A Review of the Factors and Outcomes of Institutional Interdisciplinary Neuromodulation Committees: A Multicenter Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Neuromodulation represents one of the more advanced tools in the armamentarium of pain physicians. To optimize neuromodulation patient selection and management, an institutional interdisciplinary neuromodulation committee was created at each of two academic medical centers (University of California Davis [UCD] and Stanford University). The committee aims to collaboratively optimize neuromodulation candidates, to assess and minimize medical and psychologic risks, and to select the best device given a patient's pain condition. In this study, we present the methods and outcome data of the Neuromodulation Committee at the two institutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After institutional review board approval, we included all adult patients who were evaluated by the Neuromodulation Committee between 2017 and 2020 at two academic pain clinics. Patients with insufficient data were excluded from the study. A retrospective chart review was completed on 385 UCD and Stanford University patient committee reviews. Data collected from the chart review included demographics (age, sex), committee meeting results (proceed with trial/implant or decline), trial success, and implant rate. RESULTS: Of the 385 patients screened, the committees recommended proceeding with an implantable device (peripheral and neuraxial) in 337 patients (87.5%). Of the 278 patients recommended for neuraxial neuromodulation, 131 underwent trials with percutaneous leads (47.1%). Trials were successful (causing a ≥50% reduction in self-reported pain or improved function) in 108 patients (82.4%). The institutions completed 87 implants of 131 trials, representing a trial-to-permanent ratio of 66.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The Neuromodulation Committee aims to identify optimal patients for neuromodulation, address procedural challenges, decrease adverse events, provide educational context for trainees, and improve patient-related outcomes. Patients who were recommended for neuromodulation and subsequently underwent intervention had high trial success rates for dorsal root ganglion stimulation and spinal cord stimulation. The findings indicate that such an approach can lead to neuromodulation success, especially at academic centers, by combining the expertise of both medical and psychologic professionals.

Transitional Pain Medicine; New Era, New Opportunities, and New Journey.

Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP), also known as persistent postsurgical pain (PPSP), is pain that develops or increases in intensity after a surgical procedure and lasts more than 3 months. Transitional pain medicine is the medical field that focuses on understanding the mechanisms of CPSP and defining risk factors and developing preventive treatments. Unfortunately, one significant challenge is the risk of developing opioid use dependence. Multiple risk factors have been discovered, with the most common, and modifiable, being uncontrolled acute postoperative pain; preoperative anxiety and depression; and preoperative site pain, chronic pain, and opioid use.

Clinical Approach to Chronic Pain due to Perioperative Nerve Injury.

Perioperative nerve injuries are common and may be prevented. The estimated incidence of perioperative nerve injury is 10% to 50%. However, most of these injuries are minor and self-recovering. Severe injuries account for up to 10%. Potential mechanisms of injury are nerve stretch, compression, hypoperfusion, direct nerve trauma, or injury during vessel cannulation. Nerve injury pain usually presents as neuropathic pain ranging from mild to severe mononeuropathy and extends to the disabling complex regional pain syndrome. This review provides a clinical approach to subacute and chronic pain secondary to perioperative nerve injury, presentation, and management.

Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trials and Learning Health Systems in Pain Medicine: Opportunities and Challenges.

Large randomized clinical trials or aggregates of clinical trials represent the highest levels of clinical evidence because they minimize different sources of confounding and bias. The current review provides an in-depth discussion of the challenges faced and methods we can use to overcome these obstacles to tailor novel designs of pragmatic effectiveness trials to pain medicine. The authors describe their experiences with an open-source learning health system to collect high-quality evidence and conduct pragmatic clinical trials within a busy academic pain center.

Application of multidisciplinary team conference for neuromodulation candidates facilitates patient selection and optimization.

