Search

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an effective neuromodulation therapy for chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain. Although the total number of PNS implantations has increased over the last decade, no curriculum exists to guide training and learning of this therapy. The goal of the North American Neuromodulation Society (NANS) education committee is to develop a series of competency-based curriculums for neuromodulation therapies. The PNS curriculum is the latest part of such series, following the curriculums for spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal drug delivery system.A multidisciplinary task force (anesthesiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, neurosurgery, preventive medicine and public health, and neurology) was created by the educational committee of NANS to develop a PNS curriculum in accordance with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. The curriculum was created based on the best available evidence and expert knowledge (from our task force members) of available PNS systems. The final PNS curriculum was approved by the NANS board.A PNS curriculum was developed by the task force. Milestones included professionalism, practice-based learning, interpersonal communication, medical knowledge, systems-based practice, procedural skills, and patient care. Each milestone was defined into three categories: early learner, advanced learner, and practitioner.This manuscript provides a PNS training curriculum developed by a multidisciplinary task force of the NANS educational committee in accordance with the milestones described by ACGME for basic learners, advanced learners, and practitioners. This curriculum will help provide a structured training and evaluation process for obtaining proficiency in PNS treatment(s).

Alaa Abd-Sayed,1 Kenneth Fiala,1 Jacqueline Weibstein,2 Pooja Chopra,3 Christopher Lam,4 Hemant Kalia,5 Navdeep Jassal,6 Amitabh Gulati,7 Dawood Sayed,4 Timothy Deer8 1Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, 53792-3272, USA; 2Napa Valley Orthopedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, 94558, USA; 3Bux Pain Management, Danville, KY, 40422, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA; 5Rochester Regional Health, Rochester, NY, 14626, USA; 6Excel Pain and Spine, Lakeland, FL, 33805, USA; 7Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY, 10604, USA; 8Department of Anesthesiology, University of West Virginia, Charleston, WV, 25301, USACorrespondence: Alaa Abd-Sayed, Email alaaawny@hotmail.comBackground: The use of intrathecal drug delivery for chronic and cancer pain medicine has been established for decades. However, optimization and utilization of this technique still lag behind other modalities for pain control. Some of this may be due to variability of surgical technique, medication usage and education. It is currently unclear on whether or not practitioners follow available algorithms for the use of intrathecal drug delivery systems.Methods: A survey developed by the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) was sent to its members via email using the cloud-based SurveyMonkey. After 30 days of being available, 159 different providers responded to the survey that consisted of 31 various multiple choice and free response questions. Each question was not required and the number of responses to each varied from 128 to 159.Results: Approximately 9% of those who successfully received and opened the email containing the survey responded, likely due to a small number of providers working with intrathecal drug delivery systems. Eighty-six of respondents practice medicine in the United States, and 87% of the respondents were attending physicians. A majority of respondents, approximately 74%, were board certified in pain medicine with 69% of respondents being train in anesthesiology. The first and second most used medications for intrathecal pump trial were morphine and fentanyl, respectively. Most respondents, approximately 96%, provide pre-operative/intra-operative antibiotics. The most common first-choice medication for implanted intrathecal pumps was also morphine with the most common implanted location being the abdomen.Conclusion: Interestingly, there is currently fairly substantial variation in the way providers utilize intrathecal pump delivery for both chronic and cancer pain. There is variation from the training background of the providers providing care, to the pre-implantation trial medications, to where the pump is implanted for each patient, to if the patient has the option to give themselves boluses once implanted. Further research is needed to elucidate current and best practices for intrathecal drug delivery system trials, implantations, and utilization.Keywords: pain management, intrathecal, chronic pain, cancer pain, neuromodulation, analgesia

Sayed D, Grider J, Strand N, et al. J Pain Res. 2022;15:3729-3832. The authors have advised that there is an error in Table 32 on page 3797. Row six Gilligan et al 2021, fourth column level of evidence, the text “I-C” should read “I-A”. The correct Table 32 is as follows. Table 32 Evidence Summary for Multifidus Activation via Medial Branch Nerve Stimulation The authors apologize for this error.

Peripheral nerve stimulation is an established treatment modality for chronic neuropathic pain. Over the last decade, with the advent of innovative devices and delivery platforms, peripheral nerve stimulation has evolved from invasive open surgeries to image-guided, minimally invasive percutaneous procedures. The authors hereby present a novel device, the Nalu™ Neurostimulation System (Nalu Medical, CA, USA), which has established its advantages in providing predictable and reliable peripheral nerve stimulation therapy for chronic neuropathic pain management. This novel device is effective in treating chronic pain conditions such as post-herniorrhaphy pain syndrome, intercostal neuralgia, post-laminectomy syndrome, and complex regional pain syndrome and holds great promise for the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain.Chronic nerve pain is a debilitating condition that can affect quality of life and functioning. The Nalu™ Neurostimulation System (Nalu Medical, CA, USA) provides long-term pain relief without medications. There are numerous devices currently available that can be utilized to block pain signals using small wires. This system is unique because the wires placed over affected nerves are powered by an external battery that does not require permanent surgical implantation. Pain after hernia surgery, back surgery, hip surgery and knee surgery, as well as nerve pain can be effectively managed by this system.

