Neurophysiological outcomes that sustained clinically significant improvements over 3 years of physiologic ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain.

INTRODUCTION: A novel, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system with a physiologic closed-loop (CL) feedback mechanism controlled by evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) enables the optimization of physiologic neural dose and the accuracy of the stimulation, not possible with any other commercially available SCS systems. The report of objective spinal cord measurements is essential to increase the transparency and reproducibility of SCS therapy. Here, we report a cohort of the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial treated with CL-SCS for 36 months to evaluate the ECAP dose and accuracy that sustained the durability of clinical improvements. METHODS: 41 patients randomized to CL-SCS remained in their treatment allocation and were followed up through 36 months. Objective neurophysiological data, including measures of spinal cord activation, were analyzed. Pain relief was assessed by determining the proportion of patients with ≥50% and ≥80% reduction in overall back and leg pain. RESULTS: The performance of the feedback loop resulted in high-dose accuracy by keeping the elicited ECAP within 4µV of the target ECAP set on the system across all timepoints. Percent time stimulating above the ECAP threshold was >98%, and the ECAP dose was ≥19.3µV. Most patients obtained ≥50% reduction (83%) and ≥80% reduction (59%) in overall back and leg pain with a sustained response observed in the rates between 3-month and 36-month follow-up (p=0.083 and p=0.405, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that a physiological adherence to supra-ECAP threshold therapy that generates pain inhibition provided by ECAP-controlled CL-SCS leads to durable improvements in pain intensity with no evidence of loss of therapeutic effect through 36-month follow-up.

ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop SCS for the treatment of chronic pain: 36-month results of the EVOKE blinded randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The evidence for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been criticized for the absence of blinded, parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limited evaluations of the long-term effects of SCS in RCTs. The aim of this study was to determine whether evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled, closed-loop SCS (CL-SCS) is associated with better outcomes when compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS (OL-SCS) 36 months following implant. METHODS: The EVOKE study was a multicenter, participant-blinded, investigator-blinded, and outcome assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled, parallel-arm clinical trial that compared ECAP-controlled CL-SCS with fixed-output OL-SCS. Participants with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy were enrolled between January 2017 and February 2018, with follow-up through 36 months. The primary outcome was a reduction of at least 50% in overall back and leg pain. Holistic treatment response, a composite outcome including pain intensity, physical and emotional functioning, sleep, and health-related quality of life, and objective neural activation was also assessed. RESULTS: At 36 months, more CL-SCS than OL-SCS participants reported ≥50% reduction (CL-SCS=77.6%, OL-SCS=49.3%; difference: 28.4%, 95% CI 12.8% to 43.9%, p<0.001) and ≥80% reduction (CL-SCS=49.3%, OL-SCS=31.3%; difference: 17.9, 95% CI 1.6% to 34.2%, p=0.032) in overall back and leg pain intensity. Clinically meaningful improvements from baseline were observed at 36 months in both CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in all other patient-reported outcomes with greater levels of improvement with CL-SCS. A greater proportion of patients with CL-SCS were holistic treatment responders at 36-month follow-up (44.8% vs 28.4%), with a greater cumulative responder score for CL-SCS patients. Greater neural activation and accuracy were observed with CL-SCS. There were no differences between CL-SCS and OL-SCS groups in adverse events. No explants due to loss of efficacy were observed in the CL-SCS group. CONCLUSION: This long-term evaluation with objective measurement of SCS therapy demonstrated that ECAP-controlled CL-SCS resulted in sustained, durable pain relief and superior holistic treatment response through 36 months. Greater neural activation and increased accuracy of therapy delivery were observed with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS than OL-SCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

Durability of Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: A Secondary Analysis of the Evoke Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Chronic pain is debilitating and profoundly affects health-related quality of life. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy for chronic pain; however, SCS has been limited by the inability to directly measure the elicited neural response, precluding confirmation of neural activation and continuous therapy. A novel SCS system measures the evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) to produce a real-time physiological closed-loop control system. Objective: To determine whether ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS is associated with better outcomes compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS at 24 months following implant. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Evoke study was a double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel arm clinical trial with 36 months of follow-up. Participants were enrolled from February 2017 to 2018, and the study was conducted at 13 US investigation sites. SCS candidates with chronic, intractable back and leg pain refractory to conservative therapy, who consented, were screened. Key eligibility criteria included overall, back, and leg pain visual analog scale score of 60 mm or more; Oswestry Disability Index score of 41 to 80; stable pain medications; and no previous SCS. Analysis took place from October 2020 to April 2021. Interventions: ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS was compared with fixed-output, open-loop SCS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reported here are the 24-month outcomes of the trial, which include all randomized patients in the primary and safety analyses. The primary outcome was a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain assessed at 3 and 12 months (previously published). Results: Of 134 randomized patients, 65 (48.5%) were female and the mean (SD) age was 55.2 (10.6) years. At 24 months, significantly more closed-loop than open-loop patients were responders (≥50% reduction) in overall pain (53 of 67 [79.1%] in the closed-loop group; 36 of 67 [53.7%] in the open-loop group; difference, 25.4% [95% CI, 10.0%-40.8%]; P = .001). There was no difference in safety profiles between groups (difference in rate of study-related adverse events: 6.0 [95% CI, -7.8 to 19.7]). Improvements were also observed in health-related quality of life, physical and emotional functioning, and sleep, in parallel with opioid reduction or elimination. Objective neurophysiological measurements substantiated the clinical outcomes and provided evidence of activation of inhibitory pain mechanisms. Conclusions and Relevance: ECAP-controlled, closed-loop SCS, which elicited a more consistent neural response, was associated with sustained superior pain relief at 24 months, consistent with the 3- and 12-month outcomes.