Introduction: Psychological evaluation is required by insurance companies in the United States prior to proceeding with a spinal cord stimulation or a dorsal root ganglion stimulation trial. Since January 2017, we implemented a Multidisciplinary Team Conference for Neuromodulation in our center to facilitate the collaboration between pain physicians and psychologists and to optimize screening of neuromodulation candidates. This study aims to report the impact of this team conference on improvement of neuromodulation outcome in our center. Methods: Appropriateness of neuromodulation were discussed in the team conference after initial visit with the pain specialist and psychological evaluation. For this study, we prospectively and retrospectively collected data on neuromodulation candidates who went through the team conference and those who did not as controls. Results: We discussed 461 patients in the team conference sessions from January 2017 to July 2023. Out of these, a spinal cord stimulator or a dorsal root ganglion stimulator trial was performed in 164 patients with 80.5% (132 cases) trial success rate leading to 140 implants. Out of these implants, 26 (18.6%) explanted and 21 (15%) required revision in 41 (29.3%) patients. We performed neuraxial neuromodulation trial for 70 patients without going through the team conference from January 2016 to July 2023 with a trial success rate of 45.7% (32 cases). In this group, 7 (21.9%) and 6 (18.8%) patients underwent explant and revision. The differences between the groups were statistically significant for trial success rate (odds ratio of 4.9 with p-value of <0.01) but not for explant (odds ratio of 0.8 with p-value of 0.627) or revision (odds ratio of 0.8 with p-value of 0.595). Conclusion: Implementing Multidisciplinary Team Conference increased trial success rate in our center. Team conference provides therapeutic benefit for patients, and also provides the opportunity for an educational discussion for trainees.

Association of cannabis and/or opioid with quality of life and healthcare utilization in patients with chronic pain.

Background: Opioids have been commonly used to treat chronic pain, but they are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Cannabis has been advocated as an alternative; however, a growing number of patients are now using a combination of opioid and cannabis and the impact of this combination is not well-studied. Aim: We characterized use of opioid and/or cannabis in patients with chronic pain; and compared utilization of healthcare resources. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine if measures of physical, psychological and social functioning differed among patients according to whether they used opioids and/or cannabis. We used our learning healthcare system - CHOIR - to capture NIH Patient Reported Outcomes Measure Information System surveys, and legacy pain and treatment specific questions. Results: Patients who report use of opioid and/or cannabis experience higher levels of physical, psychological and social distress. After adjusting for inversed weight of propensity scores, they have higher odds of visiting an emergency room, staying overnight at the hospital, and visiting a physician. Conclusion: Our results show that use of opioid and/or cannabis is associated with worse baseline characteristics and outcomes. Our study however cannot determine if worse outcomes are due to the opioids and/or cannabis or simply that these patients are worse off before using opioids and/or cannabis. Thus, it is important to characterize the trajectory of these patients in a prospective longitudinal study.

A literature review of the impact of exclusion criteria on generalizability of clinical trial findings to patients with chronic pain.

The ability of clinical trials to inform the care of chronic pain may be limited if only an unrepresentative subset of patients are allowed to enroll. We summarize and report new insights on published studies that report on how trial exclusions affect the generalizability of their results. We conducted a PubMed search on the following terms: (("eligibility criteria" AND generalizability) OR ("exclusion criteria" AND generalizability) OR "exclusion criteria"[ti] OR "eligibility criteria"[ti]) AND pain. We only considered studies relevant if they analyzed data on (1) the prevalence and nature of exclusion criteria or (2) the impact of exclusion criteria on sample representativeness or study results. The 4 articles that were identified reported differences in patients who were included and excluded in different clinical trials: excluded patients were older, less likely to have a paid job, had more functional limitations at baseline, and used strong opioids more often. The clinical significance of these differences remains unclear. The pain medicine literature has very few published studies on the prevalence and impact of exclusion criteria, and the outcomes of excluded patients are rarely tracked. The frequent use of psychosocial exclusions is especially compromising to generalizability because chronic pain commonly co-occurs with psychiatric comorbidities. Inclusion of more representative patients in research samples can reduce recruitment barriers and broaden the generalizability of findings in patients with chronic pain. We also call for more studies that examine the use of exclusion criteria in chronic pain trials to better understand their implications.

