Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of 60-Day Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Treatment Indicates Relief of Persistent Postoperative Pain, and Improved Function After Knee Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective surgery for end-stage knee osteoarthritis, but chronic postoperative pain and reduced function affect up to 20% of patients who undergo such surgery. There are limited treatment options, but percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is a promising nonopioid treatment option for chronic, persistent postoperative pain. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of a 60-day percutaneous PNS treatment in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial for treating persistent postoperative pain after TKA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with postoperative pain after knee replacement were screened for this postmarket, institutional review board-approved, prospectively registered (NCT04341948) trial. Subjects were randomized to receive either active PNS or placebo (sham) stimulation. Subjects and a designated evaluator were blinded to group assignments. Subjects in both groups underwent ultrasound-guided placement of percutaneous fine-wire coiled leads targeting the femoral and sciatic nerves on the leg with postoperative pain. Leads were indwelling for eight weeks, and the primary efficacy outcome compared the proportion of subjects in each group reporting ≥50% reduction in average pain relative to baseline during weeks five to eight. Functional outcomes (6-minute walk test; 6MWT and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) and quality of life (Patient Global Impression of Change) also were evaluated at end of treatment (EOT). RESULTS: A greater proportion of subjects in the PNS groups (60%; 12/20) than in the placebo (sham) group (24%; 5/21) responded with ≥50% pain relief relative to baseline (p = 0.028) during the primary endpoint (weeks 5-8). Subjects in the PNS group also walked a significantly greater distance at EOT than did those in the placebo (sham) group (6MWT; +47% vs -9% change from baseline; p = 0.048, n = 18 vs n = 20 completed the test, respectively). Prospective follow-up to 12 months is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that percutaneous PNS decreases persistent pain, which leads to improved functional outcomes after TKA at EOT.

Percutaneous Neuromodulation of the Brachial Plexus and Sciatic Nerve for the Treatment of Acute Pain Following Surgery: Secondary Outcomes From a Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: We recently reported that percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS or "neuromodulation") decreased pain and opioid consumption within the first two weeks following ambulatory surgery. However, the anatomic lead locations were combined for the analysis, and benefits for each location remain unknown. We therefore now report the effects of percutaneous PNS for brachial plexus and sciatic nerve leads separately. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Before surgery, leads were implanted percutaneously to target the brachial plexus (N = 21) for rotator cuff repair or sciatic nerve (N = 40) for foot/ankle surgery, followed by a single injection of local anesthetic. Postoperatively, subjects were randomized in a double masked fashion to 14 days of electrical stimulation (N = 30) or sham/placebo (N = 31) using an external pulse generator. The primary outcome of interest was opioid consumption and pain scores evaluated jointly. Thus, stimulation was deemed effective if superior on either outcome and at least noninferior on the other. RESULTS: For brachial plexus leads, during the first seven postoperative days pain measured with the numeric rating scale in participants given active stimulation was a median [interquartile range] of 0.8 [0.5, 1.6] versus 3.2 [2.7, 3.5] in patients given sham (p < 0.001). For this same group, opioid consumption in participants given active stimulation was 10 mg [5, 20] versus 71 mg [35, 125] in patients given sham (p = 0.043). For sciatic nerve leads, pain scores for the active treatment group were 0.7 [0, 1.4] versus 2.8 [1.6, 4.6] in patients given sham (p < 0.001). During this same period, participants given active stimulation consumed 5 mg [0, 30] of opioids versus 40 mg [20, 105] in patients given sham (p = 0.004). Treatment effects did not differ statistically between the two locations. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory percutaneous PNS of both the brachial plexus and sciatic nerve is an effective treatment for acute pain free of systemic side effects following painful orthopedic surgery.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (Neuromodulation) for Postoperative Pain: A Randomized, Sham-controlled Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation is an analgesic technique involving the percutaneous implantation of a lead followed by the delivery of electric current using an external pulse generator. Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation has been used extensively for chronic pain, but only uncontrolled series have been published for acute postoperative pain. The current multicenter study was undertaken to (1) determine the feasibility and optimize the protocol for a subsequent clinical trial and (2) estimate the treatment effect of percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation on postoperative pain and opioid consumption. METHODS: Preoperatively, an electrical lead was percutaneously implanted to target the sciatic nerve for major foot/ankle surgery (e.g., hallux valgus correction), the femoral nerve for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, or the brachial plexus for rotator cuff repair, followed by a single injection of long-acting local anesthetic along the same nerve/plexus. Postoperatively, participants were randomized to 14 days of either electrical stimulation (n = 32) or sham stimulation (n = 34) using an external pulse generator in a double-masked fashion. The dual primary treatment effect outcome measures were (1) cumulative opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents) and (2) mean values of the "average" daily pain scores measured on the 0 to 10 Numeric Rating Scale within the first 7 postoperative days. RESULTS: During the first 7 postoperative days, opioid consumption in participants given active stimulation was a median (interquartile range) of 5 mg (0 to 30) versus 48 mg (25 to 90) in patients given sham treatment (ratio of geometric means, 0.20 [97.5% CI, 0.07 to 0.57]; P < 0.001). During this same period, the average pain intensity in patients given active stimulation was a mean ± SD of 1.1 ± 1.1 versus 3.1 ± 1.7 in those given sham (difference, -1.8 [97.5% CI, -2.6 to -0.9]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation reduced pain scores and opioid requirements free of systemic side effects during at least the initial week after ambulatory orthopedic surgery.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation of the Medial Branch Nerves for the Treatment of Chronic Axial Back Pain in Patients After Radiofrequency Ablation.

