Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: The Evolution in Pain Medicine

A novel single-lead percutaneous approach for multi-nerve peripheral stimulation in upper extremity pain: A case report

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an emerging modality for managing painful peripheral neuropathy, offering potential long-term relief when conservative treatments fall short. Conventionally, each PNS lead targets a single nerve, necessitating multiple leads in cases involving pain across multiple nerve distributions. This case report presents a novel approach using a single PNS lead to target multiple peripheral nerves in the upper extremity via an axillary brachial plexus approach. We describe a 47-year-old female with a three-year history of intractable neuropathic pain localized to the ulnar and median nerve distributions, who underwent a temporary PNS trial after failing conventional therapies, including physical therapy, medications, and corticosteroid injections. Under ultrasound guidance, a single PNS lead was placed at the brachial plexus, targeting both ulnar and median nerves. Optimal stimulation thresholds were achieved, and the patient reported 80-100% pain relief throughout the 60-day trial period, with sustained relief for six months post-lead removal. This approach leverages the anatomical proximity of the ulnar, median, and radial nerves at the axilla, enabling multi-nerve targeting with a single lead. The technique offers potential advantages, including reduced procedural complexity, fewer risks, and cost savings, especially in the current landscape of increasing insurance denials for neuromodulation procedures.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation and Improved Functional Outcomes in a Prosthetic User: A Case Report

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an emerging option for postamputation pain. However, its impact on prosthesis use and comfort remains underexplored. This case report describes a patient whose chronic postamputation pain limited mobility, function, and prosthesis use. After failing conservative therapies, successful treatment was achieved with sciatic PNS which improved pain, prosthesis comfort, and functional outcomes as measured by the Orthotic and Prosthetic Users Survey Lower Extremity Functional Status Measure and Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility. Although surgical techniques, such as targeted muscle reinnervation, also enhance prosthetic function, PNS offers unique advantages.

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.

Pain intensity and opioid consumption after temporary and permanent peripheral nerve stimulation: a 2-year multicenter analysis

OBJECTIVE

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an emerging neuromodulation modality, yet there remains limited data highlighting its long-term effectiveness. The objective of this study was to report real-world data on pain intensity and opioid consumption after temporary and permanent PNS for chronic pain up to 24 months postimplantation.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on all patients who received PNS implants at a multi-centered enterprise between January 1, 2014 and February 24, 2022. The two co-primary outcomes were: (1) change in pain intensity (11-point Numerical Rating Scale) from baseline to 12 months postimplant; and (2) comparison of the change in pain intensity between temporary and permanent PNS cohorts 12 months postimplant.

RESULTS

126 patients were included in this analysis. Pain intensity significantly decreased 12 months postimplant in the overall cohort (mean difference (MD) -3.0 (95% CI -3.5 to -2.4), p<0.0001). No significant difference in this reduction was identified between temporary and permanent PNS cohorts (MD 0.0 (95% CI -1.1 to 1.0), p=1.00) 12 months postimplantation. Pain intensity significantly decreased in the overall, temporary, and permanent cohorts at all secondary time points (3, 6, and 24 months). No change in daily opioid consumption was observed at 6 and 12 months postimplant in the overall cohort.

CONCLUSION

This study found that both temporary and permanent PNS may be effective for reducing pain intensity in patients with chronic pain up to 24 months postimplantation, although no changes in opioid consumption were observed. The decrease in pain intensity was comparable between patients receiving temporary versus permanent implants, highlighting that temporary PNS may achieve long-lasting clinical benefits. However, given the substantial loss to follow-up, further large-scale studies are needed to solidify conclusions about the efficacy of PNS.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in Postoperative Analgesia: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent research has shown the effectiveness of peripheral nerve stimulators (PNS) in managing chronic pain conditions. Ongoing studies aim to explore its potential application in treating acute postoperative pain states. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the role of PNS in providing relief for postoperative pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Clinical studies investigating the use of peripheral nerve stimulators (PNS) for analgesia following various surgeries, such as total knee arthroplasty, anterior cruciate ligament repair, ankle arthroplasty, rotator cuff repair, hallux valgus correction, and extremity amputation, have shown promising results. Lead placement locations include the brachial plexus, sciatic, femoral, tibial, genicular, perineal, sural, radial, median, and ulnar nerves. These studies consistently report clinically significant reductions in pain scores, and some even indicate a decrease in opioid consumption following PNS for postoperative pain. PNS involves the subcutaneous placement of electrode leads to target peripheral nerve(s) followed by delivery of an electric current via an external pulse generator. While the precise mechanism is not fully understood, the theory posits that PNS modulates electrical stimulation, hindering the signaling of nociceptive pain. PNS presents itself as an alternative to opioid therapy, holding promise to address the opioid epidemic by offering a nonpharmacologic approach for both acute and chronic pain states.

