Slavin, Konstantin V.

Background Psychiatric disorders are increasingly contributing to global disability. Despite advances in conservative management, the prevalence of treatment-resistant cases remains high. Meanwhile, neurosurgery for psychiatric disorders (NPD) remains underused, largely due to strict regulations and historical concerns, particularly those related to neuropsychological side effects (NPSE). Objective To address this issue, we conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to compare NPSE associated with radiofrequency ablative NPD to those observed in neuro-oncological, neurovascular and epilepsy surgeries. Methods PubMed, Embase and LILACS databases were searched in April 2024 for articles published in English/Spanish from 1990 to 2022, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Results A total of 48 articles with 2678 participants were included. The frequency of transient and permanent NPSE in the NPD group ranged from 0.94% to 11.50% and 0.94% to 2.03%, respectively, comparable to the other surgical groups (epilepsy: 0.31–11.70%; vascular: 0.52–22.90%; oncology: 0.94–17.60% for transient NPSE; epilepsy: 0.31–12%; vascular: 0.40–1.96% and oncology: 0.84–1.48% for permanent NPSE). Regarding permanent NPSE, arguably the most critical consideration, the NPD group showed better outcomes in memory, language and social cognition than the epilepsy group, but worse outcomes in executive and perceptual-motor functions. Compared with the vascular group, the NPD group had better executive function but worse complex attention. Finally, the NPD group had fewer permanent deficits than the oncology group in executive function, complex attention and perceptual-motor domains, although language performance was lower. Conclusions Contemporary NPD apparently carries a similar risk of NPSE as other conventional neurosurgical procedures, challenging misconceptions and this unjustified barrier to its broader use.

AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for DRG stimulation.MethodsAn international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for DRG stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, too small, 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.ResultsDRG stimulation has Level II evidence (moderate) based upon one high-quality pivotal randomized controlled trial and two lower-quality studies.ConclusionsModerate-level evidence supports DRG stimulation for treating chronic focal neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome.

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.

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.

Background Recent studies evaluated short-term efficacy and safety of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the occipital nerves for managing chronic migraine. We present 52-week safety and efficacy results from an open-label extension of a randomized, sham-controlled trial. Methods In this institutional review board-approved, randomized, multicenter, double-blinded study, patients were implanted with a neurostimulation system, randomized to an active or control group for 12 weeks, and received open-label treatment for an additional 40 weeks. Outcomes collected included number of headache days, pain intensity, migraine disability assessment (MIDAS), Zung Pain and Distress (PAD), direct patient reports of headache pain relief, quality of life, satisfaction and adverse events. Statistical tests assessed change from baseline to 52 weeks using paired t-tests. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analyses of all patients ( N = 157) and analyses of only patients who met criteria for intractable chronic migraine (ICM; N = 125) were performed. Results Headache days were significantly reduced by 6.7 (±8.4) days in the ITT population ( p < 0.001) and by 7.7 (±8.7) days in the ICM population ( p < 0.001). The percentages of patients who achieved a 30% and 50% reduction in headache days and/or pain intensity were 59.5% and 47.8%, respectively. MIDAS and Zung PAD scores were significantly reduced for both populations. Excellent or good headache relief was reported by 65.4% of the ITT population and 67.9% of the ICM population. More than half the patients in both cohorts were satisfied with the headache relief provided by the device. A total of 183 device/procedure-related adverse events occurred during the study, of which 18 (8.6%) required hospitalization and 85 (40.7%) required surgical intervention; 70% of patients experienced an adverse event. Conclusion Our results support the 12-month efficacy of PNS of the occipital nerves for headache pain and disability associated with chronic migraine. More emphasis on adverse event mitigation is needed in future research. Trial registration: Clinical trials.gov (NCT00615342).

Background: Chronic migraine (CM) is a debilitating neurological disorder with few treatment options. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the occipital nerves is a potentially promising therapy for CM patients. Methods: In this randomized, controlled multicenter study, patients diagnosed with CM were implanted with a neurostimulation device near the occipital nerves and randomized 2:1 to active ( n = 105) or sham ( n = 52) stimulation. The primary endpoint was a difference in the percentage of responders (defined as patients that achieved a ≥50% reduction in mean daily visual analog scale scores) in each group at 12 weeks. Results: There was not a significant difference in the percentage of responders in the Active compared with the Control group (95% lower confidence bound (LCB) of −0.06; p = 0.55). However, there was a significant difference in the percentage of patients that achieved a 30% reduction ( p = 0.01). Importantly, compared with sham-treated patients, there were also significant differences in reduction of number of headache days (Active Group = 6.1, baseline = 22.4; Control Group = 3.0, baseline = 20.1; p = 0.008), migraine-related disability ( p = 0.001) and direct reports of pain relief ( p = 0.001). The most common adverse event was persistent implant site pain. Conclusion: Although this study failed to meet its primary endpoint, this is the first large-scale study of PNS of the occipital nerves in CM patients that showed significant reductions in pain, headache days, and migraine-related disability. Additional controlled studies using endpoints that have recently been identified and accepted as clinically meaningful are warranted in this highly disabled patient population with a large unmet medical need. Trial registration: Clinical trials.gov (NCT00615342).