OBJECTIVE: Lumbar radiofrequency ablation is a commonly used intervention for chronic back pain. However, the pain typically returns, and though retreatment may be successful, the procedure involves destruction of the medial branch nerves, which denervates the multifidus. Repeated procedures typically have diminishing returns, which can lead to opioid use, surgery, or implantation of permanent neuromodulation systems. The objective of this report is to demonstrate the potential use of percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) as a minimally invasive, nondestructive, motor-sparing alternative to repeat radiofrequency ablation and more invasive surgical procedures. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter trial. METHODS: Individuals with a return of chronic axial pain after radiofrequency ablation underwent implantation of percutaneous PNS leads targeting the medial branch nerves. Stimulation was delivered for up to 60 days, after which the leads were removed. Participants were followed up to 5 months after the start of PNS. Outcomes included pain intensity, disability, and pain interference. RESULTS: Highly clinically significant (≥50%) reductions in average pain intensity were reported by a majority of participants (67%, n = 10/15) after 2 months with PNS, and a majority experienced clinically significant improvements in functional outcomes, as measured by disability (87%, n = 13/15) and pain interference (80%, n = 12/15). Five months after PNS, 93% (n = 14/15) reported clinically meaningful improvement in one or more outcome measures, and a majority experienced clinically meaningful improvements in all three outcomes (i.e., pain intensity, disability, and pain interference). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous PNS has the potential to shift the pain management paradigm by providing an effective, nondestructive, motor-sparing neuromodulation treatment.