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 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.

A Review of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Techniques Targeting the Medial Branches of the Lumbar Dorsal Rami in the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVES: The lumbar medial branch nerve has historically been a focus for ablative techniques in the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) of facetogenic origin. Recent developments in the field of neuromodulation have been employed to target these nerves for analgesia and/or functional restoration in broader populations of CLBP patients. The objective of this article was to provide an introductory review of procedural techniques and devices employed for peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the lumbar medial branch of the dorsal ramus for the treatment of CLBP. METHODS: A literature search via PubMed.gov was performed through September 2019 with key words focusing on peripheral nerve stimulation for chronic low back pain. This was refined to include only those articles that focused specifically on stimulation of the lumbar medial branch of the dorsal ramus. References within selected articles and unpublished data currently in the peer review process were also utilized. RESULTS: Ninety articles from PubMed.gov were obtained. Two approaches to PNS of the medial branch of the dorsal ramus were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our review of the current literature regarding techniques for neuromodulation of the medial branch of the dorsal ramus revealed two dominant methods: a temporarily implanted percutaneous coiled-lead approach and a permanently implanted system. The two techniques share some similarities, such as targeting the medial branch of the dorsal ramus, and also have some differences, such as indwelling time, stimulation parameters, duration of treatment, image guidance, and degrees of invasiveness, but they are both demonstrating promising results in clinical trials.

Long-term safety and efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation to treat chronic back and leg pain (Evoke): a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation has been an established treatment for chronic back and leg pain for more than 50 years; however, outcomes are variable and unpredictable, and objective evidence of the mechanism of action is needed. A novel spinal cord stimulation system provides the first in vivo, real-time, continuous objective measure of spinal cord activation in response to therapy via recorded evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in patients during daily use. These ECAPs are also used to optimise programming and deliver closed-loop spinal cord stimulation by adjusting the stimulation current to maintain activation within patients' therapeutic window. We aimed to examine pain relief and the extent of spinal cord activation with ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial was done at 13 specialist clinics, academic centres, and hospitals in the USA. Patients with chronic, intractable pain of the back and legs (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] pain score ≥60 mm; Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score 41-80) who were refractory to conservative therapy, on stable pain medications, had no previous experience with spinal cord stimulation, and were appropriate candidates for a spinal cord stimulation trial were screened. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (investigational group) or fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation (control group). The randomisation sequence was computer generated with permuted blocks of size 4 and 6 and stratified by site. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to the treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain with no increase in pain medications. Non-inferiority (δ=10%) followed by superiority were tested in the intention-to-treat population at 3 months (primary analysis) and 12 months (additional prespecified analysis) after the permanent implant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02924129, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 21, 2017, and Feb 20, 2018, 134 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (67 to each treatment group). The intention-to-treat analysis comprised 125 patients at 3 months (62 in the closed-loop group and 63 in the open-loop group) and 118 patients at 12 months (59 in the closed-loop group and 59 in the open-loop group). The primary outcome was achieved in a greater proportion of patients in the closed-loop group than in the open-loop group at 3 months (51 [82·3%] of 62 patients vs 38 [60·3%] of 63 patients; difference 21·9%, 95% CI 6·6-37·3; p=0·0052) and at 12 months (49 [83·1%] of 59 patients vs 36 [61·0%] of 59 patients; difference 22·0%, 6·3-37·7; p=0·0060). We observed no differences in safety profiles between the two groups. The most frequently reported study-related adverse events in both groups were lead migration (nine [7%] patients), implantable pulse generator pocket pain (five [4%]), and muscle spasm or cramp (three [2%]). INTERPRETATION: ECAP-controlled closed-loop stimulation provided significantly greater and more clinically meaningful pain relief up to 12 months than open-loop spinal cord stimulation. Greater spinal cord activation seen in the closed-loop group suggests a mechanistic explanation for the superior results, which aligns with the putative mechanism of action for spinal cord stimulation and warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Saluda Medical.

