgesic relief. Stem Cells 2017;35:1303-1315.

Acute Responses of Strength and Running Mechanics to Increasing and Decreasing Pain in Patients With Patellofemoral Pain

CONTEXT

  Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is typically exacerbated by repetitive activities that load the patellofemoral joint, such as running. Understanding the mediating effects of changes in pain in individuals with PFP might inform injury progression, rehabilitation, or both.

OBJECTIVE

  To investigate the effects of changing pain on muscular strength and running biomechanics in those with PFP.

DESIGN

  Crossover study.

SETTING

  University research laboratory.

PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS

  Seventeen participants (10 men, 7 women) with PFP.

INTERVENTION(S)

  Each participant completed knee pain-reducing and pain-inducing protocols in random order. The pain-reducing protocol consisted of 15 minutes of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) around the patella. The pain-inducing protocol was sets of 20 repeated single-legged squats (RSLS). Participants completed RSLS sets until either their pain was within at least 1 cm of their pain during an exhaustive run or they reached 10 sets.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

  Pain, isometric hip and trunk strength, and running mechanics were assessed before and after the protocols. Dependent variables were pain, normalized strength (abduction, extension, external rotation, lateral trunk flexion), and peak lower extremity kinematics and kinetics in all planes. Pain scores were analyzed using a Friedman test. Strength and mechanical variables were analyzed using repeated-measures analyses of variance. The α level was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

  Pain was decreased after the TENS (pretest: 3.10 ± 1.95, posttest: 1.89 ± 2.33) and increased after the RSLS (baseline: 3.10 ± 1.95, posttest: 4.38 ± 2.40) protocols (each P < .05). The RSLS protocol resulted in a decrease in hip-extension strength (baseline: 0.355 ± 0.08 kg/kg, posttest: 0.309 ± 0.09 kg/kg; P < .001). Peak plantar-flexion angle was decreased after RSLS (baseline: -13.97° ± 6.41°, posttest: -12.84° ± 6.45°; P = .003). Peak hip-extension (pretest: -2.31 ± 0.46) and hip-abduction (pretest: -2.02 ± 0.35) moments decreased after both the TENS (extension: -2.15 ± 0.48 Nm/kg, P = .015; abduction: -1.91 ± 0.33 Nm/kg, P = .015) and RSLS (extension: -2.18 ± 0.52 Nm/kg, P = .003; abduction: -1.87 ± 0.36 Nm/kg, P = .039) protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

  This study presents a novel and effective method of increasing pain in persons with PFP. Functionally increased pain after RSLS coincides with reduced hip-extensor muscle strength and decreased plantar-flexion angle during running. The TENS treatment decreased pain during running in those with PFP but failed to influence strength. Hip moments were reduced by both protocols, which may demonstrate that acute increases or decreases in pain cause runners to change their mechanics.

Gain control mechanisms in the nociceptive system

The "gate control theory of pain" of 1965 became famous for integrating clinical observations and the understanding of spinal dorsal horn circuitry at that time into a testable model. Although it became rapidly clear that spinal circuitry is much more complex than that proposed by Melzack and Wall, their prediction of the clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and spinal cord stimulation has left an important clinical legacy also 50 years later. In the meantime, it has been recognized that the sensitivity of the nociceptive system can be decreased or increased and that this "gain control" can occur at peripheral, spinal, and supraspinal levels. The resulting changes in pain sensitivity can be rapidly reversible or persistent, highly localized or widespread. Profiling of spatio-temporal characteristics of altered pain sensitivity (evoked pain to mechanical and/or heat stimuli) allows implications on the mechanisms likely active in a given patient, including peripheral or central sensitization, intraspinal or descending inhibition. This hypothesis generation in the diagnostic process is an essential step towards a mechanism-based treatment of pain. The challenge now is to generate the rational basis of multimodal pain therapy algorithms by including profile-based stratification of patients into studies on efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatment modalities. This review outlines the current evidence base for this approach.

Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve stimulation for neuropathic pain after brachial plexus injury: two case reports

Brachial plexus injury (BPI) often causes severe neuropathic pain that becomes chronic and difficult to treat pharmacologically or surgically. Here, we describe two cases of successful treatment of BPI with peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). Both patients had experienced severe neuropathic pain after incomplete BPI for a long time (32 and 17 years) and did not response to medication, radiofrequency neuroablation, or spinal cord stimulation. After PNS using ultrasound, their pain was relieved by more than 50% over the course of 1 year. Both patients were satisfied with their improved sleep and quality of life. We conclude that PNS could be an alternative therapeutic modality for neuropathic pain after BPI as it provides direct nerve stimulation, has few complications, and is easy to perform.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation of Brachial Plexus Nerve Roots and Supra-Scapular Nerve for Chronic Refractory Neuropathic Pain of the Upper Limb

OBJECTIVES

We report the outcome of a consecutive series of 26 patients suffering from chronic medically-refractory neuropathic pain of the upper limb (including 16 patients with complex regional pain syndrome), topographically limited, treated by brachial plexus (BP) nerve roots or supra-scapular nerve (SSN) peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The technique consisted in ultrasound-guided percutaneous implantation of a cylindrical lead (Pisces-Quad, Medtronic) close to the SSN or the cervical nerve roots within the BP, depending on the pain topography. All the patients underwent a positive trial stimulation before lead connection to a subcutaneous stimulator. Chronic bipolar stimulation mean parameters were: frequency 55.5 Hertz, voltage 1.17 Volts. The voltage was set below the threshold inducing muscle contractions or paresthesias.

RESULTS

Two patients were lost immediately after surgery. At last follow-up (mean 27.5 months), the 20 patients still using the stimulation experienced a mean pain relief of 67.1%. Seventeen patients were improved ≥50%, including 12 improved ≥70%. In 11 patients with a follow-up >2 years, the mean pain relief was 68%. At last follow-up, respectively, six out of the nine (67%) patients treated by SSN stimulation and 10 out of 17 patients (59%) treated by BP stimulation were improved ≥50%. At last follow-up, 12 out of 20 patients still using the stimulation were very satisfied, six were satisfied, and two were poorly satisfied. Complications were: stimulation intolerance due to shock-like sensations (three cases), superficial infection (1), lead fractures (2), and migration (1).

CONCLUSION

In this pilot study, SSN or BP roots PNS provided a relatively safe, durable and effective option to control upper limb neuropathic pain.

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation for analgesia following total knee arthroplasty: a prospective feasibility study

Background

Peripheral nerve stimulation has been used for decades to treat chronic pain but has not been used for postoperative analgesia due to multiple limitations, beginning with invasive electrode placement. With the development of small-diameter/gauge leads enabling percutaneous insertion, ultrasound guidance for accurate introduction, and stimulators small enough to be adhered to the skin, neurostimulation may now be provided in a similar manner to continuous peripheral nerve blocks. Here, we report on the use of ultrasound-guided percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation to treat postoperative pain.

Materials and methods

Subjects within 60 days of a total knee arthroplasty with pain insufficiently treated with oral analgesics had a 0.2-mm-diameter electrical lead (pre-loaded into a 20 gauge needle) introduced percutaneously using ultrasound guidance with the tip located approximately 0.5–1.0 cm from the femoral nerve (a second lead was inserted approximately 1.0–3.0 cm from the sciatic nerve for posterior knee pain). An external stimulator delivered current. Endpoints were assessed before and after lead insertion and the leads subsequently removed. Due to the small sample size for this pilot/feasibility study, no statistics were applied to the data.

Results

Leads were inserted in subjects (n = 5) 8–58 days postoperatively. Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation decreased pain an average of 93% at rest (from a mean of 5.0 to 0.2 on a 0–10 numeric rating scale), with 4 of 5 subjects experiencing complete resolution of pain. During passive and active knee motion pain decreased an average of 27 and 30%, respectively. Neither maximum passive nor active knee range-of-motion was consistently affected.

Conclusions

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation may be a practical modality for the treatment of postoperative pain following orthopedic surgical procedures, and further investigation appears warranted.

Current experience of spinal neuromodulation in chronic pain: Is there a role in children and young people?

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pain in children has been an under-recognized problem compared to adult pain. The aim of management is to help children and their families cope with the symptoms rather than a cure. Current medical treatments to reduce pain intensity are often short lived, poorly tolerated or ineffective.