Treatment of chronic axial back pain with 60-day percutaneous medial branch PNS: Primary end point results from a prospective, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this prospective, multicenter study is to characterize responses to percutaneous medial branch peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) to determine if results from earlier, smaller single-center studies and reports were generalizable when performed at a larger number and wider variety of centers in patients recalcitrant to nonsurgical treatments. MATERIALS & METHODS: Participants with chronic axial low back pain (LBP) were implanted with percutaneous PNS leads targeting the lumbar medial branch nerves for up to 60 days, after which the leads were removed. Participants were followed long-term for 12 months after the 2-month PNS treatment. Data collection is complete for visits through end of treatment with PNS (primary end point) and 6 months after lead removal (8 months after start of treatment), with some participant follow-up visits thereafter in progress. RESULTS: Clinically and statistically significant reductions in pain intensity, disability, and pain interference were reported by a majority of participants. Seventy-three percent of participants were successes for the primary end point, reporting clinically significant (≥30%) reductions in back pain intensity after the 2-month percutaneous PNS treatment (n = 54/74). Whereas prospective follow-up is ongoing, among those who had already completed the long-term follow-up visits (n = 51), reductions in pain intensity, disability, and pain interference were sustained in a majority of participants through 14 months after the start of treatment. CONCLUSION: Given the minimally invasive, nondestructive nature of percutaneous PNS and the significant benefits experienced by participants who were recalcitrant to nonsurgical treatments, percutaneous PNS may provide a promising first-line neurostimulation treatment option for patients with chronic axial back pain.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain: Prospective Case Series With 1 Year of Sustained Relief Following Short-Term Implant.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) provides an opportunity to relieve chronic low back pain and reduce opioid analgesic consumption as an alternative to radiofrequency ablation and permanently implanted neurostimulation systems. Traditionally, the use of neurostimulation earlier in the treatment continuum has been limited by its associated risk, invasiveness, and cost. METHODS: Percutaneous PNS leads (SPRINT MicroLead) were placed bilaterally to target the medial branches of the dorsal rami nerves under image guidance. The percutaneous leads were connected to miniature wearable stimulators (SPRINT PNS System) for the 1-month therapy period, after which the leads were removed. Pain and disability were assessed long-term up to 12 months after lead removal. RESULTS: Substantial, clinically significant reductions in average pain intensity (≥50% reduction as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form) were experienced by a majority of subjects (67%) at end of treatment compared to baseline (average 80% reduction among responders; P < 0.05, analysis of variance; n = 9). Twelve months after the end of PNS treatment, a majority of subjects who completed the long-term follow-up visits experienced sustained, clinically significant reductions in pain and/or disability (67%, n = 6; average 63% reduction in pain intensity and 32-point reduction in disability among responders). No serious or unanticipated adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study challenges the long-held notion that a positive trial of PNS should be followed by a permanent implant in responders. Percutaneous PNS may serve as an effective neurostimulation therapy for patients with chronic low back pain and should be considered earlier in the treatment continuum as a motor-sparing means of avoiding opioids, denervation, and permanently implanted neurostimulation systems.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain Provides Sustained Relief.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP). Percutaneous PNS offers the potential to provide an effective neuromodulation therapy using a system and fine-wire leads designed specifically for percutaneous use with history of an excellent safety profile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects with chronic axial LBP received percutaneous PNS leads targeting the medial branch of the dorsal ramus in the region of LBP. Lead placement was guided using ultrasound and confirmed by selective activation of the lumbar multifidus and patient-reported sensations. The percutaneous fine-wire leads remained in place for the 30-day therapy. RESULTS: A majority of subjects reported statistically and clinically significant reductions in both average pain intensity (BPI-5) and worst pain intensity (BPI-3) scores with PNS treatment, which continued long term at the four-month follow-up visit. Subject-reported reductions in pain intensity were substantiated by concomitant and sustained reductions in analgesic medication usage. Subjects also reported clinically significant reductions in patient-centric outcomes of disability (Oswestry Disability Index), pain interference (BPI-9), and patient global impression of change (PGIC). CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates the potential value of percutaneous PNS for the treatment of chronic LBP. Improvements in pain, medication, and patient-centric outcomes, which were sustained long term after the removal of PNS leads, demonstrate the significance of this innovative approach to treat chronic LBP.

A Feasibility Study of Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Postoperative Pain Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the present feasibility study was to investigate the use of a new treatment modality-percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS)-in controlling the often severe and long-lasting pain following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: For patients undergoing a primary, unilateral TKA, both femoral and sciatic open-coil percutaneous leads (SPR Therapeutics, Cleveland, OH) were placed up to seven days prior to surgery using ultrasound guidance. The leads were connected to external stimulators and used both at home and in the hospital for up to six weeks total. RESULTS: In six of seven subjects (86%), the average of daily pain scores across the first two weeks was <4 on the 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale for pain. A majority of subjects (four out of seven; 57%) had ceased opioid use within the first week (median time to opioid cessation for all subjects was six days). Gross sensory/motor function was maintained during stimulation, enabling stimulation during physical therapy and activities of daily living. At 12 weeks following surgery, six of seven subjects had improved by >10% on the Six-Minute Walk Test compared to preoperative levels, and WOMAC scores improved by an average of 85% compared to before surgery. No falls, motor block, or lead infections were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study suggests that for TKA, ultrasound-guided percutaneous PNS is feasible in the immediate perioperative period and may provide analgesia without the undesirable systemic effects of opioids or quadriceps weakness induced by local anesthetics-based peripheral nerve blocks.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: Two Clinical Case Reports of Sustained Pain Relief.

