The Predictive Value of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Patient Selection in Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Prospective Study
Objective Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) is an effective alternative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is frequently used in pain therapy. Aim of this prospective study was to examine the predictive value of TENS for late...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.) Mass.), 2021-08, Vol.24 (6), p.1051-1058 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1058 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 1051 |
container_title | Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.) |
container_volume | 24 |
creator | Schwarm, Frank Patrick Ott, Marc Nagl, Jasmin Bender, Michael Stein, Marco Uhl, Eberhard Maxeiner, Hagen Kolodziej, Malgorzata A. |
description | Objective
Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) is an effective alternative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is frequently used in pain therapy. Aim of this prospective study was to examine the predictive value of TENS for later PNFS treatment.
Materials and Methods
Between 2014 and 2019, a prospective cohort study of 41 patients with chronic lumbar pain was conducted. Pain intensity (NRS) was assessed before and after TENS use, preoperatively/postoperatively and in the follow‐up after three and six months, SF12v2 questionnaires with physical (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) questionnaire at baseline as well as three and six months after PNFS implantation. Implantation of the PNFS‐system with two percutaneous leads was performed after four to seven days of positive testing. Statistical analysis was performed using depending t‐test, ANOVA, and Spearman correlation.
Results
The cohort consisted of 41 patients (19 females, 22 males) with a median age of 60.5 years (IQR25‐75 52–67). Two patients were lost to follow‐up. After positive PNFS testing a pulse generator (IPG) was implanted in 15 patients with positive TENS effect and 15 patients without TENS effect. Leads were explanted in nine patients after negative PNFS trial phase. TENS positive patients showed significant correlation to a positive effect in the PNFS trial phase in NRS reduction (p = 0.042) indicating that TENS responders will also respond to PNFS (94% patients). After three and six months follow‐up median NRS and SF12v2 (PCS) improved significantly in both cohorts, SF12v2 (MCS) and ODI only in the TENS positive cohort, respectively.
Conclusion
TENS can be predictive for patient selection in PNFS, as TENS positive patients showed significant correlation with a positive PNFS trial period. Therefore, TENS positive patients might be justifiable to be directly implanted with leads and IPG. TENS positive patients further tend to show a better improvement in the follow‐up. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/ner.13244 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2430978457</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2430978457</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3534-4d4344db5977ce080b830ec812107539bc8769cd066e15b665785974d075340d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1uEzEUhS0EoqWw4AWQJTawmNa_4xl2JUoBKSoRCWytGftGcXHs1J6hykvxjDhM6QKEN77y_e7R8T0IvaTknJZzESCdU86EeIROqWSyooLwx6UmragUle0JepbzDSFUtUw9RSecKamYVKfo53oLeJnAOjO4H4C_dX4EHDd4nbqQzTh0AeKY8dyDGZIzncfXkAq4Gtxu9N3gYsCbmPCylBAGvIIjeXx1AS8huf0W0sPUlQNv_5mdbVMMzuBFvMPvO_O9iLnwDl8WYzHvYXK2GkZ7eI6ebDqf4cX9fYa-Xs3Xs4_V4vOHT7PLRWW45KISVnAhbC9bpQyQhvQNJ2AayihRkre9aVTdGkvqGqjs61qqprDCHruCWH6G3ky6-xRvR8iD3rlswPtpHZoJTlrVCKkK-vov9CaOKRR3mslaCkEYawr1dqJM-VJOsNH75HZdOmhK9DFEXULUv0Ms7Kt7xbHfgX0g_6RWgIsJuHMeDv9X0tfzL5PkLxJ_pmo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2565440228</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Predictive Value of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Patient Selection in Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Prospective Study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Schwarm, Frank Patrick ; Ott, Marc ; Nagl, Jasmin ; Bender, Michael ; Stein, Marco ; Uhl, Eberhard ; Maxeiner, Hagen ; Kolodziej, Malgorzata A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schwarm, Frank Patrick ; Ott, Marc ; Nagl, Jasmin ; Bender, Michael ; Stein, Marco ; Uhl, Eberhard ; Maxeiner, Hagen ; Kolodziej, Malgorzata A.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) is an effective alternative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is frequently used in pain therapy. Aim of this prospective study was to examine the predictive value of TENS for later PNFS treatment.
Materials and Methods
Between 2014 and 2019, a prospective cohort study of 41 patients with chronic lumbar pain was conducted. Pain intensity (NRS) was assessed before and after TENS use, preoperatively/postoperatively and in the follow‐up after three and six months, SF12v2 questionnaires with physical (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) questionnaire at baseline as well as three and six months after PNFS implantation. Implantation of the PNFS‐system with two percutaneous leads was performed after four to seven days of positive testing. Statistical analysis was performed using depending t‐test, ANOVA, and Spearman correlation.