RESULTS

The use of electrical stimulation to treat pain is the current basis of modern Neuromodulation at the spinal cord and has been well established as spinal cord stimulation in adult practice. This involves placement of an epidural electrode connected to a subcutaneous implanted pulse generator. The electrode generates an electrical field at the dorsal columns of the spinal cord that inhibits pain pathways. Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy in neuropathic pain states such as the failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome.

CONCLUSION

Despite its initial expense, Spinal cord stimulation is a cost effective therapy in the long term and has the advantages of being a minimally invasive therapy and reversible.

Trigemino-Cervical Neuropathic Pain Relieved by Serially Repeated Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation Without Tolerance: Case Report

BACKGROUND

With its relative simplicity and safety, peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS; PENS) is contributing to the re-emergence of peripheral nerve stimulation as an effective therapy for neuropathic pain (NPP).

CASE PRESENTATION

A 70-year-old woman had developed severe, medically refractory NPP unilaterally in the scalp and face 20 years earlier, following a maxillofacial surgical procedure. PNFS gave substantial relief of the pain and allodynia and was repeated successfully on a further 25 occasions over the subsequent five years. Tolerance did not develop.

CONCLUSION

Serially repeated PNFS can provide sustained relief of NPP over long periods, without tolerance, where a permanent implant may be inappropriate, unavailable, or declined.

Preferred frequencies and waveforms for spinal cord stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: A multicentre, double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Conventional tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for patients with therapy-resistant complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Although the therapeutic effect of SCS can diminish over time due to tolerance, pain control can be regained by changing the pulse width and the amplitude and/or by increasing the stimulation frequency. This multicentre, double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled crossover trial was conducted to investigate whether more effective pain reduction is achieved with different frequencies (trial registration, current controlled trials, ISRCTN 36655259).

METHODS

The investigated settings are as follows: standard 40, 500, 1200 Hz, burst and placebo stimulation. All five were programmed in random order during the 10-week crossover period (2 weeks/setting). The primary outcome parameters were scores on the visual analogue scale (VAS), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and the Global Perceived Effect (GPE); at the end of the crossover period, patients decided which SCS setting they preferred. A linear mixed models analysis was performed in 29 patients who completed the crossover trial.

RESULTS

Significant pain reduction and GPE satisfaction was achieved with four SCS settings compared with placebo stimulation, and these four settings did not differ significantly from each other. Standard stimulation was preferred by 48% of the patients, while 52% preferred non-standard stimulation. Other than pain reduction, factors such as user-friendliness, comfort and recharging time may have influenced the patient's final decision for the preferred stimulation setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Apparently, for various reasons, patients have a preference for different SCS setting. Therefore, future neuromodulation should aim to implement customized individual patient care by incorporating all stimulation options in one device.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study demonstrates that standard frequency SCS is an effective therapy for patients with CRPS. However, it also demonstrates that patients can often gain better pain reduction with non-standard frequencies of SCS. Furthermore, it shows that the preferred stimulation setting is not solely driven by the amount of pain reduction, but is also influenced by which stimulation setting feels most comfortable and provides the best user-friendliness. Therefore, we strive to maximize the therapeutic effects of SCS in as many patients as possible. This can be achieved with customized individual patient care by incorporating the various frequencies and waveforms into one single device.

Younger age predicts greater effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an accepted surgical treatment for neuropathic pain in failed back syndrome or complex regional pain syndrome. However, even in the best selected surgical cases the predictors of adequate pain control are not well defined. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of outcome in patients who underwent SCS in our center.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of our neurosurgical database for patients who underwent SCS over the last 8 years in an attempt to identify factors predictive of outcome.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients underwent implantation of epidural electrodes, 34 patients had a successful stimulation trial and received permanent devices. Nine patients experienced a late failure at a median time of 7.8 months (range, 4.5-19 months) after implantation. Age was significantly associated with outcome. Younger patients had a significantly lower rate of treatment failure, and none of the patients above 65 years had a successful long-term outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that younger age is associated with greater long-term effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation and therefore age may influence the success of SCS therapy with older patients having a greater tendency to failure. Earlier intervention may be beneficial in these chronic pain patients.