As the leading cause of disability among U.S. adults, chronic low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent and challenging musculoskeletal conditions. Neuromodulation provides an opportunity to reduce or eliminate the use of opioids to treat chronic LBP, but the cost and invasiveness of existing methods have limited its broad adoption, especially earlier in the treatment continuum. The present case report details the results of a novel method of short-term percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) in 2 subjects with chronic LBP. At the end of the 1-month therapy, stimulation was discontinued and the leads were withdrawn. PNS produced clinically significant improvements in pain (62% average reduction in Brief Pain Inventory Question #5, average pain), and functional outcomes (73% reduction in disability, Oswestry Disability Index; 83% reduction in pain interference, Brief Pain Inventory). Both subjects reduced nonopioid analgesic use by 83%, on average, and the one subject taking opioids ceased using all opioids. The only adverse event was minor skin irritation caused by a topical dressing. The clinically significant improvements were sustained at least 4 months after start of therapy (79% average reduction in pain; both reported minimal disability; 100% reduction in opioids; 74% reduction nonopioids). The results reveal the utility of this novel, short-term approach and its potential as a minimally invasive neuromodulation therapy for use earlier in the treatment continuum to produce sustained pain relief and reduce or eliminate the need for analgesic medications, including opioids, as well as more expensive and invasive surgical or therapeutic alternatives.

Neurostimulation for Postsurgical Analgesia: A Novel System Enabling Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation.

While neurostimulation-stimulation of the nervous system using electrical current-has been used to treat chronic pain, its use treating postsurgical pain has been limited. Here, we report on the clinical application of a novel investigational lead to provide analgesia following total knee arthroplasty. In 5 subjects, leads were inserted percutaneously using ultrasound guidance within 0.5 to 3.0 cm of the femoral and/or sciatic nerve(s). With the delivery of current, pain decreased an average of 63% at rest, with 4 of 5 subjects having relief of > 50%. During passive and active knee flexion, pain decreased an average of 14% and 50%, with 0/3 and 1/2 subjects attaining > 50% relief, respectively. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation may be a practical modality for the treatment of postsurgical pain.

Infection Rates of Electrical Leads Used for Percutaneous Neurostimulation of the Peripheral Nervous System.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous neurostimulation of the peripheral nervous system involves the insertion of a wire "lead" through an introducing needle to target a nerve/plexus or a motor point within a muscle. Electrical current may then be passed from an external generator through the skin via the lead for various therapeutic goals, including providing analgesia. With extended use of percutaneous leads sometimes greater than a month, infection is a concern. It was hypothesized that the infection rate of leads with a coiled design is lower than for leads with a noncoiled cylindrical design. METHODS: The literature was retrospectively reviewed for clinical studies of percutaneous neurostimulation of the peripheral nervous system of greater than 2 days that included explicit information on adverse events. The primary endpoint was the number of infections per 1,000 indwelling days. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were identified that met inclusion criteria involving coiled (n = 21) and noncoiled (n = 25) leads (3 studies involved both). The risk of infection with noncoiled leads was estimated to be 25 times greater than with coiled leads (95% confidence interval [CI] 2 to 407, P = 0.006). The infection rates were estimated to be 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.13) infections per 1,000 indwelling days for coiled leads and 0.83 (95% CI 0.16 to 4.33) infections per 1,000 indwelling days for noncoiled leads (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous leads used for neurostimulation of the peripheral nervous system have a much lower risk of infection with a coiled design compared with noncoiled leads: approximately 1 infection for every 30,000 vs. 1,200 indwelling days, respectively.

