Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: A New Treatment for Meralgia Paresthetica

Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Langford ◽  
William D Mauck
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulator ◽  
Meralgia Paresthetica ◽  
Device Implantation ◽  
Imaging Results ◽  
New Treatment ◽  
The Right

Abstract Background Meralgia paresthetica is a condition caused by entrapment of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve that leads to paresthesia along the anterolateral portion of the thigh. Because of advancements in neuromodulation, peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been considered a new treatment option for meralgia paresthetica. Newer PNS technology targets peripheral nerves directly yet in a minimally invasive manner. We report a case in which a PNS device provided more than 12 months of complete pain relief in a patient with meralgia paresthetica and helped the patient avoid a neurolysis procedure. Case Presentation A 57-year-old male presented to clinic with a 6-year history of “painful numbness [and] burning” along the right lateral thigh. He rated his pain as 8 out of 10, which decreased to a rating of 2 out of 10 with the use of gabapentin, but unwanted side effects motivated him to seek alternative treatment. On the basis of his history, physical exam, and imaging results, he was diagnosed with meralgia paresthetica. He was offered neurolysis; however, after seeing a pain specialist, he agreed to the implantation of a SPRINT peripheral nerve stimulator. After the implantation procedure, his pain reduced to 0 out of 10, and his quality of life improved, with better sleep and less somnolence. The device was removed after 60 days, as planned. He continued to have complete resolution of pain at 12 months after the date of device implantation. Conclusion With recent advancements, PNS can be used to treat meralgia paresthetica in an effective yet minimally invasive manner. As newer PNS technology becomes more familiar to physicians and pain specialists, it is likely to be used as a mainstay treatment for meralgia paresthetica.

Ultrasound-Guided, Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation: Technical Note

2010 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
pp. ons136-ons139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isaac Chan ◽  
Anthony R. Brown ◽  
Kenneth Park ◽  
Christopher J. Winfree
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Tibial Nerve ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Electrode Position ◽  
Nerve Stimulator ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulator ◽  
The Right

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.

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 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 A Minimally Invasive Surgical Technique for the Treatment of Posttraumatic Trigeminal Neuropathic Pain with Peripheral Nerve Stimulation

2012 ◽  
Vol 5;15 (5;9) ◽  
pp. E725-E732
Author(s):  
Jackson Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Surgical Technique ◽  
Trigeminal Neuralgia ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Facial Pain ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Trigeminal Neuropathic Pain

Background: Facial pain occurring after traumatic injury of the facial branches of the trigeminal nerve is a medical condition that is often very difficult to treat. Patients are quite disabled by their symptoms and most therapies are ineffective in relieving this pain. Peripheral nerve stimulation has been used as a treatment to provide pain relief for this type of intractable atypical facial pain. Objective: To describe a minimally invasive peripheral nerve stimulation surgical technique for treating posttraumatic trigeminal neuralgia. Study Design: Case report based on a patient seen in a university setting with posttraumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain who underwent a minimally invasive technique for the placement of a peripheral nerve stimulator. Setting: University-based outpatient clinic. Methods: A patient with a clinical picture suggestive of trigeminal neuropathic pain secondary to trauma involving the V1 and V2 branches of the trigeminal nerve was selected. Conservative management was attempted with no improvement before peripheral nerve stimulation was tried with a minimally invasive surgical technique. We recorded the patient’s subjective assessment of pain and daily function before and after the procedure. Results: Following the procedure, the patient’s pain score decreased approximately 50% and the patient reported a better quality of life with improvement in daily function as well as a more positive outlook on her condition. There were no complications after the procedure and the patient reported no complaints with the device. Limitations: Case report. Conclusions: This surgical technique for placing peripheral nerve stimulators allows for a minimally invasive approach for the treatment of intractable posttraumatic trigeminal neuralgia with potentially less risk of facial nerve damage. This case confirms the need for further studies to be done in the future to prove the safety and effectiveness of this technique. Key Words: Peripheral nerve stimulation, posttraumatic trigeminal neuralgia, neuropathic pain, minimally invasive technique, facial pain.

scholarly journals Wireless Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Shoulder Pain

2021 ◽  
pp. 13-17
Author(s):  
Niek Vanquathem
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Shoulder Pain ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Invasive Procedure ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis ◽  
Chronic Shoulder Pain

Background: Shoulder pain is a common condition, often refractory to treatment. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the suprascapular nerve (SSN) can be efficacious in providing relief of shoulder pain while improving pain-related quality of life (QOL). The objective of this case report is to demonstrate the effectiveness of a minimally invasive wireless PNS in the treatment of chronic shoulder pain. Case Report: This 94-year old man presented with severe shoulder pain. He suffered from poliomyelitis as a child affecting his left leg, forcing him to use crutches to be ambulatory. He developed progressive right shoulder pain and was subsequently diagnosed with right glenohumeral osteoarthritis. The patient was treated semiannually for 4 years with corticosteroids injections and pain medication with minimal relief (7 out of 10 on the Visual Analog Scale [VAS]). A suprascapular block with lidocaine 2% resulted in significant pain reduction (1 out of 10 on the VAS). As a result, the patient opted for wireless PNS of the SSN via a minimally invasive procedure. Two weeks post implant, the patient reported no postoperative pain, and his chronic pain was rated 0 out of 10 even during movement. Reports of reduced pain were sustained throughout the 6 months of observation with subsequent improvements in QOL and functionality. Conclusion: Wireless neurostimulation of the SSN can be a very effective therapy option for the treatment of refractory, chronic shoulder pain as a result of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Key words: Endoscopic spine surgery, lumbar radiculopathy, minimally invasive spine, SI joint fusion

scholarly journals Sacral Neuromodulation as a Treatment for Pudendal Neuralgia

2014 ◽  
Vol 5;17 (5;9) ◽  
pp. E645-E650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Assia Valovska
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Pelvic Pain ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Pudendal Nerve ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Pudendal Neuralgia ◽  
Nerve Stimulator ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulator ◽  
Sacral Neurostimulation

