Cargando…

Treatment of chronic axial back pain with 60‐day percutaneous medial branch PNS: Primary end point results from a prospective, multicenter study

BACKGROUND: The objective of this prospective, multicenter study is to characterize responses to percutaneous medial branch peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) to determine if results from earlier, smaller single‐center studies and reports were generalizable when performed at a larger number and wide...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gilmore, Christopher A., Desai, Mehul J., Hopkins, Thomas J., Li, Sean, DePalma, Michael J., Deer, Timothy R., Grace, Warren, Burgher, Abram H., Sayal, Puneet K., Amirdelfan, Kasra, Cohen, Steven P., McGee, Meredith J., Boggs, Joseph W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9290596/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34216103
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/papr.13055
_version_ 1784748938421600256
author Gilmore, Christopher A.
Desai, Mehul J.
Hopkins, Thomas J.
Li, Sean
DePalma, Michael J.
Deer, Timothy R.
Grace, Warren
Burgher, Abram H.
Sayal, Puneet K.
Amirdelfan, Kasra
Cohen, Steven P.
McGee, Meredith J.
Boggs, Joseph W.
author_facet Gilmore, Christopher A.
Desai, Mehul J.
Hopkins, Thomas J.
Li, Sean
DePalma, Michael J.
Deer, Timothy R.
Grace, Warren
Burgher, Abram H.
Sayal, Puneet K.
Amirdelfan, Kasra
Cohen, Steven P.
McGee, Meredith J.
Boggs, Joseph W.
author_sort Gilmore, Christopher A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The objective of this prospective, multicenter study is to characterize responses to percutaneous medial branch peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) to determine if results from earlier, smaller single‐center studies and reports were generalizable when performed at a larger number and wider variety of centers in patients recalcitrant to nonsurgical treatments. MATERIALS & METHODS: Participants with chronic axial low back pain (LBP) were implanted with percutaneous PNS leads targeting the lumbar medial branch nerves for up to 60 days, after which the leads were removed. Participants were followed long‐term for 12 months after the 2‐month PNS treatment. Data collection is complete for visits through end of treatment with PNS (primary end point) and 6 months after lead removal (8 months after start of treatment), with some participant follow‐up visits thereafter in progress. RESULTS: Clinically and statistically significant reductions in pain intensity, disability, and pain interference were reported by a majority of participants. Seventy‐three percent of participants were successes for the primary end point, reporting clinically significant (≥30%) reductions in back pain intensity after the 2‐month percutaneous PNS treatment (n = 54/74). Whereas prospective follow‐up is ongoing, among those who had already completed the long‐term follow‐up visits (n = 51), reductions in pain intensity, disability, and pain interference were sustained in a majority of participants through 14 months after the start of treatment. CONCLUSION: Given the minimally invasive, nondestructive nature of percutaneous PNS and the significant benefits experienced by participants who were recalcitrant to nonsurgical treatments, percutaneous PNS may provide a promising first‐line neurostimulation treatment option for patients with chronic axial back pain.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9290596
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92905962022-07-20 Treatment of chronic axial back pain with 60‐day percutaneous medial branch PNS: Primary end point results from a prospective, multicenter study Gilmore, Christopher A. Desai, Mehul J. Hopkins, Thomas J. Li, Sean DePalma, Michael J. Deer, Timothy R. Grace, Warren Burgher, Abram H. Sayal, Puneet K. Amirdelfan, Kasra Cohen, Steven P. McGee, Meredith J. Boggs, Joseph W. Pain Pract Research Articles BACKGROUND: The objective of this prospective, multicenter study is to characterize responses to percutaneous medial branch peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) to determine if results from earlier, smaller single‐center studies and reports were generalizable when performed at a larger number and wider variety of centers in patients recalcitrant to nonsurgical treatments. MATERIALS & METHODS: Participants with chronic axial low back pain (LBP) were implanted with percutaneous PNS leads targeting the lumbar medial branch nerves for up to 60 days, after which the leads were removed. Participants were followed long‐term for 12 months after the 2‐month PNS treatment. Data collection is complete for visits through end of treatment with PNS (primary end point) and 6 months after lead removal (8 months after start of treatment), with some participant follow‐up visits thereafter in progress. RESULTS: Clinically and statistically significant reductions in pain intensity, disability, and pain interference were reported by a majority of participants. Seventy‐three percent of participants were successes for the primary end point, reporting clinically significant (≥30%) reductions in back pain intensity after the 2‐month percutaneous PNS treatment (n = 54/74). Whereas prospective follow‐up is ongoing, among those who had already completed the long‐term follow‐up visits (n = 51), reductions in pain intensity, disability, and pain interference were sustained in a majority of participants through 14 months after the start of treatment. CONCLUSION: Given the minimally invasive, nondestructive nature of percutaneous PNS and the significant benefits experienced by participants who were recalcitrant to nonsurgical treatments, percutaneous PNS may provide a promising first‐line neurostimulation treatment option for patients with chronic axial back pain. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-07-27 2021-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9290596/ /pubmed/34216103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/papr.13055 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Pain Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of World Institute of Pain https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Gilmore, Christopher A.
