Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40261580›Full record

ArticlePain and therapy2025

Four-Year Follow-Up from a Prospective, Multicenter Study of Percutaneous 60-Day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain.

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

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pain and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03179202 (A Post-Market Study of Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT03179202 nacompletednot on this map

A Post-Market Study of Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) for the Treatment of Back Pain

TypeinterventionalSponsorSPR Therapeutics, Inc.Ran2017 to 2021Enrolled166ConditionsBack Pain, Low Back PainArmsSPRINT Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) System
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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, 145 Kimel Park Drive, Suite 330, Winston Salem, NC, 27103, USA. cgilmore@ccrpain.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8001-6867
Timothy R DeerThe Spine and Nerve Centers of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8907-7730
Mehul J DesaiInternational Spine, Pain and Performance Center, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6870-9436
Sean LiPremier Pain Centers, Shrewsbury, NJ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0492-1179
Michael J DePalmaVirginia iSpine Physicians, Richmond, VA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1532-3438
Steven P CohenFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5928-2127
Brandon D SwanSPR Therapeutics, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5960-6822
Meredith J McGeeSPR Therapeutics, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0823-3362
Joseph W BoggsSPR Therapeutics, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7973-7990

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionChronic low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of healthcare expenditure and long-term disability associated with complex treatment challenges and the need for progressively invasive interventions. Percutaneous 60-day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) is a minimally invasive neurostimulation treatment that has shown efficacy for chronic LBP, providing sustained improvements through 1 year of follow-up after treatment. The present work explores the long-term clinical outcomes of Percutaneous 60-day PNS for chronic LBP approximately 4 years after initial treatment.

methodsFollow-up surveys were sent to participants from a prior prospective study who reported clinically meaningful reductions in pain, disability, or pain interference 12 months after Percutaneous 60-day PNS for LBP. The present long-term follow-up survey assessed current levels of LBP, disability, pain interference, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Use of medications and other interventions for LBP treatment since completing Percutaneous 60-day PNS was also surveyed.

resultsIn total, 23 participants returned completed long-term follow-up surveys. A majority of survey respondents (65%, n = 15/23) reported sustained, clinically meaningful (≥ 30%) relief of back pain compared with baseline an average of 4.7 years after PNS treatment was initiated. On average, these long-term responders reported clinically substantial (≥ 50%) reductions in pain (average 63% reduction), as well as clinically meaningful improvements in disability and quality of life. Furthermore, 70% (n = 16/23) of survey respondents avoided progression to more costly, invasive, and/or destructive LBP pain interventions (i.e., radiofrequency ablation, neurostimulation implant, or lumbar surgery).

conclusionsTreatment with Percutaneous 60-day PNS provided clinically meaningful pain relief among a majority of surveyed participants an average of more than 4 years after the short-term treatment. These results demonstrate that Percutaneous 60-day PNS can provide durable outcomes that are often sustained for multiple (4+) years by patients with chronic axial LBP who subsequently avoid the need for more invasive treatment interventions. CLINICAL

trial registrationThe Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the initial study is NCT03179202.

Indexed as

Chronic low back painChronic painNeuromodulationPercutaneous peripheral nerve stimulationPeripheral nerve stimulation

Identifiers

PMID40261580
PMCPMC12085521

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.