Objectives The evolution of neuromodulation devices in order to enter magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners has been one of understanding limitations, engineering modifications, and the development of a consensus within the community in which the FDA could safely administer labeling for the devices. In the initial decades of neuromodulation, it has been contraindicated for MRI use with implanted devices. In this review, we take a comprehensive approach to address all the major products currently on the market in order to provide physicians with the ability to determine when an MRI can be performed for each type of device implant. Materials and methods We have prepared a narrative review of MRI guidelines for currently marketed implanted neuromodulation devices including spinal cord stimulators, intrathecal drug delivery systems, peripheral nerve stimulators, deep brain stimulators, vagal nerve stimulators, and sacral nerve stimulators. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID, SCOPUS, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, as well as manufacturer-provided information. Results Guidelines and recommendations for each device and their respective guidelines for use in and around MR environments are presented. Conclusions This is the first comprehensive guideline with regards to various devices in the market and MRI compatibility from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

Background Peripheral Nerve Stimulation has been used to treat human disease including pain for several decades. Innovation has made it a more viable option for treatment of common chronic pain processes, and interest in the therapy is increasing. Main body While clinical data is forthcoming, understanding factors that influence successful outcomes in the use of PNS still needs to be delineated. This article reviews the evolution and bioelectronic principles of peripheral nerve stimulation including patient selection, nerve targets, techniques and guidance of target delivery. We collate the current evidence for outcomes and provide recommendations for salient topics in PNS. Conclusion Peripheral nerve stimulation has evolved from a surgically invasive procedure to a minimally invasive technique that can be used early in the treatment of peripheral nerve pain. This review identifies and addresses many of the variables which influence the success of PNS in the clinical setting.

Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion and fixation are effective treatment options for chronic low back pain that is mediated by sacroiliac joint pathology. Numerous factors related to either the patient or the device/fusion approach can predispose to fusion failure. It is imperative to identify these modifiable risk factors and address them appropriately. Currently, there is a dearth of literature regarding optimal treatment options in cases of sacroiliac joint fusion failure. Treatment options for sacroiliac joint fusion failure such as neuroablation, neuromodulation, and surgical revision, either open or using minimally invasive technique, can be considered in patients with sacroiliac joint fusion failure.

This chapter reviews the complications that can occur after minimally invasive surgical fusion of the sacroiliac joint, focusing on infection and neurovascular injuries and their prevention and treatment. The sacroiliac joint has been identified as a potential pain generator in 15% to 30% of chronic low back pain and post-laminectomy syndrome patients. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion via the lateral approach is effective and better tolerated than the open surgical approach. Most of the current studies have focused on efficacy and patient satisfaction as opposed to the safety profile of the procedure. There is a dearth of literature regarding the safety of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion. Over the past few years, a novel posterior approach to sacroiliac joint fusion has become more common that theoretically is safer and potentially as efficacious as the lateral approach.

Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDSs) are used for the treatment of pain and spasticity. A wide range of educational criteria exist for these devices. The North American Neuromodulation Society (NANS) Education Committee developed a comprehensive IDDS curriculum to function as a standard for physician graduate education and assessment through training and into practice.A multidisciplinary and diverse task force gathered by the NANS Education Committee met in person and virtually over several sessions and developed an IDDS curriculum modeling their previous work on spinal cord stimulation and following the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestones. There were iterative revisions and adaptations to the curriculum, and the final version was approved by the NANS Board of Directors.The curriculum was developed with distinction between implanting physicians and managing physician and physicians who perform both tasks. There is a lateral temporal progression from early learner to practitioner, with advanced learner in the middle. In addition, there is a modular vertical organization that divides the curriculum into the six educational competencies outlined by the ACGME.A comprehensive, modular, graduated, and segmented educational curriculum for IDDSs was developed by NANS. We propose the curriculum to be the standard for guidance and assessment of trainees and physicians pursuing training in implanting or managing IDDSs.

Incarcerated patients pose a unique challenge in a hospital setting. There are not only federal and state specific guidelines, but also ethical principles which need to be followed in caring for this special population. The complexity of the situation calls for an interdisciplinary model of care which is focused on communication, privacy, safety and practice of medicine. In this chapter we briefly discuss some of the challenges which practitioners can encounter treating incarcerated patients.

Patients hospitalized with swallowing abnormalities create a unique challenge in adumbrating their pain management plan. Understanding their etiology helps identifying the appropriate treatment strategy and algorithm for pain management. In this chapter we will cover both non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options for patients who cannot swallow. It is imperative that a pain management specialist should be consulted to guide the treatment plan in such complex situations.