Citations 2
A Systematic Literature Review of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain
Esposito, Michael, McRoberts, W. Porter , Grider, Jay S., Verrills, Paul , Lamer, Tim J. , Hunter, Corey , Shah, Jay M., Simopoulos, Tom, González, David Abejón, Amirdelfan, Kasra , Jain, Sameer , Yang, Ajax , Aiyer, Rohit , Antony, Ajay, Azeem, Nomen , Levy, Robert M. , Deer, Timothy R. , Grider, Jay S. , Sayed, Dawood , Slavin, Konstantin V. , Hagedorn, Jonathan M. , Mekhail, Nagy
Pain Medicine | January 29, 2020 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 1590-1603
AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for PNS.MethodsAn international interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for PNS. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meaningful clinical outcomes that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, had less than two months of follow-up, or existed only as abstracts. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria.ResultsPeripheral nerve stimulation was studied in 14 RCTs for a variety of painful conditions (headache, shoulder, pelvic, back, extremity, and trunk pain). Moderate to strong evidence supported the use of PNS to treat pain.ConclusionPeripheral nerve stimulation has moderate/strong evidence. Additional prospective trials could further refine appropriate populations and pain diagnoses.
A Systematic Literature Review of Spine Neurostimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain
Grider, Jay S., Lamer, Tim J. , Pope, Jason E. , Falowski, Steven , Hunter, Corey , Russo, Marc , Carayannopoulos, Alexios G. , Shah, Jay M., Harned, Michael , Bolash, Robert , Arle, Jeff, Kapural, Leo, Amirdelfan, Kasra , Jain, Sameer , Liem, Liong, Carlson, Jonathan D. , Malinowski, Mark N. , Bendel, Markus A. , Yang, Ajax , Aiyer, Rohit , Valimahomed, Ali, Antony, Ajay, Craig, Justin, Al‐Kaisy, Adnan , Christelis, Nick , Rosenquist, Richard W. , Levy, Robert M. , Bendel, Markus, Deer, Timothy R. , Grider, Jay S. , Provenzano, David , Slavin, Konstantin V. , Hagedorn, Jonathan M. , Fishman, Michael Alan , Mekhail, Nagy
Pain Medicine | December 18, 2019 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 1421-1432
AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for SCS.MethodsAn international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year’s duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria.ResultsSCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT).ConclusionsHigh-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.