Targeting Lumbar Spinal Neural Circuitry by Epidural Stimulation to Restore Motor Function After Spinal Cord Injury

Epidural spinal cord stimulation has a long history of application for improving motor control in spinal cord injury. This review focuses on its resurgence following the progress made in understanding the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms and on recent reports of its augmentative effects upon otherwise subfunctional volitional motor control. Early work revealed that the spinal circuitry involved in lower-limb motor control can be accessed by stimulating through electrodes placed epidurally over the posterior aspect of the lumbar spinal cord below a paralyzing injury. Current understanding is that such stimulation activates large-to-medium-diameter sensory fibers within the posterior roots. Those fibers then trans-synaptically activate various spinal reflex circuits and plurisegmentally organized interneuronal networks that control more complex contraction and relaxation patterns involving multiple muscles. The induced change in responsiveness of this spinal motor circuitry to any residual supraspinal input via clinically silent translesional neural connections that have survived the injury may be a likely explanation for rudimentary volitional control enabled by epidural stimulation in otherwise paralyzed muscles. Technological developments that allow dynamic control of stimulation parameters and the potential for activity-dependent beneficial plasticity may further unveil the remarkable capacity of spinal motor processing that remains even after severe spinal cord injuries.

Enhanced salivary secretion by interferential current stimulation in patients with dry mouth: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

This pilot study tested the effects of submandibular and sublingual gland stimulation by interferential current stimulation (IFCS), a noninvasive mode of electrical stimulation.

STUDY DESIGN

Three groups were enrolled in this study: 20 young adults, 19 older adults, and 21 patients with dry mouth. Four electrodes were attached to the submandibular area, and the secreted saliva was collected by using Salivette cotton rolls (Sarstedt K. K., Tokyo, Japan) for 15 minutes, either with or without IFCS. Patients were randomly chosen to receive IFCS. Each subject rated pain and discomfort on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) after each experiment. Saliva chromogranin A levels were measured as a stress marker. To compare data between conditions with and without IFCS, a two-sample Student t test analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Saliva flow was slightly increased in those in the dry mouth group receiving IFCS compared with those who did not receive IFCS (approximately 130%). However, no such difference was found in the young and older adult groups. There was no significant difference in the VAS values of pain and discomfort or in the stress marker levels between patients who received or did not receive IFCS in the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

IFCS delivered to submandibular and sublingual glands may promote saliva secretion in persons who suffer from dry mouth in a manner that does not induce pain or physical stress.

Trigeminal branch stimulation for the treatment of intractable craniofacial pain

OBJECT

Trigeminal branch stimulation has been used in the treatment of craniofacial pain syndromes. The risks and benefits of such an approach have not been clearly delineated in large studies, however. The authors report their experience in treating craniofacial pain with trigeminal branch stimulation and share the lessons they have learned after 93 consecutive electrode placements.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients who underwent trigeminal branch electrode placement by the senior author (C.J.W.) for the treatment of craniofacial pain was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients underwent implantation of a total of 93 trial and permanent electrodes between 2006 and 2013. Fifteen patients who experienced improved pain control after trial stimulation underwent implantation of permanent stimulators and were followed for an average of 15 months. At last follow-up 73% of patients had improvement in pain control, whereas only 27% of patients had no pain improvement. No serious complications were seen during the course of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Trigeminal branch stimulation is a safe and effective treatment for a subset of patients with intractable craniofacial pain.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation of the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system for the treatment of chronic pain and ischemic diseases: the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee

INTRODUCTION

The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society (INS) evaluated evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of neurostimulation to treat chronic pain, chronic critical limb ischemia, and refractory angina and recommended appropriate clinical applications.

METHODS

The NACC used literature reviews, expert opinion, clinical experience, and individual research. Authors consulted the Practice Parameters for the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain (2006), systematic reviews (1984 to 2013), and prospective and randomized controlled trials (2005 to 2013) identified through PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

Neurostimulation is relatively safe because of its minimally invasive and reversible characteristics. Comparison with medical management is difficult, as patients considered for neurostimulation have failed conservative management. Unlike alternative therapies, neurostimulation is not associated with medication-related side effects and has enduring effect. Device-related complications are not uncommon; however, the incidence is becoming less frequent as technology progresses and surgical skills improve. Randomized controlled studies support the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in treating failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. Similar studies of neurostimulation for peripheral neuropathic pain, postamputation pain, postherpetic neuralgia, and other causes of nerve injury are needed. International guidelines recommend spinal cord stimulation to treat refractory angina; other indications, such as congestive heart failure, are being investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate neurostimulation is safe and effective in some chronic pain conditions. Technological refinements and clinical evidence will continue to expand its use. The NACC seeks to facilitate the efficacy and safety of neurostimulation.

