scholarly journals Feasibility of Combined Epicranial Temporal and Occipital Neurostimulation: Treatment of a Challenging Case of Headache

2011 ◽  
Vol 1;14 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 37-44
Author(s):  
Kevin L . Wininger
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Temporal Region ◽  
Occipital Neuralgia ◽  
Occipital Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Case Presentation ◽  
Adverse Side Effects ◽  
Headache Pain

Background: Evidence of a paradigm shift towards epicranial neurostimulation treatment techniques aimed at the site of headache pain is beginning to populate the literature. This is most apparent by 2 recently published reports describing alternative approaches to peripheral nerve stimulation techniques for refractory migraine, including hemiplegic migraine. Objectives: To contribute to the emerging literature on epicranial-based neuroaugmentative approaches which target site-specific areas of distinct, but relatively diffuse, headache pain. Specifically, we describe the feasibility of a novel neurostimulation technique: occipital nerve stimulation, com­bined with bilateral subcutaneous electrical stimulation over the temporal region, to treat a patient dually diagnosed with “compli­cated migraine” and occipital neuralgia. Integral to this report, key stimulation programming data are also presented to better distinguish the role of this form of therapy in migraine, or other headache forms, from both the clinical and biomedical perspectives. Methods: Case presentation with literature review. Results: At 24-month follow-up, headache onset had been reduced by more than 50%, including cessation of neurologic deficits that accompanied the patient’s migraines. No complications or adverse side effects are reported. The programming data reported here supports a proposed mechanism of action concerning stimulation of the auriculotemporal nerve distribution/anterior temporal region for management of refractory pain in migraine. Limitations: Case presentation provides only initial assessment of treatment safety, not conclusive evidence of treatment effectiveness. Future studies which consider “followthe-path” epicranial approaches to peripheral nerve stimulation techniques for refractory headache pain are needed to better quantify outcomes and mechanisms of action. Conclusions: In the single case reported here, the feasibility of a novel neurostimulation technique (occipital nerve stimulation/bilateral subcutaneous temporal region stimulation) to treat headache is presented. At the 24-month follow-up, no complications (such as loss of coverage due to lead displacement or lead fracture or erosion) or adverse side effects were reported. Finally, inclusion of fundamental programming data in reports on neuroaugmentative approaches to headache care will complement initiatives in research from the clinical and biomedical communities involved in this field. Key words: Epicranial neurostimulation technique, peripheral nerve stimulation, stimulation parameters, complicated migraine, occipital neuralgia.

scholarly journals Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: Two Cases of Intractable Neuropathic Pain

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ezio Amorizzo ◽  
Gianni Colini-Baldeschi
Keyword(s):  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Ultrasound Guidance ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Chronic Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Case Presentation ◽  
Stimulation System ◽  
Peripheral Origin

Introduction: Neuropathic pain can be caused by several pathologies affecting the nervous system. Peripheral neuralgias may be related to nerve entrapment, traumatic or iatrogenic events, and may also accompany many other diseases. Peripheral nerve stimulation is effective in treating many of these neuralgic syndromes. Case Presentation: We treated two patients suffering from chronic neuropathic pain of peripheral origin with the implantation of a Bioness (Valencia CA, USA) StimRouter® peripheral nerve stimulation system with follow-up visits at 1 - 3 - 6 - 12 months. Conclusions: PNS performed with the StimRouter® system, implanted percutaneously under ultrasound guidance, is safe and effective for patients.

scholarly journals One Year Follow-up of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain Following Amputation

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua M Rosenow ◽  
Christopher Gilmore ◽  
Brian M Ilfeld ◽  
Sean Li ◽  
Mehul J Desai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Pain Interference ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo

Abstract INTRODUCTION Over 85% of patients experience residual limb (RLP) and/or phantom limb (PLP) pain following amputation. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is a non-opioid approach to relieve postamputation neuropathic pain. A recent multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using a novel percutaneous PNS system demonstrated clinically and statistically significant improvements in pain and pain interference with PNS compared to placebo (Gilmore et al, 2019). This work presents prospective 1-yr follow-up to assess durability of pain relief and functional improvements. METHODS Over 85% of patients experience residual limb (RLP) and/or phantom limb (PLP) pain following amputation. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is a non-opioid approach to relieve post-amputation neuropathic pain. A recent multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study using a novel percutaneous PNS system demonstrated clinically and statistically significant improvements in pain and pain interference with PNS compared to placebo (Gilmore et al, 2019). This work presents prospective one-year follow-up to assess durability of pain relief and functional improvements. RESULTS A significantly greater proportion of subjects who completed the 12-mo visit reported = 50% pain relief on the BPI-SF (5/8, 63%; average pain relief = 73% among responders) compared to the placebo group at the time of crossover (0/14, 0%, P = .003; average pain relief = 23%). A majority of subjects also reported = 50% reductions in pain interference at 12 mo (5/8, 63%). Two of 13 (15%) subjects in the placebo group reported sustained improvements in pain interference (P = .06). Average reduction in pain interference among responders in the PNS group was 87%. CONCLUSION This work suggests that PNS delivered over 60 d may provide clinically significant and enduring pain relief, enabling improved function and potentially reducing the need for a permanently implanted system.