Is Response to a Pre-implant Diagnostic Peripheral Nerve Block Associated With Efficacy After Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Implantation? A Ten-Year Enterprise-Wide Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess whether patient response to targeted diagnostic peripheral nerve block before peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS) device implantation is associated with efficacy after PNS implantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The electronic medical records from the Mayo Clinic Enterprise (three quarternary care medical centers and additional satellite medical centers) were reviewed to identify patients who underwent PNS implantation between January 2014 and January 2023. A primary outcome of interest was to assess whether administration of a preimplant diagnostic peripheral nerve block predicted pain relief at three months and six months after temporary and permanent PNS implantation. Another primary outcome was to investigate whether there was an association between the pain relief from a preimplant diagnostic peripheral nerve block and pain relief after three and six months after temporary or permanent PNS therapy. Linear regression analysis was conducted for outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Of 193 eligible patients who underwent PNS therapy, a total of 173 patients were included in the final analysis and were stratified into either the temporary PNS cohort (n = 112) or the permanent PNS cohort (n = 61). Overall, 77.5% of all patients (134/173) underwent a preimplant diagnostic peripheral nerve block and reported a mean percentage relief of 70.1 ± 27.0 from the diagnostic block. Of patients in the temporary PNS cohort, there was no difference in postimplant percentage pain relief between patients who received a diagnostic block (n = 93) and control patients (n = 19) at three months (35.4 ± 36.0 vs 49.8 ± 36.1, respectively; β -14.45, 95% CI -32.98 to 4.07, p = 0.125) or at six months (23.3 ± 30.8 vs 45.7 ± 40.0, respectively; β -22.39, 95% CI -46.86 to 2.08, p = 0.072). Of patients in the permanent PNS cohort, there was no difference in postimplant percentage pain relief between patients who received a diagnostic block (n = 41) and control patients (n = 20) at three months (42.4 ± 34.3 vs 43.2 ± 42.4, respectively; β -0.79, 95% CI -23.56 to 21.99, p = 0.945) or at six months (44.3 ± 35.0 vs 38.8 ± 40.9, respectively; β 5.42, 95% CI -20.04 to 30.88, p = 0.669). Pain relief from preimplant diagnostic blocks was associated with postimplant pain relief from temporary PNS at three months (β 0.33, 95% CI 0.04-0.61, p = 0.025). However, pain relief from preimplant diagnostic blocks did not predict postimplant pain relief from temporary PNS at six months, or permanent PNS at three months and six months.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of a diagnostic block is not associated with superior pain relief at three or six months after PNS implantation to that of an approach without diagnostic block. Pain relief from a diagnostic block may potentially predict short-term pain relief after temporary PNS therapy, although future prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the prognostic utility of diagnostic blocks.

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.

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.

Misinformation Persists in Complementary Health: Evaluating the Reliability and Quality of YouTube-Based Information on the Use of Acupuncture for Chronic Pain

Introduction

Acupuncture is commonly used to treat chronic pain. Patients often access public social media platforms for healthcare information when querying acupuncture. Our study aims to appraise the utility, accuracy, and quality of information available on YouTube, a popular social media platform, on acupuncture for chronic pain treatment.

