Birds of a Feather Redux: Defining Ways to Stimulate the Peripheral Nervous System.

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has become an essential component in the pain management plan for individuals suffering from peripheral nerve-mediated pain. The recent surge in interest in PNS can be attributed to the advancements in imaging techniques and the availability of minimally invasive stimulation systems along with a deeper grasp of PNS physiology. These advancements have made PNS more accessible to clinicians and patients alike. However, it is important to note that PNS requires a different set of technical requirements and skills compared to other pain management procedures. The work, knowledge, and surgical and interventional skillset required for PNS are in a class of their own. This article aims to educate and clarify the differences between procedures that may have similar names but are vastly different in terms of technology, expertise, and skill sets necessary for their safe implementation. Some of the procedures that this article will cover include indirect peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNfS), indirect percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), PENS-Field Stimulation (PENFS), and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). By understanding the differences between these procedures, patients and health-care providers can make informed decisions about the best approach for managing pain.

Ten kilohertz SCS for Treatment of Chronic Upper Extremity Pain (UEP): Results from Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic upper extremity pain (UEP) has complex etiologies and is often disabling. It has been shown that 10 kHz SCS can provide paresthesia-free and durable pain relief in multiple pain types and improve the quality of life of patients. OBJECTIVE: To gain additional evidence on the safety and effectiveness of 10 kHz SCS for the treatment of chronic UEP. STUDY DESIGN: It was a prospective, multicenter, and observational study. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov prospectively (clinical trial identifier: NCT02703818). SETTING: Multicenter. PATIENTS INTERVENTION AND MAIN OUTCOMES: A total of 43 subjects with chronic UEP of ≥5 cm (on a 0-10 cm visual analog scale; VAS) underwent a trial of 10 kHz SCS, and subjects with ≥40% pain relief received a permanent implant. All subjects had upper limb pain at baseline, while some had concomitant shoulder or neck pain. Subject outcomes were assessed for 12 months, and the primary outcome was the responder rate (percentage of subjects experiencing ≥50% pain relief from baseline) at three months. RESULTS: Thirty-eight subjects successfully completed the trial (88.3% success rate), 33 received permanent implants (five withdrew consent), and 32 had device activation (per protocol population). There were no paresthesias or uncomfortable changes in stimulation related to changes in posture during the study and there were no neurological deficits. Responder rates at 12 months for upper limb, shoulder, and neck pain in per protocol population (N=32) were 78.1%, 85.2%, and 75.0%, respectively. At 12 months, 84.4% of subjects were satisfied or very satisfied with 10 kHz SCS, and 38.7% either reduced or eliminated opioid usage. CONCLUSION: This study further supports the effectiveness of 10 kHz SCS for chronic UEP treatment and documents the safety profile of the therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT02703818.

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.

A Systematic Literature Review of Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for DRG stimulation. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for DRG stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, too small, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded 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: DRG stimulation has Level II evidence (moderate) based upon one high-quality pivotal randomized controlled trial and two lower-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-level evidence supports DRG stimulation for treating chronic focal neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome.

Multicenter Retrospective Study of Neurostimulation With Exit of Therapy by Explant.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices are cost effective and improve function as well as quality of life. Despite the demonstrated benefits of SCS, some patients have the device explanted. We are interested in exploring the patient characteristics of those explanted. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of neurostimulation patients who underwent explantation at 18 centers across the United States within the previous five years. RESULTS: Data from 352 patients were collected and compiled. Failed Back Surgery syndrome was the most common diagnosis (38.9%; n = 136/350) and over half of the patients reported numerical rating scale (NRS) scores ≥8 prior to implant (64.3%; n = 207/322). All patients reported changes in NRS scores across time, with an initial decrease after implant followed by a pre-explant increase (F (2, 961) = 121.7, p < 0.001). The most common reason for device explant was lack or loss of efficacy (43.9%; 152/346) followed by complications (20.2%; 70/346). Eighteen percent (18%; 62/343) of patients were explanted by a different physician than the implanting one. Rechargeable devices were explanted at a median of 15 months, whereas primary cell device explants occurred at a median of 36 months (CI 01.434, 2.373; median endpoint time ratio = 2.40). DISCUSSION: Loss or lack of efficacy and complications with therapy represent the most frequent reasons for neurostimulation explantation. Of the devices that were explanted, therapy was terminated earlier when devices were rechargeable, when complications occurred, or when pain relief was not achieved or maintained. Furthermore, in nearly 20% of the cases, a different provider than the implanting physician performed device removal. CONCLUSIONS: SCS is largely a safe and efficacious strategy for treating select chronic refractory pain syndromes. Further prospective data and innovation are needed to improve patient selection, maintain SCS therapeutic efficacy and reduce the reasons that lead to device explant.

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.

Intrathecal Bupivacaine Monotherapy with a Retrograde Catheter for the Management of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome of the Lower Extremity.

UNLABELLED: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) presents a therapeutic challenge due to its many presentations and multifaceted pathophysiology. There is no approved treatment algorithm and clinical interventions are often applied empirically. In cases of CRPS where symptoms are localized to an extremity, a targeted treatment is indicated. We describe the use of intrathecal bupivacaine monotherapy, delivered through a retrograde catheter, in the treatment of CRPS affecting the lower extremity. The patient, a 57-year-old woman with a history of failed foot surgery, was seen in our office after 2 years of ineffective treatments with local blocks and neurolytic procedures. We advanced therapy to moderately invasive procedures with an emphasis on neuromodulation. A combined central and peripheral stimulation technique that initially provided 75% pain relief, failed to provide lasting analgesia. We proceeded with an intrathecal pump implant. Based on the results of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) mapping, L5-S1 was identified as the optimal target for therapy and a retrograde catheter was placed at this level. Various intrathecal medications were tested individually. An intrathecal morphine trial was ineffective (visual analog scale [VAS] 7), while intrathecal clonidine provided excellent pain relief (VAS 0) that was limited by severe side effects. Bupivacaine provided 100% analgesia with tolerable side effects (lower extremity weakness and minor bladder incontinence) and was selected for intrathecal infusion. After 14 months, bupivacaine treatment continued to control pain exacerbations. We conclude that CRPS patients benefit from early identification of the predominant underlying symptoms and a targeted treatment with moderately invasive techniques when less invasive techniques fail. KEY WORDS: Intrathecal bupivacaine, bupivacaine monotherapy, retrograde catheter, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), dual stimulation, dosal root ganglion (DRG) testing.

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.