• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

外周神经刺激试验的新技术:超声引导下的StimuCath试验

Novel technique for trialing peripheral nerve stimulation: ultrasonography-guided StimuCath trial.

作者信息

Reddy Chandan G, Flouty Oliver E, Holland Marshall T, Rettenmaier Leigh A, Zanaty Mario, Elahi Foad

机构信息

Departments of 1 Neurosurgery and.

University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa.

出版信息

Neurosurg Focus. 2017 Mar;42(3):E5. doi: 10.3171/2016.12.FOCUS16475.

DOI:10.3171/2016.12.FOCUS16475
PMID:28245667
Abstract

OBJECTIVE Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been used for the treatment of neuropathic pain for many decades. Despite the specific indications for PNS, clinicians often have difficulty screening for candidates likely to have a good or fair outcome. Given the expense of a permanent implant, most insurance companies will not pay for the implant without a successful PNS trial. And since PNS has only recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, many insurance companies will not pay for a conventional trial of PNS. The objective of this study is to describe a short low-cost method for trialing and screening patients for peripheral nerve stimulator implantation. Additionally, this study demonstrates the long-term efficacy of PNS in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and the relative effectiveness of this novel screening method. METHODS The records of all patients who had undergone trialing and implantation of a PNS system for chronic refractory pain at the authors' institution over a 1-year period (August 1, 2012-July 31, 2013) were examined in this retrospective case series. The search revealed 17 patients, 13 who had undergone a novel in-office ultrasonography-guided StimuCath screening technique and 4 who had undergone a traditional week-long screening procedure. All 17 patients experienced a successful PNS trial and proceeded to permanent PNS system implantation. Patients were followed up for a mean duration of 3.0 years. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were used to assess pain relief in the short-term (< 6 weeks), at 1 year, and at the last follow-up. Final outcome was also characterized as good, fair, poor, or bad. RESULTS Of these 17 patients, 10 were still using their stimulator at the last follow-up, with 8 of them obtaining good relief (classified as ≥ 50% pain relief, with an average 81% reduction in the VAS score) and 2 patients attaining fair relief (< 50% relief but still using stimulation therapy). Among the remaining 7 patients, the stimulator had been explanted in 4 and there had been no relief in 3. Excluding explanted cases, follow-up ranged from 14 to 46 months, with an average of 36 months. Patients with good or fair relief had experienced pain prior to implantation for an average of 5.1 years (range 1.8-15.2 years). A longer duration of pain trended toward a poorer outcome (bad outcome 7.6 years vs good outcome 4.1 years, p = 0.03). Seven (54%) of the 13 patients with the shorter trial experienced a good or fair outcome with an average 79% reduction in the VAS score; however, all 4 of the bad outcome cases came from this group. Three (75%) of the 4 patients with the longer trial experienced a good or fair outcome at the last follow-up, with an average 54% reduction in the VAS score. There was no difference between the trialing methods and the proportion of favorable (good or fair) outcomes (p = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS Short, ultrasonography-guided StimuCath trials were feasible in screening patients for permanent implantation of PNS, with efficacy similar to the traditional week-long screening noted at the 3-year follow-up.

摘要

目的 外周神经刺激(PNS)已用于治疗神经性疼痛数十年。尽管PNS有特定的适应症,但临床医生在筛选可能有良好或中等效果的患者时往往存在困难。鉴于永久性植入物的费用,大多数保险公司在PNS试验未成功的情况下不会支付植入费用。而且由于PNS最近才获得美国食品药品监督管理局的批准,许多保险公司不会为PNS的传统试验付费。本研究的目的是描述一种用于试验和筛选外周神经刺激器植入患者的简短低成本方法。此外,本研究证明了PNS治疗慢性神经性疼痛的长期疗效以及这种新型筛选方法的相对有效性。

方法 在这个回顾性病例系列中,检查了作者所在机构在1年期间(2012年8月1日至2013年7月31日)接受PNS系统试验和植入治疗慢性难治性疼痛的所有患者的记录。检索发现17例患者,其中13例接受了新型的办公室超声引导下的StimuCath筛选技术,4例接受了传统的为期一周的筛选程序。所有17例患者的PNS试验均成功,并进行了永久性PNS系统植入。对患者进行了平均3.0年的随访。使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分评估短期(<6周)、1年和最后一次随访时的疼痛缓解情况。最终结果也分为良好、中等、差或不良。

结果 在这17例患者中,10例在最后一次随访时仍在使用刺激器,其中8例获得了良好的缓解(定义为疼痛缓解≥50%,VAS评分平均降低81%),2例获得了中等缓解(缓解<50%但仍使用刺激疗法)。其余7例患者中,4例已取出刺激器,3例未缓解。排除取出刺激器的病例后,随访时间为14至46个月,平均36个月。缓解良好或中等的患者植入前疼痛平均持续时间为5.1年(范围1.8 - 15.2年)。疼痛持续时间越长,预后越差的趋势越明显(不良预后7.6年 vs 良好预后4.1年,p = 0.03)。13例试验时间较短的患者中有7例(54%)获得了良好或中等的结果,VAS评分平均降低79%;然而,所有4例不良预后病例均来自该组。4例试验时间较长的患者中有3例(75%)在最后一次随访时获得了良好或中等的结果,VAS评分平均降低54%。试验方法与良好(或中等)结果的比例之间没有差异(p = 0.71)。

