Abstract
Facial pain is one of the most common pain syndromes encountered in adult patients. It is difficult to treat because pharmacological therapies are not always effective, presenting a significant challenge for neurologists, pain specialists, and neurosurgeons. Among new interventional procedures that have been developed for pain management, peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has become an increasingly important approach in the field of neuromodulation, remaining the most diverse and rapidly expanding area of neuromodulation due to advances in both technology and surgical technique. PNS has been described as a safe and promising approach for the treatment of facial pain. In this chapter we focus on an overview of clinical data and describe the current state of PNS for clinicians to use in the treatment of facial pain.
Keywords
Facial pain, Peripheral nerve stimulation, Persistent idiopathic facial pain, Trigeminal neuralgia, Trigeminal neuropathic pain
Outline
Introduction 741
Mechanism of Action of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation 742
Patient Selection for Peripheral Nerve Stimulation 742
Efficacy of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Facial Pain 743
Electrical Stimulation of Infraorbital and Supraorbital Nerves 743
Trigeminal Branch Stimulation 743
Electrical Stimulation of Auriculotemporal Nerve 744
Combination Neuromodulation Therapies 744
Adverse Events and Serious Adverse Events 744
Summary 745
References 745
Introduction
Facial pain is a common condition that affects approximately 10%–25% of the worldwide adult population ( ). It is a serious health problem, and significantly affects the daily functioning of patients. The main types of facial pain are trigeminal neuralgia (TN), trigeminal neuropathic pain (TNP), and persistent idiopathic facial pain ( ). It has been reported that the lifetime prevalence of TN and persistent idiopathic facial pain is 0.3% and 0.03%, respectively ( ). Although treatments for TN are well established, TNP resulting from an injury or infection involving one or several peripheral branches of the trigeminal nerve is often difficult to control with current medical and surgical approaches ( ). Unsatisfactory results of facial pain treatment have prompted the medical community to develop new approaches to its treatment, including peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS).
Although first use of PNS for pain dates back to 1962 ( ), the first publications about PNS came out in 1967 ( ), after the introduction of the gate-control theory of pain by . More than 3 decades later, about 20 years ago, it took off as a widely accepted neuromodulation therapy. Weiner and Reed reported the first percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulators for the treatment of occipital neuralgia in 1999 ( ). Since then, the use of PNS has rapidly expanded within the neuromodulation community, and it has grown to become an invaluable modality for patients with a variety of pain conditions, including facial pain. The PNS technique is based on placement of electrodes over or near the path of the peripheral nerve that supplies the painful area and is involved in the generation of pain. Technological advances in electrode design, features of implantable pulse generators (IPGs), and refinement in surgical technique allow for implantation of PNS systems for the treatment of facial pain by using minimally invasive methods ( ). To confirm or detect the anatomical location of the nerve targeted for PNS, use of ultrasound guidance has been suggested ( ). The main reasons why PNS is one of the most attractive and diverse therapies in the field of neuromodulation for clinicians and patients are its simplicity, minimal invasiveness, reversibility, and versatility of techniques ( ). Moreover, PNS can be used as a stand-alone therapy or combined with other neuromodulation treatments, such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS) (see Chapter 38 in this volume).
Similarly to PNS in general, the history of specific use of PNS for facial pain dates back to long before the paper of Weiner and Reed. It is well known that PNS was used in the craniofacial region in by Wall and Sweet, when a reduction of facial pain perception was found by using the technique on themselves and in treating one patient with TN using electrical stimulation of the infraorbital nerve. Even earlier, in 1962, PNS was introduced as a completely novel, somewhat revolutionary approach when implanted a silicone electrode over a mandibular nerve in a patient with facial pain and treated it with electrical stimulation at a frequency of 14 kHz.
Recently the use of PNS for the treatment of intractable facial pain has been reported by multiple institutions ( ). The most common indications for PNS in the facial region remain TN in patients with postherpetic neuralgia and posttraumatic, poststroke, or postsurgical neuropathic pain. As trigeminal PNS is gaining popularity as a treatment for facial pain, it becomes apparent that this technique has limited applications and should be used mainly for patients with neuropathic pain with a clear anatomic distribution.
