Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Pain Management: A Survey of Clinical Practice Patterns
Jay Karri,Eellan Sivanesan,Amitabh Gulati,Vinita Singh,Soun Sheen,Bhavana Yalamuru,Eric J Wang,Saba Javed,Matthew Chung,Rohan Sohini,Nasir Hussain,Ryan S D'Souza
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurom.2024.08.011
2024-10-11
Neuromodulation
Abstract:Background: Clinical interest in and utilization of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for treating chronic pain has significantly increased in recent years owing to its potential for providing analgesia and improved function and quality of life in comparison with pharmacologic treatments. However, the relative infancy of PNS-specific systems and limited clinical practice guidance likely contribute to significant variation in PNS utilization patterns. Objectives: We sought to conduct a survey study to characterize PNS-specific clinical practices and propose the next steps in standardizing key practices for PNS utilization. Materials and methods: A 19-question survey exploring PNS-relevant clinical parameters was disseminated online to pain physicians in practice. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results. Results: A total of 94 responses were collected. Regarding patient selection, most practitioners would apply PNS to treat nociceptive pain from major joint osteoarthritis (77.7%) and chronic low back pain (64.9%), but not for axial neck pain (50.0%). In contrast, most would apply PNS to treat neuropathic pain from peripheral neuralgia (94.7%), pericranial neuralgia (77.7%), and cancer-related neuropathic pain (64.9%). In treating complex regional pain syndrome, most practitioners would apply PNS before all other forms of neuraxial neuromodulation (>50% for each form). Similarly, for treating nonsurgical low back pain, most would apply PNS before neuraxial neuromodulation (>50% for each form) but not before radiofrequency ablation (19.2%). Most routinely performed nerve blocks before PNS, mainly to confirm anatomical coverage (84.0%), and regarded a 50% to 75% interquartile range as the minimum analgesic benefit required before proceeding with PNS. Regarding nerve target selection for treating complex regional pain syndrome of the wrist/hand or ankle/foot, or knee osteoarthritis, we observed a very wide variance of PNS target locations and discrete nerves. Regarding "minor" adverse events, most reported not changing PNS utilization on encountering skin/soft tissue reactions (85.1%), minor infections (76.6%), or lead migration/loss of efficacy (50.0%). In comparison, most reported reducing PNS utilization on encountering skin erosion (58.5%), major infections (58.5%), or lead fractures (41.5%). Conclusions: There is significant practice variation regarding the utilization of PNS across numerous key clinical considerations. Future research that explores the reasons driving these differences might help optimize patient selection, target selection, periprocedural management, and ultimately outcomes.