结论 简短的超声引导下的StimuCath试验对于筛选PNS永久性植入患者是可行的,其疗效与3年随访时记录的传统为期一周的筛选相似。

相似文献

1
Novel technique for trialing peripheral nerve stimulation: ultrasonography-guided StimuCath trial.外周神经刺激试验的新技术:超声引导下的StimuCath试验
Neurosurg Focus. 2017 Mar;42(3):E5. doi: 10.3171/2016.12.FOCUS16475.
2
Ultrasound-guided permanent implantation of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) system for neuropathic pain of the extremities: original cases and outcomes.超声引导下外周神经刺激(PNS)系统永久植入治疗四肢神经病理性疼痛:原始病例和结果。
Pain Med. 2009 Nov;10(8):1369-77. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00745.x.
3
Is Response to a Pre-implant Diagnostic Peripheral Nerve Block Associated With Efficacy After Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Implantation? A Ten-Year Enterprise-Wide Analysis.预先植入诊断性周围神经阻滞的反应是否与周围神经刺激植入后的疗效相关?一项十年的企业范围分析。
Neuromodulation. 2024 Jul;27(5):873-880. doi: 10.1016/j.neurom.2023.10.003. Epub 2023 Nov 10.
4
Peripheral nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain.周围神经刺激用于慢性疼痛的治疗。
J Clin Neurosci. 2007 Mar;14(3):216-21; discussion 222-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2005.11.007.
5
Cross talk: a new method for peripheral nerve stimulation. An observational report with cadaveric verification.交传:外周神经刺激的新方法。尸体验证的观察报告。
Pain Physician. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(6):965-83.
6
Failure of long-term nerve root stimulation to improve neuropathic pain.长期神经根刺激未能改善神经性疼痛。
J Neurosurg. 2008 May;108(5):921-5. doi: 10.3171/JNS/2008/108/5/0921.
7
Permanent implantation of peripheral nerve stimulator for combat injury-related ilioinguinal neuralgia.外周神经刺激器的永久性植入治疗与战斗损伤相关的髂腹股沟神经痛。
Pain Physician. 2013 Nov-Dec;16(6):E789-91.
8
Long term clinical outcome of peripheral nerve stimulation in patients with chronic peripheral neuropathic pain.慢性周围神经性疼痛患者周围神经刺激的长期临床结果
Surg Neurol. 2009 Oct;72(4):330-5; discussion 335. doi: 10.1016/j.surneu.2009.03.006. Epub 2009 Aug 7.
9
External Noninvasive Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: A Prospective Audit.外部非侵入性周围神经刺激治疗神经性疼痛:一项前瞻性审计。
Neuromodulation. 2015 Jul;18(5):384-91. doi: 10.1111/ner.12244. Epub 2014 Oct 10.
10
Novel High-Frequency Peripheral Nerve Stimulator Treatment of Refractory Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Brief Technical Note.新型高频周围神经刺激器治疗难治性带状疱疹后神经痛:一篇简短的技术说明。
Neuromodulation. 2015 Aug;18(6):487-93; discussion 493. doi: 10.1111/ner.12281. Epub 2015 Apr 1.

引用本文的文献

1
Real-world long-term outcomes of peripheral nerve stimulation: a prospective observational study.外周神经刺激的真实世界长期结局:一项前瞻性观察性研究。
Pain Manag. 2025 Jan;15(1):37-44. doi: 10.1080/17581869.2025.2451605. Epub 2025 Jan 21.
2
Peripheral nerve stimulation on trial: A novel, cost-effective approach to determine patient candidacy prior to implantation.试验性外周神经刺激:一种在植入前确定患者是否适合的新颖且经济高效的方法。
Interv Pain Med. 2024 Jun 12;3(2):100418. doi: 10.1016/j.inpm.2024.100418. eCollection 2024 Jun.
3
Wireless Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for The Upper Limb: A Case Report.
无线外周神经刺激在上肢的应用:一例报告。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Mar 3;20(5):4488. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054488.
4
Upper-Extremity Peripheral Nerve Stimulators.上肢周围神经刺激器
J Hand Surg Glob Online. 2022 Jan 24;5(1):121-125. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2021.12.012. eCollection 2023 Jan.
5
Neuromodulation using a hybrid technique of combined perineural local anesthetic and nerve stimulation in six challenging clinical scenarios.在六种具有挑战性的临床场景中,采用神经周围局部麻醉与神经刺激相结合的混合技术进行神经调节。
Can J Anaesth. 2023 Feb;70(2):273-279. doi: 10.1007/s12630-022-02373-3. Epub 2022 Dec 13.
6
Pain management using a novel hybrid technique of perineural stimulation combined with regional anaesthesia through a stimulating perineural catheter for below knee amputation.使用一种新型混合技术进行疼痛管理,该技术将神经周围刺激与通过用于膝下截肢的刺激神经周围导管进行区域麻醉相结合。
Anaesth Rep. 2021 Apr 21;9(1):69-72. doi: 10.1002/anr3.12112. eCollection 2021 Jan-Jun.
7
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in Pain Management: A Systematic Review.周围神经刺激在疼痛管理中的应用:一项系统综述。
Pain Physician. 2021 Mar;24(2):E131-E152.
8
Translational Approaches to Electrical Stimulation for Peripheral Nerve Regeneration.神经电刺激促进周围神经再生的转化方法
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2020 Nov;34(11):979-985. doi: 10.1177/1545968320962508. Epub 2020 Oct 10.
9
Refractory neuropathic pain from a median nerve injury: spinal cord or peripheral nerve stimulation? A case report.正中神经损伤所致难治性神经性疼痛:脊髓或外周神经刺激?病例报告。
Acta Neurol Belg. 2020 Aug;120(4):867-871. doi: 10.1007/s13760-018-01065-4. Epub 2019 Jan 30.
10
Median nerve stimulation induces analgesia via orexin-initiated endocannabinoid disinhibition in the periaqueductal gray.正中神经刺激通过内侧视前核启动的内源性大麻素抑制在导水管周围灰质中诱导镇痛。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Nov 6;115(45):E10720-E10729. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1807991115. Epub 2018 Oct 22.