Overall, the use of PNS to treat facial pain, although gaining in popularity, is still a relatively understudied field. Recently multiple studies have been conducted to assess its efficacy and safety for the treatment of facial pain, but most of them are case reports or small case series, and as far as we know there have been no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the effect of PNS on facial pain. This chapter focuses on an overview of clinical data and informs clinicians about the current use of PNS for the treatment of facial pain.
Mechanism of Action of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation
The exact mechanism(s) of pain relief using PNS is unknown. It is hypothesized that the mechanism of action (MOA) of PNS may be related to the gate-control theory of pain ( ), and may possibly involve a complex interplay between the central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system ( ). It is possible that PNS shares a similar MOA with SCS, in which electrical activation of large myelinated A-beta fibers may inhibit painful signals carried by small myelinated A-delta and unmyelinated C fibers in the same region (gate-control theory, ). It has been reported that direct stimulation of peripheral nerves results in decreased excitability, an increase in electrical thresholds, and transient slowing of conduction velocity ( ). Moreover, PNS may affect local concentrations of biochemical mediators that enhance pain responses and directly inhibit pain neurotransmission ( ). Interestingly, one study showed that PNS suppresses not only neuropathic but also nociceptive pain ( ), while SCS traditionally works on neuropathic pain only. It is obvious, however, that more research is needed to elucidate fully the mechanisms of analgesic effects of PNS. Kilohertz frequency stimulation of peripheral nerves at high intensities result in a conduction block ( ), and the MOA of that block is thought to be due to activation of K + channels or inactivation of Na + channels ( ).
It should also be stated for the sake of completeness regarding the MOA of electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves that stimulation of these nerves not only has direct effects on the nerves being stimulated but has secondary effects at the spinal cord, dorsal root ganglion ( ), and brain ( ). The end result of PNS (the perceived pain control) may be from peripheral, spinal, or cerebral effects, or a combination of these.
Patient Selection for Peripheral Nerve Stimulation
The success of PNS therapy, as with all neuromodulation therapies, depends on appropriate patient selection. The prerequisites for using PNS for treatment of facial pain are as follows ( ).
- 1.
PNS is considered for patients with severe, chronic, refractory neuropathic pain that is affecting the patient’s quality of life.
- 2.
Conservative therapies, such as pharmacotherapy, physical therapy, trigger point injections, or nerve blocks, must have been exhausted before PNS is considered.
- 3.
There should be some preservation of sensation in the distribution of pain, because presence of functioning vibrotactile receptors is mandatory for PNS therapy to be successful.
- 4.
The pain is within the distribution of the nerve(s) that are intended to be stimulated, and these nerves can to be covered by the length of available PNS electrode(s).
- 5.
After a thorough psychologic evaluation by a qualified professional, there must be an absence of psychologic factors that would impede a favorable outcome.
- 6.
There must be no coexisting chronic pain problems or neurologic diseases.
- 7.
There must be no coexisting conditions/comorbidities that would increase procedural risk (e.g., uncontrolled diabetes, sepsis, coagulopathy, etc.).
- 8.
A successful PNS trial is required before permanent placement of a PNS system.
In terms of indications for PNS, it is not uncommon to hear discussions among inexperienced implanters regarding using PNS for TN. Needless to say, although TN is an excellent indication for a multitude of surgical interventions (microvascular decompression, radiofrequency gasserian thermodestruction, glycerol gangliolysis, balloon compression, open rhizotomy, and stereotactic radiosurgery), it is not an indication for PNS. As a matter of fact, use of PNS in TN will worsen the patient’s pain, as electrical stimulation of the trigeminal nerve tends to trigger TN attacks instead of eliminating them ( ).
Efficacy of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Facial Pain
Electrical Stimulation of Infraorbital and Supraorbital Nerves
Despite the lack of RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of using PNS for treating facial pain, there are now plenty of published reports that present consistently positive clinical outcomes. After the original report of trigeminal PNS for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia ( ), Johnson and Burchiel were first to publish results of a pilot study in 10 patients of electrical stimulation of the supraorbital or infraorbital branches of the trigeminal nerve for treatment of TNP after facial trauma or herpes zoster infection ( ). They found that postherpetic neuralgia patients fared much worse than those with posttraumatic trigeminal neuropathy. In the whole cohort of patients, PNS provided at least 50% pain relief in 70% of patients; similarly, medication use was lowered by stimulation in 70% of patients. While 100% of posttraumatic neuropathy patients exhibited at least 50% pain relief and decrease in medication use, in the postherpetic neuralgia group these results were observed in only 50% of patients.