scholarly journals Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic neuropathic postamputation pain: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 637-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Gilmore ◽  
Brian Ilfeld ◽  
Joshua Rosenow ◽  
Sean Li ◽  
Mehul Desai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Pain Interference ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Chronic Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Postamputation Pain

Background and objectivesChronic neuropathic pain is a common challenging condition following amputation. Recent research demonstrated the feasibility of percutaneously implanting fine-wire coiled peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) leads in proximity to the sciatic and femoral nerves for postamputation pain. A multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled study collected data on the safety and effectiveness of percutaneous PNS for chronic neuropathic pain following amputation.MethodsTwenty-eight lower extremity amputees with postamputation pain were enrolled. Subjects underwent ultrasound-guided implantation of percutaneous PNS leads and were randomized to receive PNS or placebo for 4 weeks. The placebo group then crossed over and all subjects received PNS for four additional weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint evaluated the proportion of subjects reporting ≥50% pain reduction during weeks 1–4.ResultsA significantly greater proportion of subjects receiving PNS (n=7/12, 58%, p=0.037) demonstrated ≥50% reductions in average postamputation pain during weeks 1–4 compared with subjects receiving placebo (n=2/14, 14%). Two subjects were excluded from efficacy analysis due to eligibility changes. Significantly greater proportions of PNS subjects also reported ≥50% reductions in pain (n=8/12, 67%, p=0.014) and pain interference (n=8/10, 80%, p=0.003) after 8 weeks of therapy compared with subjects receiving placebo (pain: n=2/14, 14%; pain interference: n=2/13, 15%). Prospective follow-up is ongoing; four of five PNS subjects who have completed 12-month follow-up to date reported ≥50% pain relief.ConclusionsThis work demonstrates that percutaneous PNS therapy may provide enduring clinically significant pain relief and improve disability in patients with chronic neuropathic postamputation pain.Trial registration numberNCT01996254.

A case report of wireless peripheral nerve stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome type-I of the upper extremity: 1 year follow up

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 829-835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Herschkowitz ◽  
Jana Kubias
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Type I ◽  
First Case

Abstract Background Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic disabling painful disorder with limited options to achieve therapeutic relief. CRPS type I which follows trauma, may not show obvious damage to the nervous structures and remains dubious in its pathophysiology and also its response to conservative treatment or interventional pain management is elusive. Spinal cord and dorsal root ganglion stimulation (SCS, DRGS) provide good relief, mainly for causalgia or CRPS I of lower extremities but not very encouraging for upper extremity CRPS I. we reported earlier, a case of CRPS I of right arm treated successfully by wireless peripheral nerve stimulation (WPNS) with short term follow up. Here we present 1-year follow-up of this patient. Objective To present the first case of WPNS for CRPS I with a year follow up. The patient had minimally invasive peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), without implantable pulse generator (IPG) or its accessories. Case report This was a case of refractory CRPS I after blunt trauma to the right forearm of a young female. She underwent placement of two Stimwave electrodes (Leads: FR4A-RCV-A0 with tines, Generation 1 and FR4A-RCV-B0 with tines, Generation 1) in her forearm under intraoperative electrophysiological and ultrasound guidance along radial and median nerves. This WPNS required no IPG. At high frequency (HF) stimulation (HF 10 kHz/32 μs, 2.0 mA), patient had shown remarkable relief in pain, allodynia and temperature impairment. At 5 months she started driving without opioid consumption, while allodynia disappeared. At 1 year follow up she was relieved of pain [visual analogue scale (VAS) score of 4 from 7] and Kapanji Index (Score) improved to 7–8. Both hands look similar in color and temperature. She never made unscheduled visits to the clinic or visited emergency room for any complications related to the WPNS. Conclusions CRPS I involving upper extremity remain difficult to manage with conventional SCS or DRGS because of equipment related adverse events. Minimally invasive WPNS in this case had shown consistent relief without any complications or side effects related to the wireless technology or the technique at the end of 1 year. Implications This is the first case illustration of WPNS for CRPS I, successfully treated and followed up for 1 year.

scholarly journals Fully Implantable Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Hemiplegic Shoulder Pain: A Multi-Site Case Series With Two-Year Follow-Up

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 290-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D. Wilson ◽  
Maria E. Bennett ◽  
Vu Q.C. Nguyen ◽  
William C. Bock ◽  
Michael W. O'Dell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Shoulder Pain ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation

scholarly journals Novel technique for trialing peripheral nerve stimulation: ultrasonography-guided StimuCath trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. E5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandan G. Reddy ◽  
Oliver E. Flouty ◽  
Marshall T. Holland ◽  
Leigh A. Rettenmaier ◽  
Mario Zanaty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulator ◽  
Vas Score