Methods

Using search terms such as "acupuncture for chronic pain" and "acupuncture pain relief", the top 54 videos by view count were selected. Included videos were >1 minute duration, contained audio in English, had >7000 views, and was related to acupuncture. One primary outcome of interest was categorizing each video's usefulness as useful, misleading, or neither. Another primary outcome of interest was the quality and reliability of each video using validated instruments, including the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool and the Global Quality Scale (GQS). The means were calculated for the video production characteristics, production sources, and mDISCERN and GQS scores. Continuous and categorical outcomes were compared using Student's t-test and chi-square test, respectively.

Results

Of the 54 videos, 57.4% were categorized as useful, 14.8% were misleading, and 27.8% were neither. Useful videos had a mean GQS and mDISCERN score of 3.77±0.67 and 3.48±0.63, respectively, while misleading videos had mean GQS and mDISCERN score of 2.50±0.53 and 2.38±0.52, respectively. 41.8% of the useful videos were produced by a healthcare institution while none of the misleading videos were produced by a healthcare institution. However, 87.5% of the misleading videos were produced by health media compared to only 25.8% of useful videos from health media.

Discussion

As patients increasingly depend on platforms like YouTube for trustworthy information on complementary health practices such as acupuncture, our study emphasizes the critical need for more higher-quality videos from unbiased healthcare institutions and physicians to ensure patients are receiving reliable information regarding this topic.

Infrapatellar Branch of the Saphenous Nerve: Therapeutic Approaches to Chronic Knee Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve (IPS) is an under-investigated nerve that can be a source of chronic knee pain. This literature review aims to deliver an up-to-date review of chronic pain transmitted via the IPS along with therapeutic approaches available for pain refractory to conservative measures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Knee pain transmitted via the IPS can arise from several etiologies. Damage to the IPS is often iatrogenic and develops following total knee arthroplasty, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and other knee surgical procedures. Other causes of IPS-derived pain include entrapment of the nerve, neuromas, Schwannomas, and pain from knee osteoarthritis transmitted through the IPS.This article investigated therapeutic approaches to pain derived from the IPS. Common approaches included radiofrequency ablation, neuroma excisions, Schwannoma excision, nerve blocks, surgical exploration, surgical release of an entrapped nerve, cryoablation, and peripheral nerve stimulation. Pain scores, duration of pain relief, adverse events, and secondary outcomes were all included in this review. A subset of the patient population experiences chronic pain deriving from the IPS that is refractory to conservative treatment measures. This review aims to evaluate the etiologies and therapeutic approaches for chronic pain arising from the IPS refractory to conservative treatments.

Electrical stimulation enhances mitochondrial trafficking as a neuroprotective mechanism against chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy

Electrical stimulation (ESTIM) has shown to be an effective symptomatic treatment to treat pain associated with peripheral nerve damage. However, the neuroprotective mechanism of ESTIM on peripheral neuropathies is still unknown. In this study, we identified that ESTIM has the ability to enhance mitochondrial trafficking as a neuroprotective mechanism against chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathies (CIPNs). CIPN is a debilitating and painful sequalae of anti-cancer chemotherapy treatment which results in degeneration of peripheral nerves. Mitochondrial dynamics were analyzed within axons in response to two different antineoplastic mechanisms by chemotherapy drug treatments paclitaxel and oxaliplatin in vitro. Mitochondrial trafficking response to chemotherapy drug treatment was observed to decrease in conjunction with degeneration of distal axons. Using low-frequency ESTIM, we observed enhanced mitochondrial trafficking to be a neuroprotective mechanism against CIPN. This study confirms ESTIM enhances regeneration of peripheral nerves by increased mitochondrial trafficking.

Neuromodulation Techniques for Headache Management

This narrative review aims to summarize evidence regarding the current utilization and future applications of neuromodulation in patients with headaches, with special attention paid to migraine and chronic cluster headache. A search was conducted in PubMed in August of 2023 to survey the current literature on neuromodulation for the treatment of headache. In total, the search yielded 1989 results, which were further filtered to include only systematic reviews published between 2022 to 2023 to capture the most up-to-date and comprehensive research on this topic. The citation lists of these articles were reviewed to find additional research on neuromodulation and supplement the results presented in this paper with primary literature. Research on the use of neuromodulation for the treatment of headache has predominantly focused on four neuromodulation techniques: peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Outcome measures reported in this article include impact on migraine and headache frequency and/or pain intensity, adverse effects of the neuromodulation technique, and associated costs, when available. We found that neuromodulation has developed utility as an alternative treatment for both chronic cluster headaches and migraines, with a reduction in frequency and intensity of headache most elucidated from the articles mentioned in this review.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation With a High-Frequency Electromagnetic Coupled Powered Implanted Receiver at the Posterior Tibial Nerve for the Treatment of Chronic Pain in the Foot