Treatment of post-amputation pain with peripheral nerve stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Present treatment methods are often unsatisfactory in reducing post-amputation pain. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) could reduce the pain, but it is rarely used because present methods require invasive surgical access and precise placement of the leads in close proximity (≤ 2 mm) with the nerve. METHODS: The present study investigated the feasibility of delivering PNS to patients with moderate-to-severe post-amputation pain in the lower extremity using a fine-wire lead placed percutaneously under ultrasound guidance a remote distance (0.5-3.0 cm) away from the sciatic and/or femoral nerves. RESULTS: Fourteen of the 16 subjects who completed in-clinic testing responded to stimulation, reported ≥ 75% paresthesia coverage, obtained clinically significant pain relief, and proceeded to a two-week home trial with a percutaneous PNS system. Two of the 14 responders had their leads removed early because of accidental dislodgement (N = 2), two had temporary discomfort near the lead (N = 2), and one had return of post-amputation pain despite stimulation (N = 1) and did not complete the home trial. The nine responders who completed the home trial reported reductions in their mean daily worst post-amputation pain (56 ± 26%, 56 ± 26%, N = 9), average residual limb pain (72 ± 28%, 42 ± 27%, N = 7), average phantom limb pain (81 ± 28%, 47 ± 48%, N = 7), residual limb pain interference (81 ± 27%, 53 ± 17%, N = 6), phantom limb pain interference (83 ± 31%, 56 ± 46%, N = 7), and Pain Disability Index (70 ± 38%, 55 ± 32%, N = 9) during the second week of stimulation and four weeks after the end of stimulation, respectively. All nine responders rated their change in quality of life as improved at the end of stimulation and at the end of the four-week follow-up period. Subjects reported minor decreases in the Beck Depression Inventory scores (43 ± 51%, 32 ± 57%, N = 9). Most subjects had no substantial changes other than minor decreases (N = 3) in pain medication. CONCLUSION: Achievement of significant pain relief and improvements in quality of life with a minimally invasive method of PNS holds promise for providing relief of post-amputation pain.

Real-world evidence of durable multi-dimensional improvement after 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation treatment used for shoulder pain.

Aim: This real-world analysis aims to quantify improvements in multiple health domains in patients who received 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for shoulder pain. Materials & methods: Patients reported percent pain relief and Patient Global Impression of Change in quality of life, physical function and sleep at the end of treatment (EOT), 3 months, and 6 months. Results: Of 768 patients, 80.7% were responders in at least one domain at EOT. In a subset who were followed up, a cumulative 75% continued to respond in at least one domain through 6 months (85% [n = 140/165] at 3 months and 88% [n = 53/60] at 6 months). Conclusion: 60-day PNS used for shoulder pain produced multi-dimensional improvements across health domains at EOT and through 6 months.

Chronic shoulder pain is common. Patients often have challenges with quality of life, physical function and sleep. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is one available treatment for chronic shoulder pain. Studies like this one show how treatments work in everyday use. These studies are important to help patients and doctors make decisions about their treatment. This study looked at patients who received a 60-day PNS treatment for their shoulder pain. The treatment involved one or two small wires placed through the skin to stimulate nerves in the shoulder. At the end of treatment, they reported how much pain relief they had. They also reported how much their quality of life, physical function and sleep changed. Of 768 patients, most (80.7%) had improvement in at least one of these areas at the end of their PNS treatment. Only 5.9% of patients reported complications. The most common complaint was skin irritation. A smaller group of patients also shared how they were doing 3 months and 6 months after starting treatment. Overall, about 75% of patients continued to have improvement in at least one area 6 months after starting treatment. For many people, PNS provided improvements in pain and in other areas important to patients. These results suggest that 60-day PNS can be a valuable treatment for people with shoulder pain.

A review of prospective studies regarding percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation treatment in the management of chronic pain.

Conventionally, peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for treatment of chronic pain has involved a two-stage process: a short-term (e.g., 7 days) trial and, if significant pain relief is achieved, a permanent PNS system is implanted. A percutaneous PNS treatment is now available where a coiled lead may be implanted for up to 60 days with the goal of producing sustained relief. In the present review, published prospective trials using percutaneous PNS treatment were identified and synthesized. The collected evidence indicates that percutaneous PNS treatment for up to 60 days provides durable clinically significant improvements in pain and pain interference. Similar efficacy across diverse targets and etiologies supports the broad applicability for use within the chronic pain population using this nonopioid technology.

