外周神经刺激治疗慢性疼痛的有效性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain physician Pub Date : 2025-09-01
Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Massab Bashir Khaira, Amol Soin, Alan D Kaye, Nebojsa Nick Knezevic, Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Mahendra Sanapati, Vivekanand A Manocha, Joshua A Hirsch
{"title":"外周神经刺激治疗慢性疼痛的有效性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Massab Bashir Khaira, Amol Soin, Alan D Kaye, Nebojsa Nick Knezevic, Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Mahendra Sanapati, Vivekanand A Manocha, Joshua A Hirsch","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been used for over 50 years to treat chronic pain. Since 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved percutaneously implanted PNS leads and neurostimulators, offering a minimally invasive, non-opioid alternative for managing persistent and refractory chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the current evidence on PNS through a systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PNS for chronic pain management, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Quality was assessed using Cochrane review criteria for risk of bias and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized therapeutic trials.A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases (1966-February 2025), supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies from relevant review articles. Included studies underwent quality assessment, best evidence synthesis, and grading using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Evidence levels were classified from Level I to Level V.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving significant pain relief and functional improvement (>= 50%) sustained for at least 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The present investigation identified 7 high-quality and 2 moderate-quality RCTs based on Cochrane criteria and 9 moderate-quality trials based on IPM-QRB criteria. Utilizing GRADE criteria, 7 of 9 studies demonstrated moderate evidence and clinical applicability, and 2 of 9 showed low evidence and applicability.Overall, the combined qualitative and quantitative analysis supported a fair (Level III) evidence level, with moderate certainty and moderate strength of recommendation for:Implantable PNS systems following a trial or selective lumbar medial branch stimulation without a trialTemporary PNS therapy for 60 days.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>A key limitation remains the scarcity of high-quality studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The evidence supports a fair (Level III) level of evidence with moderate certainty and recommendation strength, based on qualitative and quantitative analyses and GRADE assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":19841,"journal":{"name":"Pain physician","volume":"28 5","pages":"E481-E507"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in Managing Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Massab Bashir Khaira, Amol Soin, Alan D Kaye, Nebojsa Nick Knezevic, Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Mahendra Sanapati, Vivekanand A Manocha, Joshua A Hirsch\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been used for over 50 years to treat chronic pain. Since 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved percutaneously implanted PNS leads and neurostimulators, offering a minimally invasive, non-opioid alternative for managing persistent and refractory chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the current evidence on PNS through a systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PNS for chronic pain management, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Quality was assessed using Cochrane review criteria for risk of bias and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized therapeutic trials.A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases (1966-February 2025), supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies from relevant review articles. Included studies underwent quality assessment, best evidence synthesis, and grading using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Evidence levels were classified from Level I to Level V.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving significant pain relief and functional improvement (>= 50%) sustained for at least 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The present investigation identified 7 high-quality and 2 moderate-quality RCTs based on Cochrane criteria and 9 moderate-quality trials based on IPM-QRB criteria. Utilizing GRADE criteria, 7 of 9 studies demonstrated moderate evidence and clinical applicability, and 2 of 9 showed low evidence and applicability.Overall, the combined qualitative and quantitative analysis supported a fair (Level III) evidence level, with moderate certainty and moderate strength of recommendation for:Implantable PNS systems following a trial or selective lumbar medial branch stimulation without a trialTemporary PNS therapy for 60 days.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>A key limitation remains the scarcity of high-quality studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The evidence supports a fair (Level III) level of evidence with moderate certainty and recommendation strength, based on qualitative and quantitative analyses and GRADE assessment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain physician\",\"volume\":\"28 5\",\"pages\":\"E481-E507\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain physician\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain physician","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:外周神经刺激(PNS)用于治疗慢性疼痛已有50多年的历史。自2015年以来,美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)已批准经皮植入PNS导联和神经刺激器,为治疗持续性和难治性慢性疼痛提供了一种微创、非阿片类药物的替代方案。目的:通过系统回顾和荟萃分析对PNS的现有证据进行评价。研究设计:遵循系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南的首选报告项目,对PNS治疗慢性疼痛的随机对照试验(rct)进行系统评价和荟萃分析。方法:采用Cochrane偏倚风险评价标准和介入疼痛管理技术-可靠性和偏倚风险评价质量评价(IPM-QRB)对随机治疗试验进行质量评价。对多个数据库(1966- 2025年2月)进行了全面的文献检索,并辅以人工检索相关综述文章的参考书目。纳入的研究进行了质量评估、最佳证据合成,并使用建议、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)框架进行了分级。证据水平分为I级到v级。结局指标:主要结局是持续至少12个月获得显著疼痛缓解和功能改善的患者比例(>= 50%)。结果:本研究确定了基于Cochrane标准的7项高质量rct和2项中等质量rct,以及基于IPM-QRB标准的9项中等质量试验。使用GRADE标准,9项研究中有7项具有中等证据和临床适用性,9项研究中有2项具有低证据和临床适用性。总体而言,综合定性和定量分析支持一个公平的(III级)证据水平,具有中等确定性和中等强度的推荐:在试验后植入PNS系统或选择性腰椎内侧支刺激后不进行试验临时PNS治疗60天。局限性:一个关键的局限性仍然是缺乏高质量的研究。结论:基于定性和定量分析以及GRADE评估,证据支持公平(III级)证据水平,具有中等确定性和推荐强度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in Managing Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been used for over 50 years to treat chronic pain. Since 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved percutaneously implanted PNS leads and neurostimulators, offering a minimally invasive, non-opioid alternative for managing persistent and refractory chronic pain.

Objective: To evaluate the current evidence on PNS through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Study design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on PNS for chronic pain management, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Methods: Quality was assessed using Cochrane review criteria for risk of bias and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized therapeutic trials.A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases (1966-February 2025), supplemented by manual searches of bibliographies from relevant review articles. Included studies underwent quality assessment, best evidence synthesis, and grading using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Evidence levels were classified from Level I to Level V.

Outcome measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving significant pain relief and functional improvement (>= 50%) sustained for at least 12 months.

Results: The present investigation identified 7 high-quality and 2 moderate-quality RCTs based on Cochrane criteria and 9 moderate-quality trials based on IPM-QRB criteria. Utilizing GRADE criteria, 7 of 9 studies demonstrated moderate evidence and clinical applicability, and 2 of 9 showed low evidence and applicability.Overall, the combined qualitative and quantitative analysis supported a fair (Level III) evidence level, with moderate certainty and moderate strength of recommendation for:Implantable PNS systems following a trial or selective lumbar medial branch stimulation without a trialTemporary PNS therapy for 60 days.

Limitations: A key limitation remains the scarcity of high-quality studies.

Conclusion: The evidence supports a fair (Level III) level of evidence with moderate certainty and recommendation strength, based on qualitative and quantitative analyses and GRADE assessment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain physician
Pain physician CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
21.60%
发文量
234
期刊介绍: Pain Physician Journal is the official publication of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). The open access journal is published 6 times a year. Pain Physician Journal is a peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary, open access journal written by and directed to an audience of interventional pain physicians, clinicians and basic scientists with an interest in interventional pain management and pain medicine. Pain Physician Journal presents the latest studies, research, and information vital to those in the emerging specialty of interventional pain management – and critical to the people they serve.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信