scholarly journals Techniques for Peripheral Nerve Stimulator Implantation of the Upper Extremity

Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S27-S31
Author(s):  
Vinita Singh ◽  
Diya Sandhu ◽  
Nan Xiang

Abstract Objective To present a technical note on how to perform upper extremity peripheral nerve stimulators for three major nerves: median, ulnar, and radial. Design Literature review and expert opinion. Setting Single academic center. Results Peripheral nerve stimulation has recently become popular with the development and availability of peripheral nerve stimulators with an external pulse generator. Here, we describe ultrasound anatomy and technical details for peripheral nerve stimulation in the upper extremity for three major nerves: median, ulnar, and radial. Conclusions Upper extremity peripheral nerve stimulation can be considered as an option for refractory neuropathic upper extremity pain.

2014 ◽  
Vol 5;17 (5;9) ◽  
pp. E645-E650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Assia Valovska

Pudendal neuralgia is a debilitating pain syndrome, and finding long-lasting treatment modalities has been challenging in pain management. The pudendal nerve has sensory and motor functions, and influences autonomic functions. Thus, entrapment or damage of this nerve can have multiple serious implications. The constellation of symptoms which result from injury to this nerve is commonly referred to as pudendal neuralgia. When conservative therapy does not provide adequate pain relief and surgical procedures fail or are not viable options, central and peripheral nerve stimulation can be effective treatment modalities. More recent approaches to treatment include the use of peripheral nerve stimulation through the use of an electrical lead placed next to the pudendal nerve in the ischioanal fossa. Also, epidural stimulation of the conus medullaris and pulsed radiofrequency ablation of the pudendal nerve have been shown to be effective in small patient populations. We present the case of a 36-year-old woman who sustained pudendal nerve injury during a hysterectomy and subsequently developed intractable pelvic pain and pudendal neuralgia. Conservative treatment measures failed, but she obtained excellent results from peripheral nerve stimulator therapy. Permanent implantation consisted of 4 tined Interstim leads, individually placed into the bilateral S3 and S4 foramina. The patient has been followed for approximately 4 years since her procedure, demonstrating increased function as she is able to stand and sit for prolonged periods of time. She has returned to her usual daily activities, including horseback riding. This is the first reported case of transforminal sacral neurostimulation providing excellent relief of pudendal neuralgia related symptoms. Key words: Pudendal neuralgia, sacral neurostimulation, peripheral nerve stimulator, pelvic pain, nerve stimulation, interventional pain procedures, surgical management of pain


2010 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. ons136-ons139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isaac Chan ◽  
Anthony R. Brown ◽  
Kenneth Park ◽  
Christopher J. Winfree

Abstract BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve stimulation is a form of neuromodulation that applies electric current to peripheral nerves to induce stimulation paresthesias within the painful areas. OBJECTIVE: To report a method of ultrasound-guided, percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation. This technique utilizes real-time imaging to avoid injury to adjacent vascular structures during minimally invasive placement of peripheral nerve stimulator electrodes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We describe a patient that presented with chronic, bilateral foot pain following multiple foot surgeries, for whom a comprehensive, pain management treatment strategy had failed. We utilized ultrasound-guided, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation at a thigh level to provide durable pain relief on the right side, and open peripheral nerve stimulation on the left. RESULTS: The patient experienced appropriate stimulation paresthesias and excellent pain relief on the plantar aspect of the right foot with the percutaneous electrode. On the left side, we were unable to direct the stimulation paresthesias to the sole of the foot, despite multiple electrode repositionings. A subsequent, open placement of a left tibial nerve stimulator was performed. This revealed that the correct electrode position against the tibial nerve was immediately adjacent to the popliteal artery, and was thus not appropriate for percutaneous placement. CONCLUSION: We describe a method of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve stimulation that avoids the invasiveness of electrode placement via an open procedure while providing excellent pain relief. We further describe limitations of the percutaneous approach when navigating close to large blood vessels, a situation more appropriately managed with open peripheral nerve stimulator placement. Ultrasound-guided placement may be considered for patients receiving peripheral nerve stimulators placed within the deep tissues, and not easily placed in a blind fashion.


Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S64-S67
Author(s):  
Aaron Hanyu-Deutmeyer ◽  
Scott G Pritzlaff

Abstract Objective Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the lower extremity has progressed significantly over the last decade. From the proof of concept that ultrasound-guided, percutaneous implantation was possible to advances in waveforms, the field has been rapidly evolving. While most nerves in the lower extremity can be PNS targets, consideration must be given to the ergonomics of pulse generator placement, patient comfort, and avoidance of lead migration. For this paper, we examine some of the conditions amenable to lower extremity PNS, review the evidence and history behind PNS for these conditions, and describe approaches for the tibial, sural, and superficial peroneal nerves. Methods A literature search was conducted using PubMed. Search terms used were “peripheral nerve stimulation,” “lower extremity entrapment neuropathies,” “sural nerve,” “superficial peroneal nerve,” “tibial nerve,” and “tarsal tunnel syndrome.” Emphasis was placed on randomized controlled studies, anatomical dissections, and comprehensive review articles. Approaches to nerves and ultrasound images were based on anecdotal PNS cases from an experienced implanter (SP). Conclusions The development of ultrasound as a viable method of image guidance for percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation has led to an exponential growth in the field. Lower extremity percutaneous lead placement is both feasible and an appropriate treatment modality for certain pain conditions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 829-835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Herschkowitz ◽  
Jana Kubias

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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 487-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
Imanuel R. Lerman ◽  
Jeffrey L. Chen ◽  
David Hiller ◽  
Dmitri Souzdalnitski ◽  
Geoffrey Sheean ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. E5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandan G. Reddy ◽  
Oliver E. Flouty ◽  
Marshall T. Holland ◽  
Leigh A. Rettenmaier ◽  
Mario Zanaty ◽  
...  

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.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian M. Ilfeld ◽  
Anthony Plunkett ◽  
Alice M. Vijjeswarapu ◽  
Robert Hackworth ◽  
Sandeep Dhanjal ◽  
...  

Background Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation is an analgesic technique involving the percutaneous implantation of a lead followed by the delivery of electric current using an external pulse generator. Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation has been used extensively for chronic pain, but only uncontrolled series have been published for acute postoperative pain. The current multicenter study was undertaken to (1) determine the feasibility and optimize the protocol for a subsequent clinical trial and (2) estimate the treatment effect of percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation on postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Methods Preoperatively, an electrical lead was percutaneously implanted to target the sciatic nerve for major foot/ankle surgery (e.g., hallux valgus correction), the femoral nerve for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, or the brachial plexus for rotator cuff repair, followed by a single injection of long-acting local anesthetic along the same nerve/plexus. Postoperatively, participants were randomized to 14 days of either electrical stimulation (n = 32) or sham stimulation (n = 34) using an external pulse generator in a double-masked fashion. The dual primary treatment effect outcome measures were (1) cumulative opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents) and (2) mean values of the “average” daily pain scores measured on the 0 to 10 Numeric Rating Scale within the first 7 postoperative days. Results During the first 7 postoperative days, opioid consumption in participants given active stimulation was a median (interquartile range) of 5 mg (0 to 30) versus 48 mg (25 to 90) in patients given sham treatment (ratio of geometric means, 0.20 [97.5% CI, 0.07 to 0.57]; P &lt; 0.001). During this same period, the average pain intensity in patients given active stimulation was a mean ± SD of 1.1 ± 1.1 versus 3.1 ± 1.7 in those given sham (difference, −1.8 [97.5% CI, −2.6 to −0.9]; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusions Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation reduced pain scores and opioid requirements free of systemic side effects during at least the initial week after ambulatory orthopedic surgery. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document