This study investigated the safety and efficacy of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) in treating a wide range of chronic pain conditions and aimed to provide some initial evidence for which pain conditions may be most conducive to intervention with PNS. Similar to the previous studies, the results of this retrospective analysis suggest the efficacious role of peripheral nerve stimulation in management of chronic pain that is refractory to conventional treatment measures [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Our study found a statistically significant improvement in pain scores following PNS therapy with an average pre-procedure pain score of 6.36 and an average post-procedure pain score of 4.19 with a P value < 0.001. In addition to the reduction of patient-reported pain levels, patients reported improved sleep, mood, and ability to perform daily activities. In this study, the distinction between standardized visual analog scale (VAS) pain score relief and subjective percent pain improvement is necessary to address determined pain relief. VAS pain score improvement and subjective percent pain improvement were used to establish chronic pain relief. Patients who experienced no percent improvement and reported improvement in VAS pain scores were designated as successful therapy. Of the patients who underwent PNS therapy, 23.6% (21) experienced no pain relief designated by VAS pain score improvement. Nine of the 21 patients who reported no VAS pain score improvement had experienced subjective percent improvement and were designated as successful therapy. Five of the remaining 12 patients with no reported VAS pain score improvement nor subjective percent pain improvement experienced adverse events such as lead migration or infection, which can contribute to the absence of pain relief. The remaining seven patients with no pain improvement without adverse therapy effects were determined to have no true relief. The evaluation of co-variable influence on VAS pain improvement and subjective percent improvement revealed non-significant results with all the Pearson’s correlation p values determined to be greater than the ≤ 0.05 significance standard. This strengthens the argument for future research to focus on the influence of which nerves are targeted and where the leads are located when determining more successful methods of PNS therapy, as well as further identify the potential role of age, body mass index (BMI), and other demographics that may impact the procedure’s success.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of PNS within diagnostic subgroup was limited by the number of patients who presented with each indication; however, the results of this study provide some preliminary evidence for diagnostic indications in which PNS may be greatly effective as well as indications that may not see as great of a benefit, requiring further investigation into the utility of PNS for these cases. Diagnoses which saw no improvement in VAS pain score nor subjective percent improvement included lumbar neuropathy, diabetic polyneuropathy, intercostal neuralgia, and femoral cutaneous neuropathy. Additional diagnoses which saw no improvement in VAS pain scale, though some subjective improvement, include knee osteoarthritis, femoral artery injury, peroneal and tibial neuropathies, and neuroma of upper extremity amputation. Each of these diagnoses was limited in subject number; however, given the minimal to no benefit observed from PNS intervention in these patients, these diagnoses may represent areas of interest for future investigation. Additionally, without additional case reports of patients with these diagnoses who saw benefit from the intervention, it is difficult to broadly state that PNS is an effective intervention for all chronic pain conditions related to neuropathic pain. Notable distinguishment of the limitations regarding the patients who did not receive relief from the device is also necessary. Our study did not include the investigation and analysis of those who potentially developed increased pain on our pain scoring and percent improvement scale systems during the study period.

Several studies have demonstrated a significant improvement in pain scores post-PNS implantation with a growing variety of implant locations being evaluated. This includes PNS therapy for low back pain, lower extremities, headaches, and even phantom limb pain [16,17,18,19,20,21]. In a retrospective study of 72 patients who underwent PNS therapy, pain scores and opioid utilization to manage pain improved within 6 months after implantation [22]. In another PNS therapy study, which utilized randomization and sham controls, pain scores and opioid utilization were likewise found to be improved within 7 days of orthopedic surgery in the PNS therapy group [23]. While the results of these studies indicate growing evidence for the efficacy of PNS in treating chronic pain, there is still limited research regarding the efficacy of PNS at various nerve targets and how ubiquitous an intervention PNS is across various chronic pain syndromes.

As mentioned in the Introduction, there have been two mechanisms—changes to local inflammatory mediators and adjustments of pain thresholds—proposed which function under the concept of the “gate control” theory of pain [7, 13, 14]. The influence of endogenous molecular signaling cascades such as serotonergic (5HT2 and 5HT3), GABAergic, and glycinergic are thought to be the responsible neurotransmitters for the pain pathways, which can be altered with PNS technology [24, 25]. The purpose of this paper does not explore the driving mechanisms of action behind PNS therapy and instead highlights the clinical success of these devices. The complexity of the nervous system physiology and the duality of peripheral and central nervous system fibers has generated much of the dissonance in the current literature regarding alternative theories for pain management mechanisms [25]. Continued experimental studies with animal and human models is necessary to further develop our understanding of these mechanisms.