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 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation implant provides sustained relief of chronic pain following amputation: 12-month follow-up of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has historically been used to treat chronic pain, but generally requires implantation of a permanent system for sustained relief. A recent study found that a 60-day PNS treatment decreases post-amputation pain, and the current work investigates longer-term outcomes out to 12 months in the same cohort. METHODS: As previously reported, 28 traumatic lower extremity amputees with residual and/or phantom limb pain were randomized to receive 8 weeks of PNS (group 1) or 4 weeks of placebo followed by a crossover 4 weeks of PNS (group 2). Percutaneous leads were implanted under ultrasound guidance targeting the femoral and sciatic nerves. During follow-up, changes in average pain and pain interference were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form and comparing with baseline. RESULTS: Significantly more participants in group 1 reported ≥50% reductions in average weekly pain at 12 months (67%, 6/9) compared with group 2 at the end of the placebo period (0%, 0/14, p=0.001). Similarly, 56% (5/9) of participants in group 1 reported ≥50% reductions in pain interference at 12 months, compared with 2/13 (15%, p=0.074) in group 2 at crossover. Reductions in depression were also statistically significantly greater at 12 months in group 1 compared with group 2 at crossover. CONCLUSIONS: This work suggests that 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01996254.

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Pain Following Amputation.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain and reduced function are significant problems for Military Service members and Veterans following amputation. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is a promising therapy, but PNS systems have traditionally been limited by invasiveness and complications. Recently, a novel percutaneous PNS system was developed to reduce the risk of complications and enable delivery of stimulation without surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Percutaneous PNS was evaluated to determine if stimulation provides relief from residual and phantom limb pain following lower-extremity amputation. PNS leads were implanted percutaneously to deliver stimulation to the femoral and/or sciatic nerves. Patients received stimulation for up to 60 days followed by withdrawal of the leads. RESULTS: A review of recent studies and clinical reports found that a majority of patients (18/24, 75%) reported substantial (≥50%) clinically relevant relief of chronic post-amputation pain following up to 60 days of percutaneous PNS. Reductions in pain were frequently associated with reductions in disability and pain interference. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous PNS can durably reduce pain, thereby enabling improvements in quality of life, function, and rehabilitation in individuals with residual or phantom limb pain following amputation. Percutaneous PNS may have additional benefit for Military Service members and Veterans with post-surgical or post-traumatic pain.

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.

Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) Trial Outcomes After Conversion to a Multiple Waveform SCS System.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic intractable pain is typically delivered in pulses, classically programmed between approximately 20 and 100 Hz. Though some recent studies suggest that better pain relief is obtained, with only 10 kHz stimulation, other studies show that single-therapy trials do not always lead to permanent implantation. We evaluated SCS outcomes in subjects given trials with multiple waveforms who did not experience satisfactory trial relief with 10 kHz stimulation only. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, real-world, observational study conducted in the United States, subjects reporting <50% pain relief with 10 kHz stimulation (i.e., failed the screening trial) received a stimulator capable of delivering multiple waveforms and/or field shapes. Pain relief and patient device preference data were collected. RESULTS: Twenty-two subjects were analyzed. Of the 16 who failed the 10 kHz trial and had numerical rating scale, visual analog scale, or percent pain relief scores available, 63% (n = 10) reported ≥50% relief with multiple waveform SCS. Additionally, 80% of subjects with ≥50% relief using multiple waveform SCS had experienced no relief with 10 kHz SCS. Among all subjects, 68% preferred multiple waveform SCS, none preferred 10 kHz SCS, and 32% had no preference. DISCUSSION: Subjects with failed SCS trials at 10 kHz experienced ≥50% relief after switching to a multiple waveform system. These results suggest that providing multiple waveforms during trials may overcome limitations of providing only 10 kHz stimulation. Thus, chronic pain's variable nature across patients and over time lends itself to variable treatment options.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve stimulation has been used for decades to treat chronic pain but has not been used for postoperative analgesia due to multiple limitations, beginning with invasive electrode placement. With the development of small-diameter/gauge leads enabling percutaneous insertion, ultrasound guidance for accurate introduction, and stimulators small enough to be adhered to the skin, neurostimulation may now be provided in a similar manner to continuous peripheral nerve blocks. Here, we report on the use of ultrasound-guided percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation to treat postoperative pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects within 60 days of a total knee arthroplasty with pain insufficiently treated with oral analgesics had a 0.2-mm-diameter electrical lead (pre-loaded into a 20 gauge needle) introduced percutaneously using ultrasound guidance with the tip located approximately 0.5-1.0 cm from the femoral nerve (a second lead was inserted approximately 1.0-3.0 cm from the sciatic nerve for posterior knee pain). An external stimulator delivered current. Endpoints were assessed before and after lead insertion and the leads subsequently removed. Due to the small sample size for this pilot/feasibility study, no statistics were applied to the data. RESULTS: Leads were inserted in subjects (n = 5) 8-58 days postoperatively. Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation decreased pain an average of 93% at rest (from a mean of 5.0 to 0.2 on a 0-10 numeric rating scale), with 4 of 5 subjects experiencing complete resolution of pain. During passive and active knee motion pain decreased an average of 27 and 30%, respectively. Neither maximum passive nor active knee range-of-motion was consistently affected. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation may be a practical modality for the treatment of postoperative pain following orthopedic surgical procedures, and further investigation appears warranted.

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.

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.