OBJECTIVE Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been used for the treatment of neuropathic pain for many decades. Despite the specific indications for PNS, clinicians often have difficulty screening for candidates likely to have a good or fair outcome. Given the expense of a permanent implant, most insurance companies will not pay for the implant without a successful PNS trial. And since PNS has only recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, many insurance companies will not pay for a conventional trial of PNS. The objective of this study is to describe a short low-cost method for trialing and screening patients for peripheral nerve stimulator implantation. Additionally, this study demonstrates the long-term efficacy of PNS in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and the relative effectiveness of this novel screening method. METHODS The records of all patients who had undergone trialing and implantation of a PNS system for chronic refractory pain at the authors' institution over a 1-year period (August 1, 2012–July 31, 2013) were examined in this retrospective case series. The search revealed 17 patients, 13 who had undergone a novel in-office ultrasonography-guided StimuCath screening technique and 4 who had undergone a traditional week-long screening procedure. All 17 patients experienced a successful PNS trial and proceeded to permanent PNS system implantation. Patients were followed up for a mean duration of 3.0 years. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were used to assess pain relief in the short-term (< 6 weeks), at 1 year, and at the last follow-up. Final outcome was also characterized as good, fair, poor, or bad. RESULTS Of these 17 patients, 10 were still using their stimulator at the last follow-up, with 8 of them obtaining good relief (classified as ≥ 50% pain relief, with an average 81% reduction in the VAS score) and 2 patients attaining fair relief (< 50% relief but still using stimulation therapy). Among the remaining 7 patients, the stimulator had been explanted in 4 and there had been no relief in 3. Excluding explanted cases, follow-up ranged from 14 to 46 months, with an average of 36 months. Patients with good or fair relief had experienced pain prior to implantation for an average of 5.1 years (range 1.8–15.2 years). A longer duration of pain trended toward a poorer outcome (bad outcome 7.6 years vs good outcome 4.1 years, p = 0.03). Seven (54%) of the 13 patients with the shorter trial experienced a good or fair outcome with an average 79% reduction in the VAS score; however, all 4 of the bad outcome cases came from this group. Three (75%) of the 4 patients with the longer trial experienced a good or fair outcome at the last follow-up, with an average 54% reduction in the VAS score. There was no difference between the trialing methods and the proportion of favorable (good or fair) outcomes (p = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS Short, ultrasonography-guided StimuCath trials were feasible in screening patients for permanent implantation of PNS, with efficacy similar to the traditional week-long screening noted at the 3-year follow-up.

scholarly journals Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Head and Facial Pain: A Literature Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (22;5) ◽  
pp. 447-477
Author(s):  
Ajay Antony
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Cluster Headache ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Facial Pain ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Occipital Neuralgia ◽  
Occipital Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulator ◽  
Occipital Nerve ◽  
Craniofacial Pain

Background: Head and facial pain is a common and often difficult to treat disorder. Routine treatments sometimes fail to provide acceptable relief, leaving the patient searching for something else, including narcotics and surgery. Recently, neuromodulation has been expanding to provide another option. Secondary to its potentially temporary nature and relatively manageable risk profile, several reviews have suggested trialing neuromodulation prior to starting narcotics or invasive permanent surgeries. There is evidence that neuromodulation can make a difference in those patients with intractable severe craniofacial pain. Objectives: To provide a basic overview of the anatomy, epidemiology, pathophysiology and common treatments of several common head and facial disorders. Furthermore, to demonstrate the suggested mechanisms of neuromodulation and the evidence currently existing for the use of neuromodulation. Methods: A comprehensive review was performed regarding the available literature through targeting articles reporting on the use of neuromodulation to treat pain of the head and face. Results: We compiled and discuss the current evidence available in treating head and facial pain. The strongest evidence currently for neuromodulation is for occipital nerve stimulation for migraine, transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation for migraine and cluster headache, sphenopalatine ganglion microstimulation for cluster headache, and transcutaneous supraorbital and supratrochlear nerve stimulation for migraine. In addition, there is moderate evidence for occipital nerve stimulation in treating occipital neuralgia. Limitations: Neuromodulation has been trialed and is promising in several craniofacial pain disorders; however, there remains a need for large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of most treatments. Much of the current data relies on case reports without randomization or placebo controls. Conclusions: With advancing techniques and technology, neuromodulation can be promising in treating intractable pain of the head and face. Although more randomized controlled trials are warranted, the current literature supports the use of neuromodulation in intractable craniofacial pain. Key words: Neuromodulation, headache, facial pain, craniofacial pain, migraine, cluster headache, trigeminal neuralgia, occipital neuralgia, peripheral nerve stimulator, high cervical spinal cord stimulator, peripheral nerve field stimulator

scholarly journals 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

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher A Gilmore ◽  
Brian M Ilfeld ◽  
Joshua M Rosenow ◽  
Sean Li ◽  
Mehul J Desai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Pain Interference ◽  
Phantom Limb ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

IntroductionPeripheral 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.MethodsAs 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.ResultsSignificantly 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.ConclusionsThis 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 numberNCT01996254.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document