peripheral nerve field stimulation
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

82
(FIVE YEARS 16)

H-INDEX

15
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
pp. 109-117
Author(s):  
Dawood Sayed ◽  
Daniel Lee Neuman ◽  
Stanley Golovac

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (21) ◽  
pp. 5094
Author(s):  
Philippe Rigoard ◽  
Amine Ounajim ◽  
Lisa Goudman ◽  
Benedicte Bouche ◽  
Manuel Roulaud ◽  
...  

While Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) provides satisfaction to almost 2/3 of Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome-Type 2 (PSPS-T2) patients implanted for refractory chronic back and/or leg pain, when not adequately addressed the back pain component, leaves patients in a therapeutic cul-de-sac. Peripheral Nerve field Stimulation (PNfS) has shown interesting results addressing back pain in the same population. Far from placing these two techniques in opposition, we suggest that these approaches could be combined to better treat PSPS-T2 patients. We designed a RCT (CUMPNS), with a 12-month follow-up, to assess the potential added value of PNfS, as a salvage therapy, in PSPS-T2 patients experiencing a “Failed SCS Syndrome” in the back pain component. Fourteen patients were included in this study and randomized into 2 groups (“SCS + PNfS” group/n = 6 vs. “SCS only” group/n = 8). The primary objective of the study was to compare the percentage of back pain surface decrease after 3 months, using a computerized interface to obtain quantitative pain mappings, combined with multi-dimensional SCS outcomes. Back pain surface decreased significantly greater for the ”SCS + PNfS” group (80.2% ± 21.3%) compared to the “SCS only” group (13.2% ± 94.8%) (p = 0.012), highlighting the clinical interest of SCS + PNfS, in cases where SCS fails to address back pain.


Author(s):  
Philippe Rigoard ◽  
Amine Ounajim ◽  
Lisa Goudman ◽  
Benedicte Bouche ◽  
Manuel Roulaud ◽  
...  

While Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) provides satisfaction to almost 2/3 of Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome-Type 2 (PSPS-T2) patients implanted for refractory chronic back and/or leg pain when not adequately addressed the back pain component, leaves patients in a therapeutic cul-de-sac. Peripheral Nerve field Stimulation (PNfS) has shown interesting results addressing back pain in the same population. Far from placing these two techniques in opposition, we suggest that these approaches could be combined to better treat PSPS-T2 patients. We designed a RCT (CUMPNS), with a 12-month follow-up, to assess the potential added value of PNfS, as a salvage therapy, in PSPS-T2 patients experiencing a “Failed SCS Syndrome” in the back pain component. Fourteen patients were included in this study and randomized into 2 groups (“SCS + PNfS” group/n=6 vs “SCS only” group/n=8). The primary objective of the study was to compare the percentage of back pain surface decrease after 3 months, using a computerized interface to obtain quantitative pain mappings, combined with multi-dimensional SCS outcomes. Back pain surface decreased significantly greater for the ”SCS+PNfS” group (80.2% ± 21.3%) compared to the “SCS only” group (13.2% ± 94.8%) (p=0.012), highlighting the clinical interest of SCS+PNfS, in cases where SCS fails to address back pain.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 21-21
Author(s):  
Hiroaki Owada ◽  
Masahiko Sumitani ◽  
Reo Inoue ◽  
Mariko Kawashima ◽  
Kazuhiko Ishii ◽  
...  

Pain Practice ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 522-533
Author(s):  
Eric‐Jan Gorp ◽  
Sam Eldabe ◽  
Konstantin V. Slavin ◽  
Philippe Rigoard ◽  
Stefaan Goossens ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Johann Klein ◽  
Timo Siepmann ◽  
Gabriele Schackert ◽  
Tjalf Ziemssen ◽  
Tareq A. Juratli

OBJECTIVECase reports and small patient series have suggested peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) as a treatment for refractory trigeminal neuralgia attributed to multiple sclerosis (MS). Here, the authors aimed to assess the effects of this technique on long-term pain severity.METHODSData were prospectively collected on patients with refractory trigeminal neuralgia attributed to MS who underwent PNFS between July 2013 and August 2017 at the authors’ neurosurgical department. Patients were evaluated before and after the first treatment as well as at follow-up at least twice a year. Patients underwent assessment of their pain severity using the Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI) Scale before treatment and at follow-up and were questioned about adverse events following cranial MRI performed after implantation of a permanent PNFS system.RESULTSEight patients (3 women) underwent PNFS trials and their median age was 61 years (IQR 73.75 − 46.5 years). Seven patients proceeded to permanent implantation of the stimulation system. At a median follow-up of 33 months (IQR 42 − 24 months), pain severity decreased from baseline to the last follow-up (BNI score decrease from V [IQR V − V] to III [IQR V − III], p = 0.054). Four patients experienced long-lasting benefit (at 48, 33, 24, and 15 months’ follow-up, respectively), while in 3 patients the treatment eventually failed after an initially successful period. One patient had an infection, requiring system removal and subsequent reimplantation. No other complications occurred. No adverse events were noted in the patients undergoing MRI postimplantation.CONCLUSIONSThis analysis indicates a possibly beneficial long-term effect of PNFS on refractory trigeminal neuralgia attributed to MS in some patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document