Dataset Information

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness and Safety.

ABSTRACT: Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) was the first application of neuromodulation. Widespread application of PNS was limited by technical concerns. Recent advances now allow the percutaneous placement of leads with ultrasound or fluoroscopic guidance, while the transcutaneous powering of these leads removes the need for leads to cross major joints. This systematic review was written to assess the current status of high-quality evidence supporting the use of PNS for pain conditions treated by interventional pain physicians. The available literature on PNS, limited to conditions treated by interventional pain physicians, was reviewed and the quality assessed. Literature from 1966 to June 2021 was reviewed. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional improvement. One hundred and two studies were identified. Five randomized controlled trials (RCT) and four observational studies, all case series, met the inclusion criteria. One RCT was of high quality and four were of moderate quality; all four case series were of moderate quality. Three of the RCTs and all four case series evaluated peripheral nerve neuropathic pain. Based upon these studies, there is level II evidence supporting the use of PNS to treat refractory peripheral nerve injury. One moderate-quality RCT evaluated tibial nerve stimulation for pelvic pain, providing level III evidence for this indication. One moderate-quality RCT evaluated surgically placed cylindrical leads for cluster headaches, providing level III evidence for this indication. The evidence suggests that approximately two-thirds of patients with peripheral neuropathic pain will have at least 50% sustained pain relief. Adverse events from PNS are generally minor. A major advantage of PNS over spinal cord stimulation is the absence of any risk of central cord injury. The study was limited by the paucity of literature for some indications. No studies dealt with joint-related osteoarthritic pain.

SUBMITTER: Helm S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8586061 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been increasingly used to manage acute and chronic pain. However, the level of clinical evidence to support its use is not clear.ObjectivesTo assess the clinical evidence of PNS in the treatment of acute or chronic pain.Study designA systematic review of the efficacy and safety of PNS in managing acute or chronic pain.MethodsData sources were PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, and reference lists. The literature search was performed up to December 2019. Study selection included randomized trials, observational studies, and case reports of PNS in acute or chronic pain. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed utilizing Cochrane review methodologic quality assessment and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR). The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Data syntheses: 227 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis.ResultsEvidence synthesis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies showed Level I and II evidence of PNS in chronic migraine headache; Level II evidence in cluster headache, postamputation pain, chronic pelvic pain, chronic low back and lower extremity pain; and Level IV evidence in peripheral neuropathic pain, and postsurgical pain. Peripheral field stimulation has Level II evidence in chronic low back pain, and Level IV evidence in cranial pain.LimitationsLack of high-quality RCTs. Meta-analysis was not possible due to wide variations in experimental design, research protocol, and heterogeneity of study population.ConclusionsThe findings of this systematic review suggest that PNS may be effective in managing chronic headaches, postamputation pain, chronic pelvic pain, and chronic low back and lower extremity pain, with variable levels of evidence in favor of this technique.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend a personalized, multimodal, and interdisciplinary approach for the treatment of chronic pain. Already in the acute treatment of postoperative pain, it can be useful to minimize risk factors for chronification. Auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS) could be an effective non-drug therapy for the treatment of chronic and acute pain.Aim of the workThe aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of aVNS in chronic and acute pain as well as its effect on medication intake.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search was carried out on the application of auricular electrical stimulation in chronic and acute pain. Studies were classified according to their level of evidence and evaluated via the Jadad scale as well as their scientific validity, and then analyzed in terms of indication, method, stimulation parameters, duration of treatment, efficacy, and safety.ResultsTwenty studies on chronic pain indications, ten studies on acute postoperative pain, as well as seven studies on experimental acute pain were identified and analyzed. The search revealed a total of n = 1105 aVNS-treated patients. The best evidence on the efficacy of aVNS is available for the indications chronic low back pain, chronic cervical syndrome, chronic abdominal pain, and chronic migraine as well as acute postoperative pain in oocyte aspiration, laparoscopic nephrectomy, and open colorectal surgery. Additionally a significant reduction in analgesic or opiate intake was evident in most studies. In three randomized controlled trials in chronic pain patients, a sustainable pain reduction over a period of up to 12 months was shown. Overall, aVNS was very well tolerated.ConclusionThis review indicates that aVNS can be a complementary and effective non-drug treatment for patients with chronic and acute postoperative pain. Future studies in these indications should focus on standardizing and optimizing treatment parameters, inclusion of quality-of-life outcome parameters, and longer follow-up periods to better understand the sustainable therapeutic effect of aVNS.