Results
The cohort consisted of 41 patients (19 females, 22 males) with a median age of 60.5 years (IQR25‐75 52–67). Two patients were lost to follow‐up. After positive PNFS testing a pulse generator (IPG) was implanted in 15 patients with positive TENS effect and 15 patients without TENS effect. Leads were explanted in nine patients after negative PNFS trial phase. TENS positive patients showed significant correlation to a positive effect in the PNFS trial phase in NRS reduction (p = 0.042) indicating that TENS responders will also respond to PNFS (94% patients). After three and six months follow‐up median NRS and SF12v2 (PCS) improved significantly in both cohorts, SF12v2 (MCS) and ODI only in the TENS positive cohort, respectively.
Conclusion
TENS can be predictive for patient selection in PNFS, as TENS positive patients showed significant correlation with a positive PNFS trial period. Therefore, TENS positive patients might be justifiable to be directly implanted with leads and IPG. TENS positive patients further tend to show a better improvement in the follow‐up.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1094-7159</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-1403</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ner.13244</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32757257</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Back pain ; Chronic low back pain ; Female ; Humans ; Low back pain ; Low Back Pain - therapy ; Male ; Middle Aged ; multimodal therapy ; Patient Selection ; Patients ; Peripheral Nerves ; PNFS ; predictive value ; Prospective Studies ; Statistical analysis ; TENS ; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation ; Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation-TENS ; Treatment Outcome ; trial phase</subject><ispartof>Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.), 2021-08, Vol.24 (6), p.1051-1058</ispartof><rights>2020 International Neuromodulation Society.</rights><rights>2021 International Neuromodulation Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3534-4d4344db5977ce080b830ec812107539bc8769cd066e15b665785974d075340d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3534-4d4344db5977ce080b830ec812107539bc8769cd066e15b665785974d075340d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5030-1870 ; 0000-0001-6026-767X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32757257$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schwarm, Frank Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ott, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagl, Jasmin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bender, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stein, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uhl, Eberhard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maxeiner, Hagen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kolodziej, Malgorzata A.</creatorcontrib><title>The Predictive Value of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Patient Selection in Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Prospective Study</title><title>Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.)</title><addtitle>Neuromodulation</addtitle><description>Objective
Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) is an effective alternative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is frequently used in pain therapy. Aim of this prospective study was to examine the predictive value of TENS for later PNFS treatment.
Materials and Methods
Between 2014 and 2019, a prospective cohort study of 41 patients with chronic lumbar pain was conducted. Pain intensity (NRS) was assessed before and after TENS use, preoperatively/postoperatively and in the follow‐up after three and six months, SF12v2 questionnaires with physical (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) questionnaire at baseline as well as three and six months after PNFS implantation. Implantation of the PNFS‐system with two percutaneous leads was performed after four to seven days of positive testing. Statistical analysis was performed using depending t‐test, ANOVA, and Spearman correlation.
Results
The cohort consisted of 41 patients (19 females, 22 males) with a median age of 60.5 years (IQR25‐75 52–67). Two patients were lost to follow‐up. After positive PNFS testing a pulse generator (IPG) was implanted in 15 patients with positive TENS effect and 15 patients without TENS effect. Leads were explanted in nine patients after negative PNFS trial phase. TENS positive patients showed significant correlation to a positive effect in the PNFS trial phase in NRS reduction (p = 0.042) indicating that TENS responders will also respond to PNFS (94% patients). After three and six months follow‐up median NRS and SF12v2 (PCS) improved significantly in both cohorts, SF12v2 (MCS) and ODI only in the TENS positive cohort, respectively.
Conclusion
TENS can be predictive for patient selection in PNFS, as TENS positive patients showed significant correlation with a positive PNFS trial period. Therefore, TENS positive patients might be justifiable to be directly implanted with leads and IPG. TENS positive patients further tend to show a better improvement in the follow‐up.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Back pain</subject><subject>Chronic low back pain</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Low back pain</subject><subject>Low Back Pain - therapy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>multimodal therapy</subject><subject>Patient Selection</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Peripheral Nerves</subject><subject>PNFS</subject><subject>predictive value</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>TENS</subject><subject>Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation</subject><subject>Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation-TENS</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>trial phase</subject><issn>1094-7159</issn><issn>1525-1403</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1uEzEUhS0EoqWw4AWQJTawmNa_4xl2JUoBKSoRCWytGftGcXHs1J6hykvxjDhM6QKEN77y_e7R8T0IvaTknJZzESCdU86EeIROqWSyooLwx6UmragUle0JepbzDSFUtUw9RSecKamYVKfo53oLeJnAOjO4H4C_dX4EHDd4nbqQzTh0AeKY8dyDGZIzncfXkAq4Gtxu9N3gYsCbmPCylBAGvIIjeXx1AS8huf0W0sPUlQNv_5mdbVMMzuBFvMPvO_O9iLnwDl8WYzHvYXK2GkZ7eI6ebDqf4cX9fYa-Xs3Xs4_V4vOHT7PLRWW45KISVnAhbC9bpQyQhvQNJ2AayihRkre9aVTdGkvqGqjs61qqprDCHruCWH6G3ky6-xRvR8iD3rlswPtpHZoJTlrVCKkK-vov9CaOKRR3mslaCkEYawr1dqJM-VJOsNH75HZdOmhK9DFEXULUv0Ms7Kt7xbHfgX0g_6RWgIsJuHMeDv9X0tfzL5PkLxJ_pmo</recordid><startdate>202108</startdate><enddate>202108</enddate><creator>Schwarm, Frank Patrick</creator><creator>Ott, Marc</creator><creator>Nagl, Jasmin</creator><creator>Bender, Michael</creator><creator>Stein, Marco</creator><creator>Uhl, Eberhard</creator><creator>Maxeiner, Hagen</creator><creator>Kolodziej, Malgorzata A.