Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31693791›Full record

ArticlePain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain2020

Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain: Prospective Case Series With 1 Year of Sustained Relief Following Short-Term Implant.

Christopher A Gilmore, Leonardo Kapural, Meredith J McGee, Joseph W Boggs

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05649917 (A Post-Market Observational Case Series Study of Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05649917 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

A Post-Market Observational Case Series Study of Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) for the Treatment of Chronic Shoulder Pain

TypeobservationalSponsorInternational Spine, Pain and Performance CenterRan2022 to 2024Enrolled20ConditionsShoulder Pain, Shoulder Injuries, Shoulder Arthritis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher A GilmoreCenter for Clinical Research, Carolinas Pain Institute, Winston Salem, North Carolina, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0002-8001-6867
Leonardo KapuralCenter for Clinical Research, Carolinas Pain Institute, Winston Salem, North Carolina, U.S.A.
Meredith J McGeeSPR Therapeutics, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.ORCID 0000-0003-0823-3362
Joseph W BoggsSPR Therapeutics, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
Carolinas Pain Institute · USSprint PNS System (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPercutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) provides an opportunity to relieve chronic low back pain and reduce opioid analgesic consumption as an alternative to radiofrequency ablation and permanently implanted neurostimulation systems. Traditionally, the use of neurostimulation earlier in the treatment continuum has been limited by its associated risk, invasiveness, and cost.

methodsPercutaneous PNS leads (SPRINT MicroLead) were placed bilaterally to target the medial branches of the dorsal rami nerves under image guidance. The percutaneous leads were connected to miniature wearable stimulators (SPRINT PNS System) for the 1-month therapy period, after which the leads were removed. Pain and disability were assessed long-term up to 12 months after lead removal.

resultsSubstantial, clinically significant reductions in average pain intensity (≥50% reduction as measured by the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form) were experienced by a majority of subjects (67%) at end of treatment compared to baseline (average 80% reduction among responders; P < 0.05, analysis of variance; n = 9). Twelve months after the end of PNS treatment, a majority of subjects who completed the long-term follow-up visits experienced sustained, clinically significant reductions in pain and/or disability (67%, n = 6; average 63% reduction in pain intensity and 32-point reduction in disability among responders). No serious or unanticipated adverse events were reported.

conclusionsThis study challenges the long-held notion that a positive trial of PNS should be followed by a permanent implant in responders. Percutaneous PNS may serve as an effective neurostimulation therapy for patients with chronic low back pain and should be considered earlier in the treatment continuum as a motor-sparing means of avoiding opioids, denervation, and permanently implanted neurostimulation systems.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedNeurosurgical ProceduresPain ManagementProspective StudiesTranscutaneous Electric Nerve StimulationTreatment Outcomechronic paindisabilitylow back painpercutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID31693791
PMCPMC7079182
OpenAlexW2982753141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.