INTRODUCTION

Peripheral neuropathy has several causes, with diabetes being the most common. Conservative management may fail to control pain. Our study aimed at evaluating the use of peripheral nerve stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve for treating peripheral neuropathy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an observational study of 15 patients who received peripheral nerve stimulation at the posterior tibial nerve to treat peripheral neuropathy. Outcomes measured were improvement of pain scores and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at 12 months compared with before the implant.

RESULTS

Mean pain scores with the verbal rating scale were 3 ± 1.8 at >12 months compared with 8.6 ± 1.2 at baseline, a reduction of 65% (p < 0.001). Median satisfaction with the PGIC at >12 months was 7 of 7, with most subjects reporting a 6 (better) or a 7 (a great deal better).

CONCLUSION

Peripheral nerve stimulation of the posterior tibial nerve can be a safe and effective modality for treating chronic pain symptoms related to peripheral neuropathy of the foot.

Efficacy of Neuromodulation Interventions for the Treatment of Sexual Dysfunction: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this review was to analyze the literature for the efficacy of neuromodulation interventions in treating both male and female sexual dysfunction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies were identified from PubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Results were synthesized qualitatively without pooling owing to the heterogeneous nature of outcome assessments.

RESULTS

Overall findings from studies generally supported that neuromodulation interventions were associated with improvement in sexual function. Specific domains that improved in male patients included erectile function, desire, and satisfaction, whereas desire, arousal, orgasm, lubrication, quality of "sex life," intercourse capability, and dyspareunia improved in female patients. Male ejaculation, orgasm, and intercourse capability were the only domains that continued to decline after the use of neuromodulation interventions, although this was only reported in one study.

CONCLUSION

Our review suggests that there may be promise and potential utility of neuromodulation in improving sexual dysfunction; however, further research is needed.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Top-Cited Journal Articles Related to Neuromodulation for Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVES

Since its foundation in the 1960s, neuromodulation has become an increasingly used treatment option for chronic pain. This bibliometric analysis examines the most cited research in this field with the aim of uncovering existing trends and future directions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clarivate's Web of Science data base was searched for the top 25 most cited studies focusing on neuromodulation for chronic pain. Various bibliometric parameters were then extracted and analyzed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were compared with non-RCTs.

RESULTS

The top 25 articles had a mean of 347 citations and 22.2 citations per year, with more recent articles having a higher citation rate. Most were published in the last two decades and predominantly originated from the United States. There were 13 RCTs, which were significantly more recent (p = 0.004) and more cited per year (p = 0.001) than the 12 non-RCTs. Sources included 15 journals with a mean impact factor of 13.896. The most studied modality was spinal cord stimulation with 20 articles (76.9%), followed by intrathecal drug delivery (15.4%), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (3.8%), and peripheral nerve stimulation (3.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of the most cited articles on neuromodulation reveals a focal shift from historical reports to innovative RCTs that have increasingly guided pain practice in the recent years. As novel techniques and technologies continue to develop, high-quality evidence coupled with broadening indications will likely direct further expansion of this field.

Temporary Peripheral Nerve Stimulation as Treatment for Chronic Pain

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Peripheral nerve stimulation for chronic knee pain following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

Chronic knee pain following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) affects a subset of patients that is refractory to pharmacological and non-pharmacological modalities. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been used in patients with chronic knee pain following TKA and has shown some efficacy. Methods: Comprehensive search of Ovid Medline, Elsevier Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, Scopus, SPORTDiscus with Full Text and the Web of Science platform. From inception to August 2022, for studies using PNS to treat chronic knee pain following TKA. Primary outcomes included pain scores, functional status and medication usage. Results: Nine studies were extrapolated with all demonstrating effectiveness of PNS for patients with chronic knee pain following TKA. Discussion: PNS for chronic knee pain following TKA has been shown to be an efficacious treatment modality. The level of evidence is low and more research is needed to assess its safety and effectiveness.

Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Headache Disorders: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Chronic headache remains a major cause of disability and pain worldwide. Although the literature has extensively described pharmacologic options for headache treatment and prophylaxis, there remains a paucity of data on the efficacy of neuromodulation interventions for treatment of headache unresponsive to conventional pharmacologic therapy. The primary aim of this review was to appraise the literature for the efficacy of cervical spinal cord stimulation (cSCS) in treating any intractable chronic headache, including migraine headaches (with or without aura), cluster headache, tension headache, and other types of headaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we performed a systematic review by identifying studies in PubMed, Embase (Scopus), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials that assessed cSCS to treat chronic headache. Data were synthesized qualitatively, with primary outcomes of headache intensity and frequency. The secondary outcome was adverse effects.

RESULTS

In total, 16 studies comprising 107 patients met the inclusion criteria. Findings were presented based on type of headache, which included migraine headache with or without aura, cluster headache, trigeminal neuropathy, occipital neuralgia, posttraumatic headache, cervicogenic headache, short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with autonomic symptoms, and poststroke facial pain. Per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria, there was very low-quality evidence that cSCS is associated with a decrease in migraine headache frequency, migraine headache intensity, and trigeminal neuropathy intensity. Placement for cSCS leads ranged from C1 to C4.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests promising data from observational studies that cSCS may be helpful in decreasing frequency and intensity of chronic intractable headache. Future well-powered, randomized controlled trials are needed.

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.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition that is associated with diminished physical function, poor mental health outcomes, and reduced quality of life. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an emerging modality that has been utilized to treat LBP. The primary objective of this systematic review is to appraise the level of evidence on the efficacy of PNS for treatment of LBP.

RECENT FINDINGS

Twenty-nine articles were included in this systematic review, consisting of 828 total participants utilizing PNS as the primary modality for LBP and 173 participants using PNS as salvage or adjunctive therapy for LBP after SCS placement. Different modalities of PNS therapy were reported across studies, including conventional PNS systems stimulating the lumbar medial branch nerves, peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS), and restorative neuromuscular stimulation of the multifidus muscles. All studies consistently reported positive modest to moderate improvement in pain intensity with PNS therapy when comparing baseline pain intensity to each study's respective primary follow-up period. There was a very low GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) quality of evidence supporting this finding. Inconsistency was present in some comparative studies that demonstrated no difference between PNS therapy versus control cohorts (sham or SCS therapy alone), which therefore highlighted the potential for placebo effect. This systematic review highlights that PNS, PNFS, and neuromuscular stimulation may provide modest to moderate pain relief in patients with LBP, although evidence is currently limited due to risk of bias, clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and inconsistency in data.

Neuromodulation for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: Systematic Review of Mechanisms and In Vivo Highlights

While denervation can occur with aging, peripheral nerve injuries are debilitating and often leads to a loss of function and neuropathic pain. Although injured peripheral nerves can regenerate and reinnervate their targets, this process is slow and directionless. There is some evidence supporting the use of neuromodulation to enhance the regeneration of peripheral nerves. This systematic review reported on the underlying mechanisms that allow neuromodulation to aid peripheral nerve regeneration and highlighted important in vivo studies that demonstrate its efficacy. Studies were identified from PubMed (inception through September 2022) and the results were synthesized qualitatively. Included studies were required to contain content related to peripheral nerve regeneration and some form of neuromodulation. Studies reporting in vivo highlights were subject to a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The results of 52 studies indicate that neuromodulation enhances natural peripheral nerve regeneration processes, but still requires other interventions (e.g., conduits) to control the direction of reinnervation. Additional human studies are warranted to verify the applicability of animal studies and to determine how neuromodulation can be optimized for the greatest functional restoration.

Reduced Pain and Improved Function Following Short-Term Use of Noninvasive BioWave High Frequency Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Pain Management

INTRODUCTION

The peripheral nervous system is an increasingly popular target for chronic pain treatment modalities. Noninvasive neuromodulation has shown promise at providing significant chronic pain relief with a much safer side effect profile. This retrospective pilot study is shaped around a noninvasive neuromodulation system over a 2-week treatment timeline.

