A Systematic Literature Review of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for PNS. METHODS: An international interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for PNS. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meaningful clinical outcomes that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, had less than two months of follow-up, or existed only as abstracts. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: Peripheral nerve stimulation was studied in 14 RCTs for a variety of painful conditions (headache, shoulder, pelvic, back, extremity, and trunk pain). Moderate to strong evidence supported the use of PNS to treat pain. CONCLUSION: Peripheral nerve stimulation has moderate/strong evidence. Additional prospective trials could further refine appropriate populations and pain diagnoses.

Dorsal root ganglion stimulation yielded higher treatment success rate for complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia at 3 and 12 months: a randomized comparative trial.

Animal and human studies indicate that electrical stimulation of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons may modulate neuropathic pain signals. ACCURATE, a pivotal, prospective, multicenter, randomized comparative effectiveness trial, was conducted in 152 subjects diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome or causalgia in the lower extremities. Subjects received neurostimulation of the DRG or dorsal column (spinal cord stimulation, SCS). The primary end point was a composite of safety and efficacy at 3 months, and subjects were assessed through 12 months for long-term outcomes and adverse events. The predefined primary composite end point of treatment success was met for subjects with a permanent implant who reported 50% or greater decrease in visual analog scale score from preimplant baseline and who did not report any stimulation-related neurological deficits. No subjects reported stimulation-related neurological deficits. The percentage of subjects receiving ≥50% pain relief and treatment success was greater in the DRG arm (81.2%) than in the SCS arm (55.7%, P < 0.001) at 3 months. Device-related and serious adverse events were not different between the 2 groups. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation also demonstrated greater improvements in quality of life and psychological disposition. Finally, subjects using DRG stimulation reported less postural variation in paresthesia (P < 0.001) and reduced extraneous stimulation in nonpainful areas (P = 0.014), indicating DRG stimulation provided more targeted therapy to painful parts of the lower extremities. As the largest prospective, randomized comparative effectiveness trial to date, the results show that DRG stimulation provided a higher rate of treatment success with less postural variation in paresthesia intensity compared to SCS.

Optimizing Stimulation in a Case of Facial Pain Through "Cross-Talk" of Peripheral and Central Leads: A Case Report.

OBJECTIVES: To describe inter-lead (cross-talk) stimulation between a trigeminal nerve lead and a cervical epidural lead for the treatment of facial pain in a 69-year-old patient with empty nose syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A trial implant was performed with a peripheral V2 trigeminal lead and a C1-C2 lead in cross-talk configuration. During permanent implant, the V2 lead was placed uneventfully while the central lead could only be advanced to C3-C4. RESULTS: During the trial, pain decreased by 70%. One month after permanent implant, the patient still experienced a 60-70% reduction in pain levels and a decrease from ten to two weekly pain episodes. Nine months post implant, the patient reported complete pain relief (0/10 on a numeric rating scale ranging from 0 to 10) and medications were discontinued. Infrequent exacerbations (3/10) were controlled by increasing stimulation. Three years post implant, the patient continued to have no baseline pain and could easily control exacerbations. CONCLUSION: Cross-talk configuration between a peripheral and a central lead created a more efficient stimulation technique. The resulting paresthesia was superior to that obtained from either lead alone and exceeded the paresthesia obtained from the combination of the two leads when used simultaneously, without an inter-lead configuration.

Peripheral nerve field stimulation for the management of localized chronic intractable back pain: results from a randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: Improved device technology has caused a renewed interest in peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNfS). This study sought to obtain preliminary estimates of the safety and efficacy of PNfS in patients with localized chronic intractable pain of the back. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved, prospective, randomized, controlled, crossover study consisted of two phases. During phase I, patients rotated through four stimulation groups (minimal, subthreshold, low frequency, and standard stimulation). If a 50% reduction in pain was achieved during any of the three active stimulation groups (responder), the patient proceeded to phase II, which began with implant of the permanent system and lasted 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was a reduction in pain, assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS). Analysis of variance, including the effects of patient, treatment, and study period, was used for phase I results. Phase II results were analyzed by paired t-tests. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were enrolled at five sites. Of these patients, 32 were implanted with a trial system and 30 completed phase I. During phase I, there were significant differences in mean VAS scores between minimal stimulation and subthreshold stimulation (p = 0.003), low frequency stimulation (p < 0.001), and standard stimulation (p < 0.001). Twenty-four patients were classified as responders to the therapy, and 23 patients received permanent system placement. Significant differences in VAS scores were observed between baseline and all follow-up visits during phase II (p < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: The results provide evidence to support safety and effectiveness of PNfS as an aid in the management of chronic, localized back pain.

Peripheral nerve stimulation for the treatment of truncal pain.

Neuromodulation practitioners increasingly recognize the potential for peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNfS) to treat pain originating from the trunk. Conditions resulting in truncal pain that may respond to PNfS include cervical and lumbar postlaminectomy syndrome, inguinal neurapraxia, post-herpetic neuralgia, and post-thoracotomy pain. The focus of this chapter is to review the mechanism of action in PNfS, patient selection factors, programming strategies, and technical considerations.