Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39239603›Full record

ArticleInterventional pain medicine2023

Durable patient-reported outcomes following 60-day percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the medial branch nerves.

Christopher A Gilmore, Timothy R Deer, Mehul J Desai, Thomas J Hopkins, Sean Li, Michael J DePalma, Steven P Cohen, Meredith J McGee, Joseph W Boggs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interventional pain medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
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

9 authors.

Christopher A GilmoreCenter for Clinical Research, Carolinas Pain Institute, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Timothy R DeerSpine & Nerve Centers of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA.
Mehul J DesaiInternational Spine, Pain & Performance Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Thomas J HopkinsDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Sean LiPremier Pain Centers, Shrewsbury, NJ, USA.
Michael J DePalmaVirginia iSpine Physicians, Richmond, VA, USA.
Steven P CohenJohns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Meredith J McGeeSPR Therapeutics, Inc, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Joseph W BoggsSPR Therapeutics, Inc, Cleveland, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is often associated with clinical evidence of central nervous system sensitization and finding a clear source of nociceptive input can be challenging. Conventional therapies targeting peripheral spinal pain structures can fail to address centrally-mediated, underlying causes of pain. Sixty-day percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) applied to the lumbar medial branch nerves is a non-surgical, non-opioid treatment that may restore the balance of peripheral inputs to the central nervous system and reverse maladaptive changes in central pain processing. As a minimally invasive, non-destructive treatment, percutaneous PNS was designed to be used earlier in the treatment continuum than radiofrequency ablation or permanently-implanted neurostimulation systems. Objective: The objective of this clinical trial was to characterize the durability of responses to medial branch PNS in a prospective multicenter case series study of CLBP patients recalcitrant to multiple non-surgical treatments. Design: Prospective, multicenter clinical trial. Population: Adults with CLBP without radicular leg pain who had previously failed multiple types of conventional treatments. Intervention: Sixty-day percutaneous PNS applied to the lumbar medial branch nerves. Methods: Percutaneous PNS leads were implanted under image guidance (ultrasound and/or fluoroscopy) and treatment was applied for up to 60 days, after which the leads were removed. Participants were followed through 14 months (12 months after the 2-month PNS treatment). Prospectively-defined endpoints included assessments of pain intensity, disability, pain interference, health-related quality of life, depression, and patient global impression of change. Results: Treatment of CLBP with 60-day percutaneous PNS treatment produced clinically meaningful improvements in average pain intensity, disability, and/or pain interference for a majority of participants through the entire 14 month follow up period without requiring permanent system implantation. The proportion of participants experiencing clinically meaningful improvement in at least one outcome (pain intensiy, disability, pain interference) with PNS was 91% after 2 months, 79% at 5 months, 73% at 8 months, 75% at 11 months, and 77% at 14 months. There were no serious or unanticipated study-related adverse events. Conclusion: This prospective multicenter clinical trial demonstrates the clinical utility of percutaneous PNS when applied to the medial branch nerves for the treatment of chronic low back pain recalcitrant to non-surgical treatments. Given the minimally invasive nature of percutaneous PNS and the significant benefits experienced by participants, percutaneous PNS provides a safe and effective first-line neuromodulation treatment for patients with CLBP that may obviate the need for neuroablative procedures or permanent neurostimulation system implantation.

Indexed as

Chronic low back painDisabilityNeuromodulationNon-opioidPain managementPercutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39239603
PMCPMC11372989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.