METHODS

Open-label survey of chronic pain patients recruited from Veteran Affairs, orthopedic, and pain health systems. If a noninvasive neuromodulation system was prescribed the patients were then offered a 2-week follow-up survey. This voluntary survey did not affect their therapy duration or quality. This survey was designed to address similar metrics as smaller noninvasive neuromodulation studies to allow a quality comparison while giving more power with a large population size of 1511 patients. Overall pain scores (including before and after scores), satisfaction level, desire to continue therapy, medication use, effect on functional metrics (mood, sleep, sit, stand, walk, and lift), and activities of daily living (ADL) scores were assessed.

RESULTS

The results demonstrated an overall pain reduction of 46%. All functional metrics were improved throughout with the largest improvements reported in mood and sleep at over 47%. Medication use was reported as decreased or eliminated in 42% of patients. There were no adverse reactions or complications reported over the 1511 patients.

CONCLUSION

This survey is amongst the largest population sizes every studied for noninvasive neuromodulation. Within just 2 weeks patients can see a reduction in overall pain and medication needs. Although survey studies have inherent limitations such as duration and compliance biases with such an overwhelming benefit in every category we believe that noninvasive neuromodulation therapy is a promising, safe, and cost-effective therapy. Future studies should focus on long-term follow-ups and post-therapy pain scores with a placebo group.

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.

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.

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.

Neuromodulation Therapy for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a debilitating and painful condition in patients who have received chemotherapy. The role of neuromodulation therapy in treating pain and improving neurological function in CIPN remains unclear and warrants evidence appraisal. In compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed a systematic review to assess change in pain intensity and neurological function after implementation of any neuromodulation intervention for CIPN. Neuromodulation interventions consisted of dorsal column spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), or peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). In total, 15 studies utilized SCS (16 participants), 7 studies utilized DRG-S (7 participants), and 1 study utilized PNS (50 participants). Per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria, there was very low-quality GRADE evidence supporting that dorsal column SCS, DRG-S, and PNS are associated with a reduction in pain severity from CIPN. Results on changes in neurological function remained equivocal due to mixed study findings on thermal sensory thresholds and touch sensation or discrimination. Future prospective, well-powered, and comparative studies assessing neuromodulation for CIPN are warranted.

Evidence-Based Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) manifests with pain typically in the distal lower extremities and can be challenging to treat. The authors appraised the literature for evidence on conservative, pharmacological, and neuromodulation treatment options for PDN.

RECENT FINDINGS

Intensive glycemic control with insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes may be associated with lower odds of distal symmetric polyneuropathy compared to patients who receive conventional insulin therapy. First-line pharmacologic therapy for PDN includes gabapentinoids (pregabalin and gabapentin) and duloxetine. Additional pharmacologic modalities that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but are considered second-line agents include tapentadol and 8% capsaicin patch, although studies have revealed modest treatment effects from these modalities. There is level I evidence on the use of dorsal column spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treatment of PDN, delivering either a 10-kHz waveform or tonic waveform. In summary, this review provides an overview of treatment options for PDN. Furthermore, it provides updates on the level of evidence for SCS therapy in cases of PDN refractory to conventional medical therapy.

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Lower Extremity Neuropathic Pain Syndromes: An Evidence-Based Literature Review

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) is a form of selective neuromodulation therapy that targets the dorsal root ganglion. DRG-S offers analgesia in a variety of chronic pain conditions and is approved for treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). There has been increasing utilization of DRG-S to treat various neuropathic pain syndromes of the lower extremity, although evidence remains limited to one randomized controlled trial and 39 observational studies. In this review, we appraised the current evidence for DRG-S in the treatment of lower extremity neuropathic pain using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity after DRG-S compared to baseline. We stratified presentation of results based of type of neuropathy (CRPS, painful diabetic neuropathy, mononeuropathy, polyneuropathy) as well as location of neuropathy (hip, knee, foot). Future powered randomized controlled trials with homogeneous participants are warranted.