A Case Report of Subcutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Axial Back Pain Associated With Postlaminectomy Syndrome

Objective. This article aims to present a case of the use of an alternative form of neuromodulation for the treatment of axial back pain associated with postlaminectomy syndrome. Materials and Methods. An elderly patient with long‐standing axial back pain in the setting of a prior decompressive laminectomy presented for evaluation and treatment. After failing to obtain significant benefit from more conservative measures, a trial of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) was performed. Results. The patient reported > 75% relief of his pain during the seven‐day trial period, and accordingly a permanent PNS system was implanted. The permanent system consisted of four Medtronic Quad Plus leads, two on each side of midline oriented horizontally over the L4–5 paraspinous muscles. Our patient was ultimately weaned off of all narcotic medications and, at one year follow‐up, continues to report > 90% reduction of pain.     

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: A Treatment for Chronic Low Back Pain and Failed Back Surgery Syndrome?

Objective. This study aims to evaluate the usefulness of peripheral nerve stimulation as a treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain. Materials and Methods. More than 12 months, we collected data on consecutive patients who had successful trials and were subsequently implanted with octrode percutaneous leads placed subcutaneously within the major area of pain. Eleven patients met diagnostic criteria for failed back surgery syndrome. A questionnaire assessed outcomes including: pain, analgesic use, and patient satisfaction. The response rate was 93% (13/14): average follow‐up time was seven months. Results. There was a significant decrease in pain levels: an average reduction of 3.77 visual analog scale points. Eleven patients (85%) reported successful outcomes and an average pain reduction of 4.18 points but two reported a poor response. Pain relief was highly correlated with reduced analgesia and patient satisfaction. No complications were reported. Conclusion. This study demonstrates a treatment option that is safe, nonpharmacologic, reversible, and effective for patients with chronic low back pain that have exhausted other treatment options.     

Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: Preliminary Results of Long‐Term Follow‐up: A Case Series

Objective. Our objective was to determine the efficacy of peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) for the treatment of chronic lower back pain. PNFS is becoming increasingly recognized as a safe, minimally invasive, and easily reversible treatment for a variety of chronic pain conditions. Chronic low back pain is a common cause of disability and one that is difficult to treat effectively. We hypothesized that PNFS would be a safe, effective alternative for patients with chronic low back pain, which has not been previously reported. Materials and Methods. Six patients with chronic low back pain who had failed conventional therapies were implanted in the subcutaneous tissues of the low back region with neurostimulation leads. Leads were placed superficially in the region of maximum pain, as identified by each individual patient. Patients initially underwent a trial of stimulation to assess response, and a permanent system was subsequently implanted if patients reported greater than 50% pain relief in the low back during the trial. Results. In each case presented here, PNFS enabled patients to decrease their pain medication and increase their level of activity. The patients all reported reduction in pain as measured by visual analog scale scores and an improved quality of life. Conclusion. We conclude that PNFS is a safe and effective alternative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain, and should be considered in this population.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation in Conjunction With Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for the Treatment of Low Back and Leg Pain: A Case Series

Background. The treatment of chronic low back and leg pain remains a difficult medical challenge, particularly for patients with postlaminectomy syndrome. While spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been a significant addition to the available options, it is often inadequate in relieving both the back and leg pain components. We hypothesized that for some patients the combination of SCS with peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) would be a safe, effective alternative that would be more effective than either modality alone. Objective. Our objective was to demonstrate the efficacy of PNFS used in combination with SCS for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes involving the lower back and legs. Study Design. Case series. Methods. A total of 20 patients with chronic low back and leg pain syndromes who had failed conventional therapies underwent implantation of a combination of traditional SCS and PNFS. Leads were placed in the epidural space, as well as superficially in the subcutaneous tissues of the lower back, directly in the region of maximum pain. Patients initially underwent a trial of stimulation to assess response, and a permanent system was implanted if patients reported greater than 50% pain relief during the trial. For some patients, a combination was used at the time of the initial trial. In other cases, the decision to proceed with the combination was made later, either at the time of permanent implant, or later on, after SCS alone failed to adequately control pain. Results. In each case, PNFS was used in combination with traditional SCS for patients with chronic lower back and lower extremity pain. While not all of these patients ultimately proceeded with the combination of SCS and PNFS to control their pain, the majority of patients found the combination better in controlling their overall pain than either modality alone. In addition, using a combined approach at the time of trial provided a noninvasive and effective method of comparing the efficacy of each method, allowing patients to identify the best form of neuromodulation for their particular pain. Conclusions. Due to the availability of 16 contact capacity generators, neurostimulation with multiple leads in various combinations—including both epidural and peripheral nerve field stimulation simultaneously—can be applied safely and effectively. The availability of this combined approach for a trial of stimulation prior to implant allows patients to compare SCS to PNFS and to indicate a preference for one over the other or for the combination. We conclude that PNFS may be used in combination with SCS as a safe and effective alternative treatment for patients with chronic low back and leg pain, and further suggest that the combined approach should be considered as a treatment option for this population.     

Subcutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation With Paddle Lead for Treatment of Low Back Pain: Case Report

Introduction. Peripheral nerve stimulation has become a useful tool in neuromodulation in the treatment of chronic and intractable pain syndromes. Method. While most of the reports in the literature describe the use of a subcutaneously placed small diameter cylindric lead, we present a case report of a 37‐year‐old man who did not have adequate axial back stimulation with such a lead. Conclusion. He had excellent stimulation and reduction of his pain after the device was replaced with an insulated subcutaneous paddle lead.     

Efficacy of Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for the Management of Chronic Low Back Pain and Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome: A Narrative Review

ObjectivesVarious approaches have been developed with a view to treating the back pain component in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS). Emerging evidence shows that peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) may be an efficacious therapeutic modality against axial low back pain. Hence, the aim of the review was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of PNFS, when used alone or as an adjunct to spinal cord stimulation (SCS), for managing CLBP and PSPS.Materials and MethodsA comprehensive search for clinical studies on PNFS and PNFS + SCS used for the management of CLBP and/or PSPS was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE via Proquest, and Web of Science.ResultsA total of 15 studies were included, of which four were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nine were observational studies, and two were case series. For patients receiving PNFS, a significant decrease in back pain intensity and analgesic consumption, together with a significant improvement in physical functioning, was observed upon implant of the permanent system. Meanwhile, the addition of PNFS to SCS in refractory cases was associated with a significant reduction in back and leg pain, respectively.ConclusionsThis review suggests that PNFS, when used alone or in combination with SCS, appears to be effective in managing back pain. However, high-quality evidence that supports the long-term analgesic efficacy and safety is still lacking. Hence, RCTs with a larger patient population and of a longer follow-up duration are warranted.     

Successful Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic Pain With Subcutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: Four Case Reports

Introduction. Chronic pain is a prevalent medical condition in the general population and is one of the most common reasons patients visit their primary care doctors. When the pain is resistant to the common treatment modalities, it presents a challenge for the physician and may have profound consequences for the quality of life of the patient. Methods. We present four case reports in which subcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation was successfully used to treat chronic neuropathic pain after all other treatment efforts had failed. Results. In all cases, the patients underwent a trial of peripheral nerve stimulation with good results. The patients reported decreased use of pain medications, increased quality of life, and high satisfaction with the procedure results. Conclusion. The use of subcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation as a viable treatment alternative in certain cases of chronic neuropathic pain should continue to be rigorously evaluated.     

Use of Peripheral Subcutaneous Field Stimulation for the Treatment of Axial Neck Pain: A Case Report

Objective. To present a novel technique of neuromodulation for the treatment of axial neck pain. Materials and Methods. A case of a patient with history of long‐standing axial neck pain with previous cervical spine operation and confirmed discogenic pain is presented. Traditional treatment measures did not provide adequate pain relief. A trial of peripheral subcutaneous field stimulation (PSFS) was performed. Following an excellent response during a week‐long trial, a permanent PSFS system was implanted. The patient was followed for nine months after internalization. Results. Seven‐day trial of PSFS resulted in complete relief of the patient's pain. This 100% relief of pain continued after the implantation of permanent PSFS system consisting of two quadripolar electrodes, one placed over the paraspinal muscles parallel to midline, and the other positioned horizontally over the ipsilateral trapezius muscle. The patient was gradually weaned off of all opioid medications and continues to report 100% reduction in pain intensity at the nine‐month follow‐up. Conclusion. PSFS represents a new and promising modality in treatment of axial neck pain. Exact mechanism of the pain relief remains unclear.     