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

Technical and Interpretive Problems of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in Monitoring Neuromuscular Blockade in the Intensive Care Unit

1996 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria I Rudis ◽  
Benjamin G Guslits ◽  
Barbara J Zarowitz
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Neuromuscular Blockade ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Motor Neuropathy ◽  
Operator Technique ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulator

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature and provide an overview of the technical and interpretive problems associated with peripheral nerve stimulation in monitoring neuromuscular blockade in the intensive care unit. DATA SOURCES: A computerized search on MEDLINE from 1985 through 1994 was performed to identify English-language comparative studies, abstracts, and review articles pertaining to peripheral nerve stimulation, train-of-four monitoring, and neuromuscular blockade in the critical care setting. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant studies in humans were selected and information was extracted on the use of peripheral nerve monitoring in the critically ill. DATA SYNTHESIS: Use of peripheral nerve stimulation is complicated in the intensive care unit. Problems may occur with the patient, the device, as well as operator technique, all of which may lead to errors in interpretation of the depth of paralysis. The critically ill patient has changing comorbid disease states and total body water composition, which may impair the accuracy or reproducibility of measurements. Technical problems relate to the operation of the device, electrode placement, and suboptimal delivery of the desired current. Difficulties in performing peripheral nerve stimulation and interassessor variability contribute to errors of interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: These difficulties compromise the precision, accuracy, and reliability of the peripheral nerve stimulator as a tool for monitoring neuromuscular blockade in the critically ill. Peripheral nerve stimulation should be used in conjunction with clinical parameters to make decisions regarding dose adjustments. Doses should be reduced as much as possible to provide the minimum depth of paralysis that is clinically appropriate. Technical directions and training programs for peripheral nerve stimulation should be developed, and designated individuals should be trained in its application. Large, prospective, controlled studies are necessary to evaluate the incidence of prolonged paralysis or motor neuropathy with administration of neuromuscular blocking agents in patients whose dose is adjusted on the basis of peripheral nerve stimulation.

Wireless peripheral nerve stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome type I of the upper extremity: a case illustration introducing a novel technology

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 555-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Herschkowitz ◽  
Jana Kubias
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Therapeutic Modality ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Type I

AbstractBackgroundComplex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a debilitating painful disorder, cryptic in its pathophysiology and refractory condition with limited therapeutic options. Type I CRPS with its variable relationship to trauma has often no discernible fractures or nerve injuries and remains enigmatic in its response to conservative treatment as well as the other limited interventional therapies. Neuromodulation in the form of spinal cord and dorsal root ganglion stimulation (SCS, DRGS) has shown encouraging results, especially of causalgia or CRPS I of lower extremities. Upper extremity CRPS I is far more difficult.ObjectiveTo report a case of upper extremity CRPS I treated by wireless peripheral nerve stimulation (WPNS) for its unique features and minimally invasive technique. The system does not involve implantation of battery or its connections.Case reportA 47 year old female patient presented with refractory CRPS I following a blunt trauma to her right forearm. As interventional treatment in the form of local anesthetics (Anesthesia of peripheral branches of radial nerve) and combined infusions of ketamine/lidocaine failed to provide any significant relief she opted for WPNS treatment. Based on the topographic distribution, two electrodes (Stimwave Leads: FR4A-RCV-A0 with tines, Generation 1 and FR4A-RCV-B0 with tines, Generation 1), were placed along the course of radial and median nerves under ultrasonography monitoring and guided by intraoperative stimulation. This procedure did not involve implantation of extension cables or the power source. At a frequency of 60 Hz and 300 μs the stimulation induced paresthesia along the distribution of the nerves. Therapeutic relief was observed with high frequency (HF) stimulation (HF 10 kHz/32 μs, 2.0 mA) reducing her pain from a visual analogue scale (VAS) score of 7–4 postoperatively. Three HF stimulations programs were provided at the time of discharge, as she improved in her sensory impairment to touch, pressure and temperature at her first follow up visit. At 5-months she was able to drive, did not require opioids and allodynia disappeared.ConclusionsIn a case with difficult CRPS I involving upper extremity, a minimally invasive WPNS of radial and median nerves provided good symptomatic relief. The procedure was tolerated well and both electrodes remained in place without any adverse events.ImplicationsIn view of the very limited options currently available to manage CRPS, WPNS can be a promising therapeutic modality.

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
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Pulse Generator ◽  
Technical Note ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Nerve Stimulator ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulator ◽  
Academic Center ◽  
Technical Details

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document