Desai, Mehul J.
Hopkins, Thomas J.
Li, Sean
DePalma, Michael J.
Deer, Timothy R.
Grace, Warren
Burgher, Abram H.
Sayal, Puneet K.
Amirdelfan, Kasra
Cohen, Steven P.
McGee, Meredith J.
Boggs, Joseph W.
Treatment of chronic axial back pain with 60‐day percutaneous medial branch PNS: Primary end point results from a prospective, multicenter study
title Treatment of chronic axial back pain with 60‐day percutaneous medial branch PNS: Primary end point results from a prospective, multicenter study
title_full Treatment of chronic axial back pain with 60‐day percutaneous medial branch PNS: Primary end point results from a prospective, multicenter study
title_fullStr Treatment of chronic axial back pain with 60‐day percutaneous medial branch PNS: Primary end point results from a prospective, multicenter study
title_full_unstemmed Treatment of chronic axial back pain with 60‐day percutaneous medial branch PNS: Primary end point results from a prospective, multicenter study
title_short Treatment of chronic axial back pain with 60‐day percutaneous medial branch PNS: Primary end point results from a prospective, multicenter study
title_sort treatment of chronic axial back pain with 60‐day percutaneous medial branch pns: primary end point results from a prospective, multicenter study
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9290596/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34216103
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/papr.13055
work_keys_str_mv AT gilmorechristophera treatmentofchronicaxialbackpainwith60daypercutaneousmedialbranchpnsprimaryendpointresultsfromaprospectivemulticenterstudy
AT desaimehulj treatmentofchronicaxialbackpainwith60daypercutaneousmedialbranchpnsprimaryendpointresultsfromaprospectivemulticenterstudy
AT hopkinsthomasj treatmentofchronicaxialbackpainwith60daypercutaneousmedialbranchpnsprimaryendpointresultsfromaprospectivemulticenterstudy
AT lisean treatmentofchronicaxialbackpainwith60daypercutaneousmedialbranchpnsprimaryendpointresultsfromaprospectivemulticenterstudy
AT depalmamichaelj treatmentofchronicaxialbackpainwith60daypercutaneousmedialbranchpnsprimaryendpointresultsfromaprospectivemulticenterstudy
AT deertimothyr treatmentofchronicaxialbackpainwith60daypercutaneousmedialbranchpnsprimaryendpointresultsfromaprospectivemulticenterstudy
AT gracewarren treatmentofchronicaxialbackpainwith60daypercutaneousmedialbranchpnsprimaryendpointresultsfromaprospectivemulticenterstudy
AT burgherabramh treatmentofchronicaxialbackpainwith60daypercutaneousmedialbranchpnsprimaryendpointresultsfromaprospectivemulticenterstudy
AT sayalpuneetk treatmentofchronicaxialbackpainwith60daypercutaneousmedialbranchpnsprimaryendpointresultsfromaprospectivemulticenterstudy
AT amirdelfankasra treatmentofchronicaxialbackpainwith60daypercutaneousmedialbranchpnsprimaryendpointresultsfromaprospectivemulticenterstudy
AT cohenstevenp treatmentofchronicaxialbackpainwith60daypercutaneousmedialbranchpnsprimaryendpointresultsfromaprospectivemulticenterstudy
AT mcgeemeredithj treatmentofchronicaxialbackpainwith60daypercutaneousmedialbranchpnsprimaryendpointresultsfromaprospectivemulticenterstudy
AT boggsjosephw treatmentofchronicaxialbackpainwith60daypercutaneousmedialbranchpnsprimaryendpointresultsfromaprospectivemulticenterstudy