Future research endeavors regarding the protocol of PNS therapy are an aspect of this study that must be acknowledged. Personalization and adjustment regarding the titration of the electrical stimulation patients received could be better isolated and analyzed to assess the correlation to patient outcomes. Generally, patients received stimulation during lead placement to confirm comfortable sensations. This determined the waveform and parameters the patients received as treatment throughout the 60-day treatment. After placement of the leads, patients also have the ability to increase and decrease the intensity as needed throughout the stimulation period with a wireless remote to maintain comfortable stimulation coverage [26]. Intensity values correspond to amplitude and pulse duration range. These vary from 0.2 to 30 mA and 10 to 200 µs. The frequency is set to either 12 Hz for motor stimulation program (usually 6–12 h per day) or 100 Hz for the sensory stimulation program (usually up to 24 h per day). Our dual-lead placement allowed for variety regarding the received stimulation programming, with some patients receiving a sensory stimulation schedule through both leads and some patients receiving a sensory stimulation schedule through a single lead while receiving a motor stimulation schedule through the other implanted lead. Stimulation schedules were presented to the patients in a manner that utilized their discretion and the freedom to receive both programs. Both programs were reconciled with current published program designs [27, 28]. The 12-Hz program additionally permitted the adjustment of electrical intensity levels within an appropriate range that was deemed comfortable, cyclic activation of the multifidi for chronic low back pain [27]. Devices were additionally used at least 6 h per day, with a maximum of 12 h per day for 60 days [27]. The 100-Hz program demonstrated the deliverance of comfortable, stimulation-evoked sensations that could be locally applied for post-amputation pain [28]. Participants were permitted to adjust waveform and parameter values while maintaining the established test stimulation ranges set by the study staff during the 60-day treatment [28]. The necessity for future investigation pertaining to the frequency and details of the electrical parameters is clear in order to develop parameter programming that optimizes therapy and would assist in the overall advancement and efficacy of these PNS devices.

There were a total of five adverse events out of the 89 patients who underwent PNS therapy, all five of which resulted in no pain relief. Of the five adverse events to result in lack of pain improvement, four of the five patients struggled with lead migration, with two patients experiencing lead loosening to the point of lead dislodgement. This suggests that improvements can be made concerning the security of PNS devices at various locations, with necessary specialized adaptations being developed and adopted for the specific locations to improve therapy efficacy. With the mean duration of improvement lasting 123 days, these devices demonstrated an ability to provide pain relief after the removal of stimulation. For some patients, pain returned before the conclusion of the temporary PNS therapy at 60 days, prompting for further investigation to determine the reasoning for such drastic differences in duration of improvement, from 6 days post implant and therapy initiation to nearly 2 years of relief.

The potential complications seen in this study are consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated a beneficial role for PNS therapy in the management of pain. In a review looking at literature involving spinal cord, occipital, sacral, and peripheral nerve field stimulation, complications were reported to be between 30% and 40%, with most common complications involving hardware issues instead of biological complications [29]. The review reported that the most common hardware-related complication involved lead migration [29]. This retrospective study similarly had hardware issues occurring more frequently than biological complications, however, the complication rate was lower than that reported in previous studies. Other historically reported complications include lead failure or fracture, and biological complications such as infection and pain over the implant, and rarely neurological damage [29]. Complications are most associated with location of lead placement and the experience level of the surgeon [29]. Given that some complications are easily corrected by re-operation and that complications are often minor when they occur, PNS therapy remains an effective and safe therapy for chronic pain management.

Given the retrospective nature of this research, there are some inherent limitations to this work. One limitation of this work is the relatively small number of patients who each had a specific diagnosis prior to PNS therapy as well as the various stimulation parameters used for each patient which were not recorded as they were changing for each patient overtime with their ability to adjust their device settings. Overall, this study provides additional evidence for the promising role for PNS therapy in improving patient-reported pain levels in those suffering from chronic pain. The various target sites shed light on the potential use for temporary PNS therapy at various targeted nerves for numerous diagnoses. Limited research has been conducted on PNS therapy for many of the nerves targeted in this work. Further research including randomized control trials directly comparing PNS therapy to other treatment modalities should be conducted to evaluate the efficacy of PNS therapy for chronic pain refractory to conventional treatment measures versus other procedures. This future work can identify which pain diagnoses and targeted nerves are best treated by PNS and who the ideal patient candidate is for the procedure as well to identify potential improvement in the procedure to lessen complications such as lead migration. Furthermore, research assessing the predictive value of diagnostic nerve blocks pain relief could also potentially help identify which patients will experience the greatest pain relief with PNS therapy for their chronic pain.