"My Surgical Success": Feasibility and Impact of a Single-Session Digital Behavioral Pain Medicine Intervention on Pain Intensity, Pain Catastrophizing, and Time to Opioid Cessation After Orthopedic Trauma Surgery-A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral pain treatments may improve postsurgical analgesia and recovery; however, effective and scalable options are not widely available. This study tested a digital perioperative behavioral medicine intervention in orthopedic trauma surgery patients for feasibility and efficacy for reducing pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, and opioid cessation up to 3 months after surgery. METHODS: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at an orthopedic trauma surgery unit at a major academic hospital to compare a digital behavioral pain management intervention ("My Surgical Success" [MSS]) to a digital general health education (HE) intervention (HE; no pain management skills). The enrolled sample included 133 patients; 84 patients were randomized (MSS, n = 37; HE, n = 47) and completed study procedures. Most patients received their assigned intervention within 3 days of surgery (85%). The sample was predominantly male (61.5%), White (61.9%), and partnered (65.5%), with at least a bachelor's degree (69.0%). Outcomes were collected at 1-3 months after intervention through self-report e-surveys and electronic medical record review; an intention-to-treat analytic framework was applied. Feasibility was dually determined by the proportion of patients engaging in their assigned treatment and an application of an 80% threshold for patient-reported acceptability. We hypothesized that MSS would result in greater reductions in pain intensity and pain catastrophizing after surgery and earlier opioid cessation compared to the digital HE control group. RESULTS: The engagement rate with assigned interventions was 63% and exceeded commonly reported rates for fully automated Internet-based e-health interventions. Feasibility was demonstrated for the MSS engagers, with >80% reporting treatment acceptability. Overall, both groups improved in the postsurgical months across all study variables. A significant interaction effect was found for treatment group over time on pain intensity, such that the MSS group evidenced greater absolute reductions in pain intensity after surgery and up to 3 months later (treatment × time fixed effects; F [215] = 5.23; P = .024). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed for time to opioid cessation or for reductions in pain catastrophizing ( F [215] = 0.20; P = .653), although the study sample notably had subclinical baseline pain catastrophizing scores (M = 14.10; 95% confidence interval, 11.70-16.49). CONCLUSIONS: Study findings revealed that a fully automated behavioral pain management skills intervention (MSS) may be useful for motivated orthopedic trauma surgery patients and reduce postsurgical pain up to 3 months. MSS was not associated with reduced time to opioid cessation compared to the HE control intervention.

Correction: Durability of the Treatment Effects of an 8-Week Self-administered Home-Based Virtual Reality Program for Chronic Low Back Pain: 6-Month Follow-up Study of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/37480.].

Management of Postoperative Pain in Patients Following Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review.

Perioperative pain management is a unique challenge in patients undergoing spine surgery due to the increased incidence of both pre-existing chronic pain conditions and chronic postsurgical pain. Peri-operative planning and counseling in spine surgery should involve an interdisciplinary approach that includes consideration of patient-level risk factors, as well as pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic pain management techniques. Consideration of psychological factors and patient focused education as an adjunct to these measures is paramount in developing a personalized perioperative pain management plan. Understanding the currently available body of knowledge surrounding perioperative opioid management, management of opioid use disorder, regional/neuraxial anesthetic techniques, ketamine/lidocaine infusions, non-opioid oral analgesics, and behavioral interventions can be useful in developing a comprehensive, multi-modal treatment plan among patients undergoing spine surgery. Although many of these techniques have proved efficacious in the immediate postoperative period, long-term follow-up is needed to define the impact of such approaches on persistent pain and opioid use. Future techniques involving the use of precision medicine may help identify phenotypic and physiologic characteristics that can identify patients that are most at risk of developing persistent postoperative pain after spine surgery.