Identification of spinal circuits transmitting and gating mechanical pain

Pain information processing in the spinal cord has been postulated to rely on nociceptive transmission (T) neurons receiving inputs from nociceptors and Aβ mechanoreceptors, with Aβ inputs gated through feed-forward activation of spinal inhibitory neurons (INs). Here, we used intersectional genetic manipulations to identify these critical components of pain transduction. Marking and ablating six populations of spinal excitatory and inhibitory neurons, coupled with behavioral and electrophysiological analysis, showed that excitatory neurons expressing somatostatin (SOM) include T-type cells, whose ablation causes loss of mechanical pain. Inhibitory neurons marked by the expression of dynorphin (Dyn) represent INs, which are necessary to gate Aβ fibers from activating SOM(+) neurons to evoke pain. Therefore, peripheral mechanical nociceptors and Aβ mechanoreceptors, together with spinal SOM(+) excitatory and Dyn(+) inhibitory neurons, form a microcircuit that transmits and gates mechanical pain. PAPERCLIP:

Peripheral neuromodulation: a review

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is likely the most diverse and rapidly expanding area of neuromodulation. Its expansion has become possible due to both technological and clinical advances in pain medicine. The first implantable systems were surgically placed. However, it is currently commonplace to use percutaneous leads, as this approach has become instrumental in its expansion. The first percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulators were reported in 1999. Cylindrical leads were implanted to stimulate the greater occipital nerve to manage intractable headache. It has been expanded into other individual nerves or nerve plexuses to treat neuropathic, visceral, cardiac, abdominal, low back and facial pain. The use of PNS in modulating organ function in treatment of syndromes such as epilepsy, incontinence and obesity with vagal, tibial and gastric stimulation is under extensive investigation. New technologies that allow easier and safer electrode placement are expected to further expand the uses of PNS. A noninvasive stimulation will open this treatment modality to more clinicians of varying backgrounds.

External Noninvasive Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: A Prospective Audit

BACKGROUND

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is a neuromodulation technique in which electrical current is applied to the peripheral nerves to ameliorate chronic pain through preferential activation of myelinated fibres, inducing long-term depression of synaptic efficacy. External noninvasive peripheral nerve stimulation (EN-PNS) is a novel and simple form of PNS that involves stimulation via an external nerve-mapping probe that is placed on the skin and connected to a power source.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the clinical utility of EN-PNS in patients with refractory neuropathic pains referred to a tertiary pain treatment center.

METHODS

We undertook a prospective audit of EN-PNS. Patients with a diagnosis of either complex regional pain syndrome or neuropathic pain after peripheral nerve injury who met inclusion criteria were included. Participants completed three stages of the audit: stage 1, six weekly outpatient treatment sessions; stage 2, six-week equipment home loan; stage 3, six weeks of no EN-PNS treatment. The primary outcome was the average post-treatment instantaneous pain intensity during the last week in stage 2 compared with baseline (11-point numerical rating scale).

RESULTS

EN-PNS provided significant short-term pain relief (n = 20 patients, average reduction of 2.8 numerical rating scale points, 95% CI 1.6-4.0, p < 0.001, intention-to-treat analysis). Eight patients (40%) improved in several outcome parameters ("responders"), including quality of life and function.

CONCLUSION

In this first prospective report on the use of EN-PNS in neuropathic pain, this technology provided significant clinical benefit for some patients. Controlled studies are required to confirm our results and the place of EN-PNS in future neuromodulation treatment algorithms. Given the refractory nature of these conditions, these results are encouraging.

Peripheral nerve stimulation by 'sandwich' paddle leads: technical note

BACKGROUND

Recently, there has been a burgeoning interest in the utility of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for a variety of chronic focal neuropathic, musculoskeletal and visceral pain conditions. If the source of pain is directly related to a single peripheral nerve, surgical exposure and placing a paddle lead on the nerve are most effective.