Slavin et al. also reported their experiences of using supraorbital and infraorbital PNS for patients with TNP or craniofacial pain of various etiologies with good outcomes, but failed to find any correlation between the diagnosis and success rates ( ).
Subsequently, presented a series of three patients with TNP treated with PNS. All patients in this case series continue to have significant symptomatic relief, with up to a 2-year follow-up.
Similarly, used supraorbital and infraorbital nerve stimulation for the treatment of refractory facial pain in a patient initially diagnosed with TN, and found the patient continues to experience pain relief and remains satisfied with the treatment 1 year after implantation. To support these observations, reported the use of PNS to treat posttraumatic TNP in one female patient; the treatment decreased her pain score by 50%, resulting in a better quality of life and improvement in daily function. Amin et al. evaluated the efficacy of supraorbital nerve stimulation for treatment of intractable pain in a homogeneous group of 16 patients with supraorbital neuralgia, 10 of whom underwent permanent implantation of the stimulator ( ). These patients reported a decrease in frontal headache scores and 50% reduction in opioid consumption. The therapeutic effect was maintained during 30 weeks of postimplantation follow up. Based on these results, one may conclude that in selected patients supraorbital nerve stimulation may be efficacious for the treatment of chronic frontal headaches.
As an alternative to conventional stimulation, Lerman et al. studied the effects of high-frequency PNS (up to 1200 Hz) on refractory postherpetic supraorbital neuralgia in a male patient ( ). The authors used an ultrasound- and fluoroscopy-guided approach to implant percutaneous electrodes over the left supraorbital and supratrochlear nerve. The patient’s pain decreased from a weekly average of 8/10 to 1/10 on the pain Visual Analog Scale at 9-month follow-up. This report indicates that PNS with high-frequency paresthesia-free settings may produce better results in terms of sustained suppression of intractable postherpetic neuralgia compared to paresthesia-producing stimulation. The main advantage of the ultrasound-guided technique was elimination of further tissue trauma from blind insertion of a Tuohy needle during electrode placement, as well as a possible reduction in lead erosion ( ).
Trigeminal Branch Stimulation
studied trigeminal branch stimulation for the treatment of intractable craniofacial pain in a large group of 35 patients. Of these, only 15 patients experienced sufficient pain relief during trial stimulation to undergo implantation of permanent stimulators. At the follow-up of 15 months, 73% of these 15 patients continued to experience pain control and 27% did not. None of the patients had worsening pain when compared with the preoperative baseline and no serious complications were seen during the course of this study. It was concluded that trigeminal branch stimulation is a safe and effective treatment for a subset of patients with intractable craniofacial pain.
Electrical Stimulation of Auriculotemporal Nerve
conducted a prospective study to assess the effectiveness and safety of auriculotemporal nerve stimulation for pain caused by temporomandibular joint syndrome in six female patients. Five out of the six patients experienced more than 80% pain relief, with an average pain relief for the entire group of 72%. Four patients discontinued their analgesic medication and one patient reduced her gabapentin dose by 50%. Based on these findings, the authors concluded that PNS can provide a solution for patients affected with temporomandibular joint syndrome who do not respond to conservative treatments.
Combination Neuromodulation Therapies
presented a case report regarding the optimization of stimulation for facial pain through “cross-talk” of a trigeminal nerve lead and a cervical epidural lead in a 69-year-old patient with empty nose syndrome. One month after permanent implant, the patient experienced a 60%–70% reduction in pain levels and a decrease from 10 to 2 weekly pain episodes. Nine months after implantation the patient reported complete pain relief and medications were discontinued. The data suggested that cross-talk configuration between a peripheral and a central lead creates more efficient stimulation for pain control. The resulting paresthesia was superior to that obtained from either lead alone when used simultaneously, but without an interlead configuration. Earlier studies suggested that the advantages of cross-talk for back pain include a wider field of coverage, less paresthesia discomfort, and reduced electrical current consumption ( ).
A recent report by described a case series of using a combination of trigeminal and sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation for intractable craniofacial pain in seven patients. Five patients reported pain relief with up to a 24-month follow-up. It is suggested that refractory facial pain may respond positively to ganglionic forms of stimulation. Further investigation is needed to evaluate the usefulness of these approaches for various facial pain conditions.

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