Durability of the Treatment Effects of an 8-Week Self-administered Home-Based Virtual Reality Program for Chronic Low Back Pain: 6-Month Follow-up Study of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported the efficacy of an 8-week home-based therapeutic immersive virtual reality (VR) program in a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study. Community-based adults with self-reported chronic low back pain were randomized 1:1 to receive either (1) a 56-day immersive therapeutic pain relief skills VR program (EaseVRx) or (2) a 56-day sham VR program. Immediate posttreatment results revealed the superiority of therapeutic VR over sham VR for reducing pain intensity; pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress (but not sleep); physical function; and sleep disturbance. At 3 months posttreatment, therapeutic VR maintained superiority for reducing pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, and sleep (new finding). OBJECTIVE: This study assessed between-group and within-group treatment effects 6 months posttreatment to determine the extended efficacy, magnitude of efficacy, and clinical importance of home-based therapeutic VR. METHODS: E-surveys were deployed at pretreatment, end-of-treatment, and posttreatment months 1, 2, 3, and 6. Self-reported data for 188 participants were analyzed in a mixed-model framework using a marginal model to allow for correlated responses across the repeated measures. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, stress, and sleep at 6 months posttreatment. Secondary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) sleep disturbance and physical function. RESULTS: Therapeutic VR maintained significant and clinically meaningful effects 6 months posttreatment and remained superior to sham VR for reducing pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, and sleep (ds=0.44-0.54; P<.003). Between-group comparisons for physical function and sleep disturbance showed superiority of EaseVRx over sham VR (ds=0.34; P=.02 and ds=0.46; P<.001, respectively). Participants were encouraged to contact study staff with any problems experienced during treatment; however, no participants contacted study staff to report adverse events of any type, including nausea and motion sickness. CONCLUSIONS: Our 8-week home-based VR pain management program caused important reductions in pain intensity and interference up to 6 months after treatment. Additional studies are needed in diverse samples. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04415177; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/25291.

Considerations in permanent implantation of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for chronic neuropathic pain: An international cross-sectional survey of implanters.

AIM: Novel minimally invasive short-term and long-term peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) systems have revolutionized targeted treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. We present an international survey of PNS-implanting pain physicians to assess what factors they consider when offering permanent PNS. METHODS: This cross-sectional study consisted of a survey (Qualtrics) that was distributed to PNS-implanting physicians in a device supplier's entire email database on November 13, 2020, with 3 weeks of response time. Physicians' contact information in the form of their email addresses had been previously collected by the supplier upon device distribution with permission to use survey responses for research. RESULTS: Of 2032 database physicians, 40 physicians representing 37 institutions responded to the survey. The most common application of PNS was mononeuropathic pain (57%). The most frequently targeted nerve was the suprascapular nerve (29%). 14% of physicians reported 81-100% of their implants were dual-lead. The representative physicians ranged broadly in their most frequently targeted nerves. Although mononeuropathic pain was the most common indication for PNS, there was still varied response regarding other indications such as CRPS and post-surgical chronic pain. CONCLUSION: In context of a low response rate, identifying such factors can help update the prevailing treatment algorithm for interventional therapies, assist pain physicians in better identifying which patients are the best candidates for PNS, and inform future clinical trial design on PNS efficacy.

Three-Month Follow-Up Results of a Double-Blind, Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of 8-Week Self-Administered At-Home Behavioral Skills-Based Virtual Reality (VR) for Chronic Low Back Pain.

Prior work established post-treatment efficacy for an 8-week home-based therapeutic virtual reality (VR) program in a double-blind, parallel arm, randomized placebo-controlled study. Participants were randomized 1:1 to 1 of 2 56-day VR programs: 1) a therapeutic immersive pain relief skills VR program; or 2) a Sham VR program within an identical commercial VR headset. Immediate post-treatment results demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior reduction for therapeutic VR compared to Sham VR for average pain intensity, indices of pain-related interference (activity, mood, stress but not sleep), physical function, and sleep disturbance. The objective of the current report was to quantify treatment effects to post-treatment month 3 and describe durability of effects. Intention-to-treat analyses revealed sustained benefits for both groups and superiority for therapeutic VR for pain intensity and multiple indices of pain-related interference (activity, stress, and newly for sleep; effect sizes ranged from drm = .56-.88) and physical function from pre-treatment to post-treatment month 3. The between-group difference for sleep disturbance was non-significant and pain-interference with mood did not survive multiplicity correction at 3 months. For most primary and secondary outcomes, treatment effects for therapeutic VR showed durability, and maintained superiority to Sham VR in the 3-month post-treatment period. PERSPECTIVE: We present 3-month follow-up results for 8-week self-administered therapeutic virtual reality (VR) compared to Sham VR in adults with chronic low back pain. Across multiple pain indices, therapeutic VR had clinically meaningful benefits, and superiority over Sham VR. Home-based, behavioral skills VR yielded enduring analgesic benefits; longer follow-up is needed.

