Search

IntroductionWe previously reported that a 6-day continuous peripheral nerve block reduces established postamputation phantom pain. To provide patients and providers with the information to best inform treatment decisions, here we reanalyze the data and present the results in a more patient-centered format. We also provide information on patient-defined clinically relevant benefits to facilitate evaluation of available studies and guide future trial design.MethodsThe original trial enrolled participants with a limb amputation and phantom pain who were randomized to receive a 6-day continuous peripheral nerve block(s) of either ropivacaine (n=71) or saline (n=73) in a double-masked fashion. Here we calculate the percentage of each treatment group that experienced a clinically relevant improvement as defined by previous studies as well as present what the participants of our study defined as small, medium, and large analgesic improvements using the 7-point ordinal Patient Global Impression of Change scale.ResultsAmong patients who were given a 6-day ropivacaine infusion, 57% experienced at least a 2-point improvement on the 11-point numeric rating scale in their average and worst phantom pain 4 weeks postbaseline as compared with 26% (p

BackgroundPercutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation is an analgesic technique involving the percutaneous implantation of a lead followed by the delivery of electric current using an external pulse generator. Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation has been used extensively for chronic pain, but only uncontrolled series have been published for acute postoperative pain. The current multicenter study was undertaken to (1) determine the feasibility and optimize the protocol for a subsequent clinical trial and (2) estimate the treatment effect of percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation on postoperative pain and opioid consumption.MethodsPreoperatively, an electrical lead was percutaneously implanted to target the sciatic nerve for major foot/ankle surgery (e.g., hallux valgus correction), the femoral nerve for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, or the brachial plexus for rotator cuff repair, followed by a single injection of long-acting local anesthetic along the same nerve/plexus. Postoperatively, participants were randomized to 14 days of either electrical stimulation (n = 32) or sham stimulation (n = 34) using an external pulse generator in a double-masked fashion. The dual primary treatment effect outcome measures were (1) cumulative opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents) and (2) mean values of the "average" daily pain scores measured on the 0 to 10 Numeric Rating Scale within the first 7 postoperative days.ResultsDuring the first 7 postoperative days, opioid consumption in participants given active stimulation was a median (interquartile range) of 5 mg (0 to 30) versus 48 mg (25 to 90) in patients given sham treatment (ratio of geometric means, 0.20 [97.5% CI, 0.07 to 0.57]; P < 0.001). During this same period, the average pain intensity in patients given active stimulation was a mean ± SD of 1.1 ± 1.1 versus 3.1 ± 1.7 in those given sham (difference, -1.8 [97.5% CI, -2.6 to -0.9]; P < 0.001).ConclusionsPercutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation reduced pain scores and opioid requirements free of systemic side effects during at least the initial week after ambulatory orthopedic surgery.Editor’s perspective

Phantom limb pain is thought to be sustained by reentrant neural pathways, which provoke dysfunctional reorganization in the somatosensory cortex. We hypothesized that disrupting reentrant pathways with a 6-day-long continuous peripheral nerve block reduces phantom pain 4 weeks after treatment. We enrolled patients who had an upper- or lower-limb amputation and established phantom pain. Each was randomized to receive a 6-day perineural infusion of either ropivacaine or normal saline. The primary outcome was the average phantom pain severity as measured with a Numeric Rating Scale (0-10) at 4 weeks, after which an optional crossover treatment was offered within the following 0 to 12 weeks. Pretreatment pain scores were similar in both groups, with a median (interquartile range) of 5.0 (4.0, 7.0) for each. After 4 weeks, average phantom limb pain intensity was a mean (SD) of 3.0 (2.9) in patients given local anesthetic vs 4.5 (2.6) in those given placebo (difference [95% confidence interval] 1.3 [0.4, 2.2], P = 0.003). Patients given local anesthetic had improved global impression of change and less pain-induced physical and emotional dysfunction, but did not differ on depression scores. For subjects who received only the first infusion (no self-selected crossover), the median decrease in phantom limb pain at 6 months for treated subjects was 3.0 (0, 5.0) vs 1.5 (0, 5.0) for the placebo group; there seemed to be little residual benefit at 12 months. We conclude that a 6-day continuous peripheral nerve block reduces phantom limb pain as well as physical and emotional dysfunction for at least 1 month.

BackgroundPercutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an analgesic modality involving the insertion of a lead through an introducer needle followed by the delivery of electric current after needle withdrawal. This modality has been used extensively to treat chronic pain, but only small series have been published involving postoperative pain. The ultimate objective of this study is to determine the postoperative effects of percutaneous PNS following moderately to severely painful ambulatory surgery within a real-world clinical practice setting. The primary hypothesis is that surgical pain and opioid consumption during the initial 7 days after surgery will be reduced by percutaneous PNS compared with usual and customary analgesia (dual primary outcome measures).DesignA multicenter pragmatic effectiveness trial. We are randomizing participants having painful orthopedic surgical procedures of the upper and lower extremity to receive 14 days of either 1) electrical stimulation or 2) sham in a double-masked fashion. End points are being assessed at various time points over 12 postoperative months.SummaryThe postoperative experience will be much improved if percutaneous PNS provides potent analgesia while concurrently decreasing opioid requirements following painful surgery. Because this modality can be administered for up to 60 days at home, it may provide postoperative analgesia that outlasts surgical pain yet has relatively few risks and, unlike opioids, has no systemic side effects or potential for abuse, addiction, and overdose. Percutaneous PNS has the potential to revolutionize postoperative analgesia as it has been practiced for the past century. This study will inform key stakeholders regarding an evidence-based nonpharmacologic approach to the management of postoperative pain.

Orthopedic trauma is a significant military problem, causing several of the most disabling conditions with high rates of separation from duty and erosion of military readiness. The objective of this report is to summarize the findings of case series of a non-opioid therapy-percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) - and describe its potential for postoperative analgesia, early opioid cessation, and improved function following orthopedic trauma. Percutaneous PNS has been evaluated for the treatment of multiple types of pain, including two case series on postoperative pain following total knee replacement (n = 10 and 8, respectively) and a case series on postamputation pain (n = 9). The orthopedic trauma induced during TKR is highly representative of multiple types of orthopedic trauma sustained by Service members and frequently produces intense, prolonged postoperative pain and extended opioid use following surgery. Collectively, the results of these three clinical studies demonstrated that percutaneous PNS can provide substantial pain relief, reduce opioid use, and improve function. These outcomes suggest that there is substantial potential for the use of percutaneous PNS following orthopedic trauma.

Objective: To evaluate whether an epidural steroid injection or gabapentin is a better treatment for lumbosacral radiculopathy., Design: A multicenter randomized study conducted between 2011 and 2014. Computer generated randomization was stratified by site. Patients and evaluating physicians were blinded to treatment outcomes., Settings: Eight military, Veterans Administration, and civilian hospitals., Participants: 145 people with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated disc or spinal stenosis for less than four years in duration and in whom leg pain is as severe or more severe than back pain., Interventions: Participants received either epidural steroid injection plus placebo pills or sham injection plus gabapentin., Main Outcome Measures: Average leg pain one and three months after the injection on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. A positive outcome was defined as a ≥ 2 point decrease in leg pain coupled with a positive global perceived effect. All patients had one month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for their three month visit., Results: There were no significant differences for the primary outcome measure at one month (mean pain score 3.3 (SD 2.6) and mean change from baseline -2.2 (SD 2.4) in epidural steroid injection group versus 3.7 (SD 2.6) and -1.7 (SD 2.6) in gabapentin group; adjusted difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 1.2; P=0.25) and three months (mean pain score 3.4 (SD 2.7) and mean change from baseline -2.0 (SD 2.6) versus 3.7 (SD 2.8) and -1.6 (SD 2.7), respectively; adjusted difference 0.3, -0.5 to 1.2; P=0.43). Among secondary outcomes, one month after treatment those who received epidural steroid injection had greater reductions in worst leg pain (-3.0, SD 2.8) than those treated with gabapentin (-2.0, SD 2.9; P=0.04) and were more likely to experience a positive successful outcome (66% v 46%; number needed to treat=5.0, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 27.0; P=0.02). At three months, there were no significant differences between treatments., Conclusions: Although epidural steroid injection might provide greater benefit than gabapentin for some outcome measures, the differences are modest and are transient for most people.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01495923., (© Cohen et al 2015.)