What is this review about? This review looks at a drug-free way to treat chronic pain called percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). Percutaneous means it is placed through the skin. PNS applies small amounts of electricity to the nerves to reduce chronic pain. Most PNS systems involve a two-step process. A short trial is first performed to see if a patient has pain relief. A permanent system is then placed if the person had pain relief. Percutaneous PNS treatments are different. They use a thin wire called a lead placed in the body for up to 60 days. The lead is taken out at the end of the treatment period. Studies have shown that this type of PNS treatment can reduce chronic pain even after the treatment is over. No previous article has collected all these studies of percutaneous PNS in one place.What evidence was gathered? This review found evidence from studies on treatment of chronic pain. Pain types included shoulder pain, neuropathic pain and low back pain. It found that percutaneous PNS treatment for up to 60 days can reduce pain and how pain interferes with daily life.How can these data lead to better care for patients? These findings mean that percutaneous PNS treatments could be a useful, non-drug option for many types of chronic pain.

A Retrospective Review of Real-world Outcomes Following 60-day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data can provide important insights into treatment effectiveness in routine clinical practice. Studies have demonstrated that in multiple different pain indications temporary (60-day) percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment can produce significant relief, but few real-world studies have been published. The present study is the first real-world, retrospective review of a large database depicting outcomes at the end of a 60-day PNS treatment period. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate outcomes during a 60-day PNS treatment in routine clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary retrospective review. METHODS: Anonymized records of 6,160 patients who were implanted with a SPRINT PNS System from August 2019 through August 2022 were retrospectively reviewed from a national real-world database. The percentage of patients with ? 50% pain relief and/or improvement in quality of life was evaluated and stratified by nerve target. Additional outcomes included average and worst pain score, patient-reported percentage of pain relief, and patient global impression of change. RESULTS: Overall, 71% of patients (4,348/6,160) were responders with >= 50% pain relief and/or improvement in quality of life; pain relief among responders averaged 63%. The responder rate was largely consistent across nerve targets throughout the back and trunk, upper and lower extremities, and posterior head and neck. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature and reliance on a device manufacturer's database. Additionally, detailed demographic information and measures for pain medication usage and physical function were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis supports recent prospective studies demonstrating that 60-day percutaneous PNS can provide significant relief across a wide range of nerve targets. These data serve an important role in complementing the findings of published prospective clinical trials.

Durable patient-reported outcomes following 60-day percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the medial branch nerves.

Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is often associated with clinical evidence of central nervous system sensitization and finding a clear source of nociceptive input can be challenging. Conventional therapies targeting peripheral spinal pain structures can fail to address centrally-mediated, underlying causes of pain. Sixty-day percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) applied to the lumbar medial branch nerves is a non-surgical, non-opioid treatment that may restore the balance of peripheral inputs to the central nervous system and reverse maladaptive changes in central pain processing. As a minimally invasive, non-destructive treatment, percutaneous PNS was designed to be used earlier in the treatment continuum than radiofrequency ablation or permanently-implanted neurostimulation systems. Objective: The objective of this clinical trial was to characterize the durability of responses to medial branch PNS in a prospective multicenter case series study of CLBP patients recalcitrant to multiple non-surgical treatments. Design: Prospective, multicenter clinical trial. Population: Adults with CLBP without radicular leg pain who had previously failed multiple types of conventional treatments. Intervention: Sixty-day percutaneous PNS applied to the lumbar medial branch nerves. Methods: Percutaneous PNS leads were implanted under image guidance (ultrasound and/or fluoroscopy) and treatment was applied for up to 60 days, after which the leads were removed. Participants were followed through 14 months (12 months after the 2-month PNS treatment). Prospectively-defined endpoints included assessments of pain intensity, disability, pain interference, health-related quality of life, depression, and patient global impression of change. Results: Treatment of CLBP with 60-day percutaneous PNS treatment produced clinically meaningful improvements in average pain intensity, disability, and/or pain interference for a majority of participants through the entire 14 month follow up period without requiring permanent system implantation. The proportion of participants experiencing clinically meaningful improvement in at least one outcome (pain intensiy, disability, pain interference) with PNS was 91% after 2 months, 79% at 5 months, 73% at 8 months, 75% at 11 months, and 77% at 14 months. There were no serious or unanticipated study-related adverse events. Conclusion: This prospective multicenter clinical trial demonstrates the clinical utility of percutaneous PNS when applied to the medial branch nerves for the treatment of chronic low back pain recalcitrant to non-surgical treatments. Given the minimally invasive nature of percutaneous PNS and the significant benefits experienced by participants, percutaneous PNS provides a safe and effective first-line neuromodulation treatment for patients with CLBP that may obviate the need for neuroablative procedures or permanent neurostimulation system implantation.