Stanford Pragmatiec Effectiveness Comparison (SPEC) protocol: Comparing long-term effectiveness of high-frequency and burst spinal cord stimulation in real-world application.

OBJECTIVES: High-frequency and burst stimulation are newer waveforms that have demonstrated promise compared to traditional tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS), but more studies are needed to compare their effectiveness. We report the study methods for an ongoing, single center, pragmatic randomized clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of high-frequency and burst SCS in patients with chronic back and/or leg pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants who are candidates for spinal cord stimulation are enrolled and screened. Participants will be randomly assigned using point-of-care randomization to receive either high-frequency or burst SCS. Data collection will be through Stanford Pain Management Center's learning healthcare system: CHOIR. CHOIR surveys include National Institutes of Health Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System item banks, a body map, questions about pain intensity, pain catastrophizing scale, and questions about patients' pain experience and healthcare utilization. Participants will complete online surveys at baseline and then 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months after their device implant. All participants will use our routine process of trial and implant. Reported adverse events are monitored throughout the study. Our primary outcome is change from baseline in pain intensity at 12 months. RESULTS: We hypothesize that high-frequency SCS is more effective than burst SCS in improving pain, physical function and pain interference in participants with chronic low back and/or leg pain. CONCLUSIONS: The pragmatic nature of our proposed trial enables us to recruit a larger participant cohort faster and to follow up these participants longer than currently published clinical trials.

Development and validation of the Collaborative Health Outcomes Information Registry body map.

INTRODUCTION: Critical for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain is the anatomical distribution of pain. Several body maps allow patients to indicate pain areas on paper; however, each has its limitations. OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive body map that can be universally applied across pain conditions, we developed the electronic Collaborative Health Outcomes Information Registry (CHOIR) self-report body map by performing an environmental scan and assessing existing body maps. METHODS: After initial validation using a Delphi technique, we compared (1) pain location questionnaire responses of 530 participants with chronic pain with (2) their pain endorsements on the CHOIR body map (CBM) graphic. A subset of participants (n = 278) repeated the survey 1 week later to assess test-retest reliability. Finally, we interviewed a patient cohort from a tertiary pain management clinic (n = 28) to identify reasons for endorsement discordances. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient between the total number of body areas endorsed on the survey and those from the body map was 0.86 and improved to 0.93 at follow-up. The intraclass correlation coefficient of the 2 body map graphics separated by 1 week was 0.93. Further examination demonstrated high consistency between the questionnaire and CBM graphic (<10% discordance) in most body areas except for the back and shoulders (≈15-19% discordance). Participants attributed inconsistencies to misinterpretation of body regions and laterality, the latter of which was addressed by modifying the instructions. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the CBM is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the distribution of pain.

