The Role of Neuromodulation in Chronic Pelvic Pain: A Review Article.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a complex, heterogeneous condition affecting both female and male patients with significant effects on quality of life. Chronic pelvic pain is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed condition due to the variation in patient presentation, a gap in communication among specialties, under-reporting of the syndrome, and lack of standardized diagnostic criteria with a subsequent delay in diagnosis. The mechanism of CPP is complex due to multifactorial etiologies of pain and its vast anatomy and innervation. Potential causes of pelvic pain include the nerves, muscles, bone, or organs of the reproductive, gastrointestinal, urological, musculoskeletal, vascular, neurological, and psychological systems. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is to review the anatomy of the pelvis, share current lead placement locations, and discuss the current evidence for neuromodulation in the management of chronic pelvic pain. STUDY DESIGN: This is a narrative review of current literature on neuromodulation for chronic pelvic pain. SETTING: A database review. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed to gather literature on neuromodulation for chronic pelvic pain. RESULTS: Traditionally, pelvic pain has been managed with conservative therapies such as physical therapy, pharmacological agents, trigger point injections, botulinum toxin injections, ganglion impar blocks, caudal epidural steroid injections, or superior and inferior hypogastric blocks, but with the evolution of the neuromodulation, there are new advances to incorporate this modality in the management of chronic pelvic pain. LIMITATIONS: This review article possesses limitations and includes published data, excluding case reports. For this reason, some applications of neuromodulation for chronic pelvic pain may be missed. CONCLUSIONS: Neuromodulation may include spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation, and peripheral nerve stimulation. Specifically, neuromodulation utilizes electrical stimulation or pharmacological agents to modulate a nerve and alter pain signals. Currently used locations for lead placement include intracranial, spinal cord, dorsal root ganglion, sacral nerve roots, or at a peripheral nerve. As the field of pelvic pain continues to evolve, continued evidence for neuromodulatory interventions is needed.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC): Recommendations on Best Practices for Cervical Neurostimulation.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise with international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the use of neurostimulation in the cervical region to improve outcomes. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) project intends to provide evidence-based guidance for an often-overlooked area of neurostimulation practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors were chosen based upon their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when NACC last published guidelines) to the present. Identified studies were graded using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence was scant. RESULTS: The NACC examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC recommends best practices regarding the use of cervical neuromodulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be utilized as a guide to assist decision making when clinically appropriate.

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.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: stimulation of the intracranial and extracranial space and head for chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has identified a need for evaluation and analysis of the practice of neurostimulation of the brain and extracranial nerves of the head to treat chronic pain. METHODS: The INS board of directors chose an expert panel, the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC), to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature, current research, and clinical experience and to give guidance for the appropriate use of these methods. The literature searches involved key word searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar dated 1970-2013, which were graded and evaluated by the authors. RESULTS: The NACC found that evidence supports extracranial stimulation for facial pain, migraine, and scalp pain but is limited for intracranial neuromodulation. High cervical spinal cord stimulation is an evolving option for facial pain. Intracranial neurostimulation may be an excellent option to treat diseases of the nervous system, such as tremor and Parkinson's disease, and in the future, potentially Alzheimer's disease and traumatic brain injury, but current use of intracranial stimulation for pain should be seen as investigational. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC concludes that extracranial nerve stimulation should be considered in the algorithmic treatment of migraine and other disorders of the head. We should strive to perfect targets outside the cranium when treating pain, if at all possible.

Neuromodulation of pelvic visceral pain: review of the literature and case series of potential novel targets for treatment.

Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is complex and often resistant to treatment. While the exact pathophysiology is unknown, the pain states resultant from conditions such as interstitial cystitis and the like yield patients with a presentation that bears a striking similarity to neuropathic syndromes that are known to respond to neuromodulation. While there has been past success using the sacral region as a target for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) to treat these patients, there remains to be a consensus on the optimal location for lead placement. In this article, the authors discuss the potential etiology of CPP, examine the current literature on lead placement for SCS as a method of treatment, as well as present several cases where novel lead placement was successfully employed.

25. Ischemic pain in the extremities and Raynaud's phenomenon.

Two important groups of disorders result from an insufficient blood supply to the extremities: critical vascular disease and the Raynaud's phenomenon. The latter can be subdivided into a primary and a secondary type. Critical ischemic disease is often caused by arteriosclerosis due to hypertension or diabetes. Primary Raynaud's is idiopathic and will be diagnosed as such if underlying systemic pathology has been excluded. Secondary Raynaud's is often a manifestation of a systemic disease. It is essential to try to establish a diagnosis as soon as possible in order to influence the evolution of the disease. A sympathetic nerve block can be considered in patients with critical ischemic vascular disease after extensive conservative treatment, preferably in the context of a study (2B±). If this has insufficient effect, spinal cord stimulation can be considered in a selected patient group (2B±). In view of the degree of invasiveness and the costs involved, this treatment should preferably be applied in the context of a study and with the use of transcutaneous pO(2) measurements. In case of primary Raynaud's, life style changes are the first step. Sympathectomy can be considered as a treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon (2C+), but only after multidisciplinary evaluation of the patient and in close consultation with the patient's rheumatologist, vascular surgeon or internist.

Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain are described here to provide recommendations for clinicians. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. DESIGN: Systematic assessment of the literature. METHODS: Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. OUTCOMES: Short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting at least 6 months and long-term relief was defined as longer than 6 months, except for intradiscal therapies, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal infusion systems, wherein up to one year relief was considered as short-term. RESULTS: The indicated evidence for accuracy of diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is Level I or II-1 in the diagnosis of lumbar, thoracic, and cervical facet joint pain. The evidence for lumbar and cervical provocation discography and sacroiliac joint injections is Level II-2, whereas it is Level II-3 for thoracic provocation discography. The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is Level I for caudal epidural steroid injections in managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The evidence is Level I or II-1 for percutaneous adhesiolysis in management of pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for therapeutic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks; for caudal epidural injections in managing pain of post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis, for cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical pain (Level II-1); for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; and spinal cord stimulation for post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The indicated evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), mechanical disc decompression with automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), and percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy (PLDD) is Level II-2. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of the literature, lack of updates, and conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines by various organizations. CONCLUSION: The indicated evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is variable from Level I to III. These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Further, these guidelines also do not represent "standard of care."