Peripheral nerve stimulation for the treatment of postamputation pain--a case report.

Many amputees suffer from postamputation pain, which can be extremely debilitating, decrease quality of life, increase the risk of depression, and negatively affect interpersonal relationships and the ability to work. Present methods of treatment, including medications, are often unsatisfactory in reducing postamputation pain. Electrical stimulation of the nerve innervating the painful area could reduce the pain, but peripheral nerve stimulation is rarely used to treat postamputation pain because present methods require invasive surgical access and precise placement of the leads in close proximity (≤ 2 mm) with the nerve. The present study investigated a novel approach to peripheral nerve stimulation in which a lead was placed percutaneously a remote distance (> 1 cm) away from the femoral nerve in a patient with severe residual limb pain (RLP) 33 years following a below-knee amputation. Electrical stimulation generated ≥ 75% paresthesia coverage, reduced RLP by > 60%, and improved quality of life outcomes as measured by the pain interference scale of the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (100% reduction in pain interference), Pain Disability Index (74% reduction in disability), and the Patient Global Impression of Change (very much improved) during a 2-week home trial. There were no adverse events. The ability to generate significant paresthesia coverage and pain relief with a single lead inserted percutaneously and remotely from the target nerve holds promise for providing relief of postamputation pain.

60-Day PNS Treatment May Improve Identification of Delayed Responders and Delayed Non-Responders to Neurostimulation for Pain Relief.

Objective: Conventional neurostimulation typically involves a brief (eg, ≤10-day) trial to assess presumed effectiveness prior to permanent implantation. Low trial conversion rates and high explant rates due to inadequate pain relief highlight the need for improved patient identification strategies. The development of a 60-day percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) system enables evaluation of outcomes following an extended temporary treatment period of up to 60 days, that may obviate or validate the need for permanent implant. The present study provides the first real-world evidence regarding patient response throughout a 60-day PNS treatment period. Methods: Anonymized data listings were compiled from patients who underwent implantation of temporary percutaneous leads and opted-in to provide real-world data to the device manufacturer during routine interactions with device representatives throughout the 60-day treatment. Results: Overall, 30% (222/747) of patients were early responders (≥50% pain relief throughout treatment). Another 31% (231/747) of patients initially presented as non-responders but surpassed 50% pain relief by the end of treatment. Conversely, 32% (239/747) of patients were non-responders throughout treatment. An additional 7% (55/747) of patients initially presented as responders but fell below 50% relief by the end of the treatment period. Conclusion: An extended, 60-day PNS treatment may help identify delayed responders, providing the opportunity for sustained relief and improving access to effective PNS treatment. Compared to a conventionally short trial of ≤10 days, a longer 60-day PNS treatment may also help reduce explant rates by identifying delayed non-responders unlikely to benefit long-term. These scenarios support the importance of an extended 60-day temporary PNS stimulation period to help inform stepwise treatment strategies that may optimize outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

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

Objective: This study presents real-world data from a cross-sectional follow-up survey of patients who previously received 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment for pain. Materials & methods: A survey including validated pain and other related outcome measures was distributed to patients who previously underwent implantation of temporary PNS leads for 60-day PNS treatment. Results: Among survey respondents who were at least 3 months from the start of treatment, most reported sustained clinically significant improvements in pain and/or quality of life, with the length of follow-up at the time of survey completion ranging from 3 to 30 months. Conclusion: These real-world data support recent prospective studies indicating that 60-day percutaneous PNS provides significant and sustained relief across a wide range of pain conditions.

This study presents the findings from a survey that was sent to patients who previously received a 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment for their chronic pain. Patients were asked about their current pain levels, how their quality of life and physical function have changed since their PNS treatment, and whether they had changed their usage of pain medications. The survey showed that most patients who were at least 3 months from the start of the PNS treatment continued to have meaningful pain relief and/or improvement in their quality of life. This information is consistent with clinical studies that were previously published and supports that the 60-day PNS treatment can provide patients with long-term relief of chronic pain.