Implantable Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Trigeminal Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesImplantable peripheral nerve stimulation has been increasingly used to treat neuropathic pain. This neuromodulation strategy may be an alternative option for intractable trigeminal neuropathic pain; however, evidence for this treatment approach remains limited. A systematic review was conducted to identify studies of patients that underwent peripheral nerve stimulation implantation for trigeminal neuropathic pain.Materials and MethodsDatabases including, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched up to October 5, 2020. The primary outcomes were changes in pain scores and response rates of neuromodulation therapy. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed to examine the source of heterogeneity.ResultsThirteen studies including 221 participants were evaluated. The estimated response rate of neuromodulation treatment was 61.3% (95% CI: 44.4–75.9%, I² = 70.733%, p < 0.0001) at the last follow-up. The overall reduction in pain scores was 2.363 (95% CI: 1.408–3.319, I² = 85.723%, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis further confirmed that stimulation target (peripheral branch vs. trigeminal ganglion vs. trigeminal nerve root) contributed the heterogeneity across enrolled studies. Better clinical outcome was associated with stimulation of the trigeminal peripheral branch (p < 0.0001).ConclusionPeripheral nerve stimulation may be a promising approach in the management of trigeminal neuropathic pain, especially for patients intractable to conventional therapy.     

Subcutaneous Stimulation as an Additional Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Lower Limb Pain and/or Back Pain: A Feasibility Study

Objective: The objective of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of subcutaneous stimulation (SubQ) as an additional therapy in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) with chronic refractory pain, for whom spinal cord stimulation (SCS) was unsuccessful in treating low back pain. Study Design: Case series. Materials and Methods: FBSS patients with chronic limb and/or low back pain whose conventional therapies had failed received a combination of SCS (8‐contact Octad lead) and/or SubQ (4‐contact Quad Plus lead(s)). Initially leads were placed in the epidural space for SCS for a trial stimulation to assess response to suppression of limb and low back pain. Where SCS alone was insufficient in treating lower back pain, leads were placed superficially in the subcutaneous tissue of the lower back, directly in the middle of the pain area. A pulse generator was implanted if patients reported more than 50% pain relief during the trial period. Pain intensity for limb and lower back pain was scored separately, using visual analog scale (VAS). Pain and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) after 12‐month treatment were compared with pain and QBPDS at baseline. Results: Eleven FBSS patients, five male and six female (age: 51 ± 8 years; mean ± SD), in whom SCS alone was insufficient in treating lower back pain, were included. In nine cases, SubQ was used in combination with SCS to treat chronic lower back and lower extremity pain. In two cases only SubQ was used to treat lower back pain. SCS significantly reduced limb pain after 12 months (VAS_bl: 62 ± 14 vs. VAS_12m: 20 ± 11; p= 0.001, N= 8). SubQ stimulation significantly reduced low back pain after 12 months (VAS_bl: 62 ± 13.0 vs. VAS_12m: 32 ± 16; p= 0.0002, N= 10). Overall pain medication was reduced by more than 70%. QBPDS improved from 61 ± 15 to 49 ± 12 (p= 0.046, N= 10). Furthermore, we observed that two patients returned to work. Conclusion: SubQ may be an effective additional treatment for chronic low back pain in patients with FBSS for whom SCS alone is insufficient in alleviating their pain symptoms.     

Prospective,Two-part Study of the Interaction Between Spinal Cord Stimulation and Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation in Patients with Low Back Pain: Development of a New Spinal-Peripheral Neurostimulation Method

Objective: The goal of the study was to assess the efficacy of interaction between spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) and to evaluate a new spinal‐peripheral neuromodulation method for low back pain. Materials and Methods: The prospective two‐part study included patients with low back pain due to failed back surgery syndrome and/or spinal stenosis. In the first part 20 patients were implanted with SCS and PNFS. They selected the best program out of three: SCS alone, PNFS alone, or both together. In the second part another 20 patients with the same implanted leads were selecting between three programs: SCS and PNFS separately, SCS as anode and PNFS as cathode, or in reverse. Results: In the first part 79% of the patients selected simultaneous use of SCS and PNFS. The overall success of the trials was 85%. In the second part communication between SCS and PNFS provided wider coverage of axial pain. The overall success of the trials was 90%. Conclusion: Simultaneous use of SCS and PNFS increase efficacy of both methods for axial back pain. The new SPN method showed great potential in providing coverage for back pain.