METHODS

In this report, we describe a novel technique that optimizes the peripheral nerve stimulation by two paddle leads placed on either side of the nerve with their stimulating surfaces in contact with the nerve. After appropriate prepping and draping, the selected nerve is localized and circumferentially dissected free from the adjacent soft tissue. There should be enough length of nerve to accommodate two On-Point quadripolar leads (Medtronic, MN) along the length of the nerve in the same direction.

RESULTS

This 'sandwich' technique provides a wider interface of contacts with nerve fibers. It reduces the chance of migration and provides an opportunity for 'crosstalk.'

CONCLUSION

In selected cases where an open surgical PNS lead needs to be placed, the 'sandwich' technique can be used to augment the stimulation without additional morbidity. Although occasionally used in practice, this technique is still unreported.

Peripheral nerve/field stimulation for chronic pain

Peripheral nerve stimulation and peripheral nerve field stimulation involve the delivery of electrical stimulation using implanted electrodes either over a target nerve or over the painful area with the goal of modulating neuropathic pain. The selection of appropriate candidates for this therapy hinges on skillful application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, psychological screening, and an invasive screening trial. Patients with significant improvement in pain severity and pain-related disability during the trial are considered candidates for implantation of a permanent system. As with other implanted devices for neuromodulation, risks of mechanical failures, infection, and neurologic complications exist.

Spinal cord stimulation: Background and clinical application

Background Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a surgical treatment for chronic neuropathic pain refractory to conventional treatment. SCS treatment consists of one or more leads implanted in the epidural space of the spinal canal, connected to an implantable pulse generator (IPG). Each lead carries a number of contacts capable of delivering a weak electrical current to the spinal cord, evoking a feeling of peripheral paresthesia. With correct indication and if implanted by an experienced implanter, success rates generally are in the range of about 50-75%. Common indications include complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS I), angina pectoris, and radicular pain after failed back surgery syndrome, and the treatment is also used to treat stump pain after amputation, and pain due to peripheral nerve injury, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetic neuropathy. Recommended contraindications for the treatment include pregnancy, coagulopathy, severe addiction to psychoactive substances, and lack of ability to cooperate (e.g. due to active psychosis or cognitive impairment). Most common complications to the treatment include lead migration, lead breakage, infection, pain over the implant, and dural puncture. Despite extensive research in the area, the mechanisms of action are still only partially understood. Methods In this topical review the historical background behind the treatment is described and the current theories on the mechanism of action are presented. The implantation procedure is described in detail and illustrated with a series of intraoperative pictures. Finally, indications for SCS are discussed along with some of the controversies surrounding the therapy. Implications The reader is presented with a broad overview of spinal cord stimulation, including the historical and theoretical background, practical implantation technique, and clinical application.

Pain control following inguinal herniorrhaphy: current perspectives

Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most common surgeries performed worldwide. With the success of modern hernia repair techniques, recurrence rates have significantly declined, with a lower incidence than the development of chronic postherniorrhaphy inguinal pain (CPIP). The avoidance of CPIP is arguably the most important clinical outcome and has the greatest impact on patient satisfaction, health care utilization, societal cost, and quality of life. The etiology of CPIP is multifactorial, with overlapping neuropathic and nociceptive components contributing to this complex syndrome. Treatment is often challenging, and no definitive treatment algorithm exists. Multidisciplinary management of this complex problem improves outcomes, as treatment must be individualized. Current medical, pharmacologic, interventional, and surgical management strategies are reviewed.

Peripheral trigeminal nerve field stimulation: report of 6 cases

OBJECT

Peripheral nerve field stimulation has been successfully used for many neuropathic syndromes. However, it has been reported as a treatment for trigeminal neuropathic pain or persistent idiopathic facial pain only in the recent years.

METHODS

The authors present a review of the literature and their own series of 6 patients who were treated with peripheral nerve stimulation for facial neuropathic pain, reporting excellent pain relief and subsequent better social relations and quality of life.

RESULTS

On average, pain scores in these patients decreased from 10 to 2.7 on the visual analog scale during a 17-month follow-up (range 0-32 months). The authors also observed the ability to decrease trigeminal pain with occipital nerve stimulation, clinically confirming the previously reported existence of a close anatomical connection between the trigeminal and occipital nerves (trigeminocervical nucleus).