Project description:BackgroundDefined as a headache lasting at least 15 days per month, chronic headache is reported by 3% of the general population, and a substantial proportion of them are refractory to current therapies. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) is a treatment option, but is still considered as a last resort treatment especially because of its invasive nature and the cost associated. Some reviews reported a limited efficacy of ONS for the treatment of migraines, with a high risk of complications. However, results reporting its efficacy and safety on other headache disorders are unclear. The aim of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety of ONS in regards to non-migrainous chronic headaches.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the use of ONS in comparison to sham stimulation or the best available treatment in patients with chronic headache. MEDLINE, CINHAL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ECRI Institute Library, WIKISTIM, the Cochrane Library databases, and clinical trial registries will be searched for eligible studies. The review will include adult patients diagnosed with chronic headache excluding migraine. Two independent reviewers will process to the screening of studies according to titles, abstracts, and then full texts. The primary outcome is the overall reduction of head pain severity. The secondary outcomes are rates of reduction in the severity of head pain, headache frequency, and duration, use of medication, impairment, quality of life, healthcare utilization, return to work, and adverse events. Extracted data will include patients' and procedure characteristics, details on comparative treatment or sham, and clinical outcomes. The risk of bias of the studies will be also independently assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools.DiscussionThis systematic review will allow us to better evaluate the potential role of ONS for the treatment of patients with chronic headache that are refractory to less invasive therapies. It will help to determine the degree of safety of ONS. Moreover, it will help to design and conduct future randomized controlled trials focused on patients who may better respond to such treatment.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019121623.

Project description:BackgroundChronic migraine is a debilitating headache disorder that has significant impact on quality of life. Stimulation of peripheral nerves is increasingly being used to treat chronic refractory pain including headache disorders. This systematic review examines the effectiveness and adverse effects of occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) for chronic migraine.MethodsDatabases, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and clinical trial registers were searched to September 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), other controlled and uncontrolled observational studies and case series (n≥ 10) were eligible. RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model. Findings are presented in summary tables and forest plots.ResultsFive RCTs (total n=402) and seven case series (total n=115) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled results from three multicenter RCTs show that ONS was associated with a mean reduction of 2.59 days (95% CI 0.91 to 4.27, I2=0%) of prolonged, moderate to severe headache per month at 3 months compared with a sham control. Results for other outcomes generally favour ONS over sham controls but quantitative analysis was hampered by incomplete publication and reporting of trial data. Lead migration and infections are common and often require revision surgery. Open-label follow-up of RCTs and case series suggest long-term effectiveness can be maintained in some patients but evidence is limited.ConclusionsWhile the effectiveness of ONS compared to sham control has been shown in multiple RCTs, the average effect size is modest and may be exaggerated by bias as achieving effective blinding remains a methodological challenge. Further measures to reduce the risk of adverse events and revision surgery are needed.Systematic review registrationthis systematic review is an update and expanded work of part of a broader review registered with PROSPERO. Registration No. CRD42012002633.

Project description:Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) has been investigated as a novel neuromodulation tool. Although taVNS is generally considered safe with only mild and transient adverse effects (AEs), those specifically caused by taVNS have not yet been investigated. This systematic review and meta-analysis on taVNS aimed to (1) systematically analyze study characteristics and AE assessment, (2) characterize and analyze possible AEs and their incidence, (3) search for predictable risk factors, (4) analyze the severity of AE, and (5) suggest an evidence-based taVNS adverse events questionnaire for safety monitoring. The articles searched were published through April 7, 2022, in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Lilacs databases. In general, we evaluated 177 studies that assessed 6322 subjects. From these, 55.37% of studies did not mention the presence or absence of any AEs; only 24.86% of the studies described that at least one adverse event occurred. In the 35 studies reporting the number of subjects with at least one adverse event, a meta-analytic approach to calculate the risk differences of developing an adverse event between active taVNS and controls was used. The meta-analytic overall adverse events incidence rate was calculated for the total number of adverse events reported on a 100,000 person-minutes-days scale. There were no differences in risk of developing an adverse event between active taVNS and controls. The incidence of AE, in general, was 12.84/100,000 person-minutes-days of stimulation, and the most frequently reported were ear pain, headache, and tingling. Almost half of the studies did not report the presence or absence of any AEs. We attribute this to the absence of AE in those studies. There was no causal relationship between taVNS and severe adverse events. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of transcutaneous auricular stimulation safety. Overall, taVNS is a safe and feasible option for clinical intervention.

Dataset Information

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness and Safety.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets