Objective To describe the team approach of an interventional pain management practice, with particular emphasis on advanced practice providers (APPs), in the selection, education, care, and management of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) patients. Materials and Methods We devised an APP guide to PNS based on an in-depth search of multiple databases for studies on neuromodulation, pain management, and APPs. Results Of 65 articles captured in the search strategy, three articles were pertinent to the topic of APP involvement in neuromodulation. More specifically, only one of the three publications on neuromodulation discussed APP involvement in PNS. This single publication was from 1995 and focused on electrical stimulation of the trigeminal ganglion using a permanent percutaneously placed electrode. Conclusion PNS is growing in clinical indication and use for both acute and chronic pain conditions. With the increasing need for APPs in both general and specialty medicine, it is imperative that APPs are well educated on PNS. Here, we have outlined ways in which APPs can optimize the care of PNS patients and how the skillset of the APP in a PNS practice can potentially improve patient outcomes.

No abstract

Background Speaker gender representation at medical conferences is a significant site of gender disparity. Our primary objective was to quantify the proportion of female speakers and compare plenary session opportunities by gender at the North American Neuromodulation Society (NANS) Annual Conference. Methods Data from the 2017–2021 NANS Annual Conference presentations were abstracted. Primary outcomes included gender composition of speaker slots, gender composition of individual speakers, and comparison of plenary speaker slots by gender. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of session size, age, professional degree, and number of presentations per speaker based on gender. Results Gender composition of annual speaker slots was (% slots presented by women): 2017:14.6%; 2018:20.5%; 2019:23.5%; 2020:21.0%; 2021:41.4%. Annual gender composition of individual speakers was (% women): 2017:18.7%; 2018:20.6%; 2019:24.6%; 2020:24.9%; 2021:33.8%. Of all speaker slots, the percentage of plenary slots did not differ based on gender, with 11.4% presented by female speakers versus 11.2% presented by male speakers (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7–1.5, P=0.893). Compared to male speaker slots, there was an association of lower age (43.9±5.6 vs 50.8±8.9, P<0.001), lower odds of holding a single doctorate degree (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2–0.5, P<0.001), and lower odds of holding a dual MD/PhD or DO/PhD degree (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1–0.5, P<0.001) in female speaker slots. Compared to male speakers, there was an association of higher number of presentations per female speaker at the 2021 NANS Annual Meeting (2.48±1.60 vs 1.79±1.30, P=0.008). Conclusion Although the volume of female speaker slots and individual speakers trailed behind their male counterparts, female speaker representation steadily increased at each subsequent annual NANS meeting. We identified no difference in plenary session slots based on gender.

Purpose There is a paucity of data on pain diagnoses and analgesic utilization in medically underserved areas (MUAs). This study compared the prevalence of pain diagnoses and analgesic medication use between MUAs and non-medically underserved areas (N-MUAs) in Southern Minnesota and Western Wisconsin using the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) database. Methods Five-year prevalence per 100 people (January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2016) was extracted from the REP database for multiple pain diagnosis variables and analgesic medications. Primary outcomes included comparison of five-year prevalence of each pain diagnosis and analgesic between MUA and N-MUA; and association between index of medical underservice (IMU) score and five-year prevalence for each pain diagnosis and analgesic. Linear regression models were performed to assess associations and significance thresholds were adjusted per the Bonferroni approach to account for multiplicity. Results The prevalence per 100 people for a diagnosis of chronic pain was similar between MUAs and N-MUAs (13.8 ± 2.5 vs 14.6 ± 2.0, P = 0.543). Similarly, prevalence per 100 people for other specific pain diagnoses including nonspecific chest pain, abdominal pain, lumbago, somatoform disorder, and painful respiration did not differ based on MUA status. In terms of analgesic use, prevalence per 100 people for use of opioids, non-opioid analgesics, salicylates, and NSAIDs did not differ based on MUA status. An association between higher IMU scores and lower prevalence of painful respiration was identified, although this was not significant after significance threshold adjustment per the Bonferroni method. Conclusion Our data suggest that there are no differences in several pain diagnoses and analgesic utilization between MUAs versus N-MUAs, and that the IMU score did not predict changes in prevalence of pain diagnoses or analgesic utilization. Future powered and national database studies are warranted to increase validity of findings to other populations outside of Southern Minnesota and Western Wisconsin.

No abstract