CONCLUSIONS

Peripheral nerve field stimulation of the trigeminal and occipital nerves is a safe and effective treatment for trigeminal neuropathic pain and persistent idiopathic facial pain, when patients are strictly selected and electrodes are correctly placed under the hyperalgesia strip at the periphery of the allodynia region.

Chronic post-traumatic neuropathic pain of brachial plexus and upper limb: a new technique of peripheral nerve stimulation

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect on pain relief in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain after brachial plexus injuries using an implanted peripheral nerve stimulator applied directly to the nerve branch involved into the axillary cavity. Seven patients with post-traumatic brachial plexus lesions or distal peripheral nerve complaining of severe intractable chronic pain were enrolled in a single-centre, open-label trial. Conventional drugs and traditional surgical treatment were not effective. Patients underwent careful neurological evaluation, pain questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing (QST). Surgical treatment consists of a new surgical technique: a quadripolar electrode lead was placed directly on the sensory peripheral branch of the main nerve involved, proximally to the site of lesion, into the axillary cavity. To assess the effect, we performed a complete neuroalgological evaluation and QST battery after 1 week and again after 1, 6 and 12 weeks. All patients at baseline experienced severe pain with severe positive phenomena in the median (5) and/or radial (2) territory. After turning on the neuro-stimulator system, all patients experienced pain relief within a few minutes (>75 % and >95 % in most), with long-lasting pain relief with a reduction in mean Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) of 76.2 % after 6 months and of 71.5 % after 12 months. No significant adverse events occurred. We recommend and encourage this surgical technique for safety reasons; complications such as dislocation of electrocatheters are avoided. The peripheral nerve stimulation is effective and in severe neuropathic pain after post-traumatic nerve injuries of the upper limbs.

Constructing and deconstructing the gate theory of pain

The gate theory of pain, published by Ronald Melzack and Patrick Wall in Science in 1965, was formulated to provide a mechanism for coding the nociceptive component of cutaneous sensory input. The theory dealt explicitly with the apparent conflict in the 1960s between the paucity of sensory neurons that responded selectively to intense stimuli and the well-established finding that stimulation of the small fibers in peripheral nerves is required for the stimulus to be described as painful. It incorporated recently discovered mechanisms of presynaptic control of synaptic transmission from large and small sensory afferents, which was suggested to "gate" incoming information depending on the balance between these inputs. Other important features included the convergence of small and large sensory inputs on spinal neurons that transmitted the sensory information to the forebrain as well as the ability of descending control pathways to affect the biasing established by the gate. The clarity of the model and its description gave this article immediate visibility, with numerous attempts made to test its various predictions. Although subsequent experiments and clinical findings have made clear that the model is not correct in detail, the general ideas put forth in the article and the experiments they prompted in both animals and patients have transformed our understanding of pain mechanisms.

What makes transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation work? Making sense of the mixed results in the clinical literature

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a nonpharmacological treatment for control of pain. It has come under much scrutiny lately with the Center for Medicare Services rendering a recent decision stating that "TENS is not reasonable and necessary for the treatment of CLBP [chronic low back pain]." When reading and analyzing the existing literature for which systematic reviews show that TENS is inconclusive or ineffective, it is clear that a number of variables related to TENS application have not been considered. Although many of the trials were designed with the highest of standards, recent evidence suggests that factors related to TENS application need to be considered in an assessment of efficacy. These factors include dosing of TENS, negative interactions with long-term opioid use, the population and outcome assessed, timing of outcome measurement, and comparison groups. The purpose of this perspective is to highlight and interpret recent evidence to help improve the design of clinical trials and the efficacy of TENS in the clinical setting.

Neural mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation

Neuromodulation, specifically spinal cord stimulation (SCS), relieves pain and improves organ function. This chapter discusses the limited information presently available about the underlying mechanisms that explain the beneficial effects of treating patients with SCS. Where applicable, information is presented about translational research that illustrates the importance of collaboration between clinicians, basic scientists, and engineers. This chapter presents the infant stage of studies that attempt to explain the mechanisms which come into play for treating neuropathic pain, ischemic pain in peripheral vascular disease, and diseases of the visceral organs, specifically the gastrointestinal tract and the heart. The basic science studies will demonstrate how SCS acts on various pain syndromes and diseases via multiple pathways in the central nervous system as well as in somatic structures and visceral organs.