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5030-1870</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6026-767X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202108</creationdate><title>The Predictive Value of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Patient Selection in Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Prospective Study</title><author>Schwarm, Frank Patrick ; Ott, Marc ; Nagl, Jasmin ; Bender, Michael ; Stein, Marco ; Uhl, Eberhard ; Maxeiner, Hagen ; Kolodziej, Malgorzata A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3534-4d4344db5977ce080b830ec812107539bc8769cd066e15b665785974d075340d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Back pain</topic><topic>Chronic low back pain</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Low back pain</topic><topic>Low Back Pain - therapy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>multimodal therapy</topic><topic>Patient Selection</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Peripheral Nerves</topic><topic>PNFS</topic><topic>predictive value</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>TENS</topic><topic>Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation</topic><topic>Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation-TENS</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>trial phase</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schwarm, Frank Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ott, Marc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagl, Jasmin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bender, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stein, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Uhl, Eberhard</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maxeiner, Hagen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kolodziej, Malgorzata A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schwarm, Frank Patrick</au><au>Ott, Marc</au><au>Nagl, Jasmin</au><au>Bender, Michael</au><au>Stein, Marco</au><au>Uhl, Eberhard</au><au>Maxeiner, Hagen</au><au>Kolodziej, Malgorzata A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Predictive Value of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Patient Selection in Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Prospective Study</atitle><jtitle>Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.)</jtitle><addtitle>Neuromodulation</addtitle><date>2021-08</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1051</spage><epage>1058</epage><pages>1051-1058</pages><issn>1094-7159</issn><eissn>1525-1403</eissn><abstract>Objective
Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) is an effective alternative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is frequently used in pain therapy. Aim of this prospective study was to examine the predictive value of TENS for later PNFS treatment.
Materials and Methods
Between 2014 and 2019, a prospective cohort study of 41 patients with chronic lumbar pain was conducted. Pain intensity (NRS) was assessed before and after TENS use, preoperatively/postoperatively and in the follow‐up after three and six months, SF12v2 questionnaires with physical (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) questionnaire at baseline as well as three and six months after PNFS implantation. Implantation of the PNFS‐system with two percutaneous leads was performed after four to seven days of positive testing. Statistical analysis was performed using depending t‐test, ANOVA, and Spearman correlation.
Results
The cohort consisted of 41 patients (19 females, 22 males) with a median age of 60.5 years (IQR25‐75 52–67). Two patients were lost to follow‐up. After positive PNFS testing a pulse generator (IPG) was implanted in 15 patients with positive TENS effect and 15 patients without TENS effect. Leads were explanted in nine patients after negative PNFS trial phase. TENS positive patients showed significant correlation to a positive effect in the PNFS trial phase in NRS reduction (p = 0.042) indicating that TENS responders will also respond to PNFS (94% patients). After three and six months follow‐up median NRS and SF12v2 (PCS) improved significantly in both cohorts, SF12v2 (MCS) and ODI only in the TENS positive cohort, respectively.
Conclusion
TENS can be predictive for patient selection in PNFS, as TENS positive patients showed significant correlation with a positive PNFS trial period. Therefore, TENS positive patients might be justifiable to be directly implanted with leads and IPG. TENS positive patients further tend to show a better improvement in the follow‐up.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>32757257</pmid><doi>10.1111/ner.13244</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5030-1870</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6026-767X</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1094-7159 |
ispartof | Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.), 2021-08, Vol.24 (6), p.1051-1058 |
issn | 1094-7159 1525-1403 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2430978457 |
source | MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Adult Aged Back pain Chronic low back pain Female Humans Low back pain Low Back Pain - therapy Male Middle Aged multimodal therapy Patient Selection Patients Peripheral Nerves PNFS predictive value Prospective Studies Statistical analysis TENS Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation-TENS Treatment Outcome trial phase |
title | The Predictive Value of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Patient Selection in Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Prospective Study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T19%3A02%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Predictive%20Value%20of%20Transcutaneous%20Electrical%20Nerve%20Stimulation%20for%20Patient%20Selection%20in%20Peripheral%20Nerve%20Field%20Stimulation%20for%20Chronic%20Low%20Back%20Pain:%20A%20Prospective%20Study&rft.jtitle=Neuromodulation%20(Malden,%20Mass.)&rft.au=Schwarm,%20Frank%20Patrick&rft.date=2021-08&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1051&rft.epage=1058&rft.pages=1051-1058&rft.issn=1094-7159&rft.eissn=1525-1403&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ner.13244&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2430978457%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2565440228&rft_id=info:pmid/32757257&rfr_iscdi=true |