ArticleInterventional pain medicine2023
Durable patient-reported outcomes following 60-day percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) of the medial branch nerves.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of percutaneous 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation of the lumbar medial branches to usual care with standard interventional management for chronic low back pain-a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RESET).Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Efficacy of Neuromodulation Therapy for Neuropathy Symptom Reduction and Functional Improvement.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- Durable Outcomes and Intervention Avoidance in Low Back Pain Up to 5 Years After Percutaneous 60-Day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation.Pain and therapy · 2026Article
- The Evolving Role of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in Postoperative Analgesia and Recovery.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Sustained relief of chronic headache using percutaneous 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation treatment: 12-month results from a multicenter, prospective clinical study.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Multidisciplinary expert consensus on clinical diagnosis and therapies for low back pain.Bone research · 2026Article
- Not who we treat, but how we treat: Emphasizing treatment adherence in neuromodulation outcomes.Interventional pain medicine · 2026Article
- Durable Shoulder Pain Relief and Avoidance of Surgery Up To 5 Years Following 60-Day PNS Treatment.Pain and therapy · 2025Article
- Four-Year Follow-Up from a Prospective, Multicenter Study of Percutaneous 60-Day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain.Pain and therapy · 2025Article
- Review of Guidelines for Implantable Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) in the Management of Chronic Pain.Current pain and headache reports · 2025Review
- Allergic reaction to temporary percutaneous peripheral stimulation leads: A case report.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
- Consensus Guidelines from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience for the Use of 60-Day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Therapy. A NEURON Living Guideline Project.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- A Call for Reckoning and Reform in Interventional Pain Medicine and Neuromodulation Research.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- A review of prospective studies regarding percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation treatment in the management of chronic pain.Pain management · 2024Review
- Temporary Peripheral Nerve Stimulation as Treatment for Chronic Pain.Pain and therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.