An 8-Week Self-Administered At-Home Behavioral Skills-Based Virtual Reality Program for Chronic Low Back Pain: Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial Conducted During COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is the most prevalent chronic pain condition worldwide and access to behavioral pain treatment is limited. Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive technology that may provide effective behavioral therapeutics for chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a double-blind, parallel-arm, single-cohort, remote, randomized placebo-controlled trial for a self-administered behavioral skills-based VR program in community-based individuals with self-reported chronic low back pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A national online convenience sample of individuals with self-reported nonmalignant low back pain with duration of 6 months or more and with average pain intensity of 4 or more/10 was enrolled and randomized 1:1 to 1 of 2 daily (56-day) VR programs: (1) EaseVRx (immersive pain relief skills VR program); or (2) Sham VR (2D nature content delivered in a VR headset). Objective device use data and self-reported data were collected. The primary outcomes were the between-group effect of EaseVRx versus Sham VR across time points, and the between-within interaction effect representing the change in average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, mood, and sleep over time (baseline to end-of-treatment at day 56). Secondary outcomes were global impression of change and change in physical function, sleep disturbance, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, pain medication use, and user satisfaction. Analytic methods included intention-to-treat and a mixed-model framework. RESULTS: The study sample was 179 adults (female: 76.5%, 137/179; Caucasian: 90.5%, 162/179; at least some college education: 91.1%, 163/179; mean age: 51.5 years [SD 13.1]; average pain intensity: 5/10 [SD 1.2]; back pain duration ≥5 years: 67%, 120/179). No group differences were found for any baseline variable or treatment engagement. User satisfaction ratings were higher for EaseVRx versus Sham VR (P<.001). For the between-groups factor, EaseVRx was superior to Sham VR for all primary outcomes (highest P value=.009), and between-groups Cohen d effect sizes ranged from 0.40 to 0.49, indicating superiority was moderately clinically meaningful. For EaseVRx, large pre-post effect sizes ranged from 1.17 to 1.3 and met moderate to substantial clinical importance for reduced pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress. Between-group comparisons for Physical Function and Sleep Disturbance showed superiority for the EaseVRx group versus the Sham VR group (P=.022 and .013, respectively). Pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, pain acceptance, prescription opioid use (morphine milligram equivalent) did not reach statistical significance for either group. Use of over-the-counter analgesic use was reduced for EaseVRx (P<.01) but not for Sham VR. CONCLUSIONS: EaseVRx had high user satisfaction and superior and clinically meaningful symptom reduction for average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress compared to sham VR. Additional research is needed to determine durability of treatment effects and to characterize mechanisms of treatment effects. Home-based VR may expand access to effective and on-demand nonpharmacologic treatment for chronic low back pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04415177; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/25291.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Pudendal Neuralgia: A Technical Note.

BACKGROUND: Pudendal neuropathy is a chronic, disabling form of perineal pain that involves the pudendal nerve, a mixed somatic and autonomic nerve that originates from sacral nerve roots. Peripheral nerve stimulation of the pudendal nerve can be useful to decrease symptom burden in patients who have failed initial conservative treatment modalities. METHODS: In this manuscript, we describe an approach to the placement of a peripheral nerve stimulator for the treatment of pudendal neuralgia. We present a case of complex pelvic neuropathy and review the factors that lead to successful placement. Technical aspects of stimulator placement and ultrasound landmarks are reviewed. RESULTS: A lateral to medial approach with ultrasound guidance at the level of the ischial spine is likely to facilitate proper lead placement along the course of the pudendal nerve. Aftercare and adherence to postimplant activity restrictions-particularly avoiding use of the extremes of hip flexion and extension for four weeks-lead to the absence of lead migration. CONCLUSIONS: Pudendal nerve stimulation is an emerging technique for neuromodulation of refractory pudendal neuralgia. Ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve stimulation is a viable technique for neuromodulation of pudendal neuralgia. Optimization of patient selection, ultrasound guidance, and proper adherence to postimplant activity restrictions may be helpful for long-term therapeutic success.

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Occipital Neuralgia.

BACKGROUND: Chronic headaches are the second most prevalent disease and second most common cause for years lived with disability worldwide. Occipital neuralgia can cause headaches or be present in addition to other more prevalent causes of headache. If these headaches fail to respond to conservative and pharmacological therapy, physicians proceed to more invasive treatments, starting with infiltration of the greater occipital nerve with local anesthetic with or without corticosteroids, followed by nerve ablation or stimulation. Occipital nerve stimulation gained more popularity as the technology improved and more pain physicians received training on interventional procedures. METHODS: In this manuscript, we are presenting our experience with ultrasound-guided implant of occipital nerve stimulators using peripheral nerve stimulator systems. After confirming appropriateness of treatment by a successful occipital nerve block (i.e., resulting in >50% relief in patients' pain intensity), we implanted five stimulator systems in three patients (two bilateral). RESULTS: We followed these patients for an average of eight months, and the average pain reduction was ∼50%. We did not observe any adverse events during or immediately after surgery. One patient developed an adverse reaction to the adhesive of the battery transmitter, but it was not severe enough to stop her from using the stimulator. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the ease of implant and minimal side effects, implant of peripheral nerve stimulators to stimulate the occipital nerve is a promising treatment modality for patients with chronic headache who present with features of occipital neuralgia. However, wider use of this treatment modality is subject to further studies.