Magnetic Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (mPNS) for Chronic Pain

Bedder, Marshall D.; Parker, Lisa S.

doi:10.2147/jpr.s409331

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…mPNS induces a larger E field due to its time-varying, 3D magnetic field, whereas ePNS generates a smaller more 2D electrical field due to being a line The first pilot study using a new mPNS device involved 24 patients with neuropathic pain, including those with painful diabetic neuropathy. 115 The active treatment wand was placed on or just over the patient's skin. The treatment protocol consisted of three daily sessions in a row during the first week of therapy.…”

Section: Non-invasive Neuromodulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Guideline by the ASPN Workgroup on the Evidence, Education, and Treatment Algorithm for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: SWEET

Sayed,

Deer,

Hagedorn

et al. 2024

JPR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a leading cause of pain and disability globally with a lack of consensus on the appropriate treatment of those suffering from this condition. Recent advancements in both pharmacotherapy and interventional approaches have broadened the treatment options for PDN. There exists a need for a comprehensive guideline for the safe and effective treatment of patients suffering from PDN. Objective The SWEET Guideline was developed to provide clinicians with the most comprehensive guideline for the safe and appropriate treatment of patients suffering from PDN. Methods The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations for PDN. A multidisciplinary group of international experts developed the SWEET guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Meeting Abstracts, and Scopus to identify and compile the evidence for diabetic neuropathy pain treatments (per section as listed in the manuscript) for the treatment of pain. Manuscripts from 2000-present were included in the search process. Results After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN SWEET guideline was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades for most available treatments for PDN utilizing the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria. Conclusion The ASPN SWEET Guideline represents the most comprehensive review of the available treatments for PDN and their appropriate and safe utilization.

show abstract

Section: Non-invasive Neuromodulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Guideline by the ASPN Workgroup on the Evidence, Education, and Treatment Algorithm for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: SWEET

Sayed,

Deer,

Hagedorn

et al. 2024

JPR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Therapeutic Effects of Superinductive Magnetic Filed on Low Back Pain

Drăgoi,

Popescu,

Popa

et al. 2024

Balneo and PRM Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low back pain is one of the major public health problems, with approximately 1 in 3 adults experiencing an episode of low back pain during their lifetime. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on pain and physical function of a therapeutic protocol including analgesic electrotherapy, lumbar deconstrictor manual therapy and kinetic therapy and the superinductive magnetic field therapy. Patients were divided into two groups of 20 and 20 respectively. Group 1 was treated with the conventional protocol, while the second group received in adition the superinductive magnetic field therapy. Pain was assessed by VAS scale at admission and every 2 days, and functional deficit was assessed by the Fingertips to floor (FTF) test at admission, at 6 days and at discharge at 12 days. The Activities of Daily Living (ADL) scale was also used to assess physical function at admission and discharge. 40 patients (24 female, 16 male), average age 61 years ( ± 5.7), average BMI of 32.11± 7.38 SD, kg participated and their data were analyzed. An average percentage decrease in VAS was noticed after the 12 days of treatment of 67% for group1 and of 88% for group 2. The deficit in FTF was also better in group 2 (FTF= 16+5cm ) compared to FTF=22+3 in the control group. On ADL assessment, no significant differences were noted. Superinductive magnetic field therapy is effective in the treatment of low back pain relieving pain syndrome and improving physical function.

show abstract

Safety and Efficacy of Axon Therapy (SEAT Study), Utilizing Magnetic Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (mPNS) for Treatment of Neuropathic Pain

Kapural,

Patel,

Rosenberg

et al. 2024

JPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Many of the current treatments for chronic neuropathic pain have variable effectiveness and known side effects. Given the prevalence of this type of intractable pain (3–17% of general population), additional therapeutic non-invasive approaches are desired. Magnetic Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (mPNS) delivered at 0.5Hz provides an effective pain relief without side effects. The objective of this randomized, controlled, multi-site clinical trial was to compare long-term safety and efficacy of mPNS in patients with chronic, intractable, post-traumatic or post-surgical neuropathic pain to comprehensive Conventional Medical Management (CMM). Methods A total of 65 patients with post-traumatic, post-surgical neuropathy were treated within a multicenter, randomized, clinical trial comparing the safety and effectiveness of mPNS + CMM to CMM alone. Patients were randomized 1:1 and followed through 90 days. The primary endpoint is a proportion of responders, 50% or greater reduction in pain at Day 90. The secondary endpoints included the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Results At 3 months, 71% of subjects were considered responders (>50% pain relief) in the mPNS + CMM group vs 13% of subjects in the CMM group. The mPNS + CMM group had a mean reduction in VAS scores at Day 90 of 3.8 points (>50% reduction), while CMM showed less than a 1-point (0.7 point) mean reduction or ~10% reduction (p < 0.0001). The EQ-5D-3L score increased in the mPNS + CMM study group, whereas the CMM group showed no improvement in EQ-5D-3L at Day 90. PGIC responder rates were 80.6% and 4.3% at Day 90 for mPNS + CMM and CMM groups, respectively. Conclusion mPNS + CMM was superior to CMM in a randomized prospective study when used for treatment of post-traumatic, post-surgical neuropathy. Due to the lack of other effective non-invasive treatments for neuropathic pain, mPNS should be considered much earlier in the treatment algorithm.

show abstract

Magnetic Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (mPNS) for Chronic Pain

Cited by 3 publications

References 15 publications

A Systematic Guideline by the ASPN Workgroup on the Evidence, Education, and Treatment Algorithm for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: SWEET

A Systematic Guideline by the ASPN Workgroup on the Evidence, Education, and Treatment Algorithm for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: SWEET

Therapeutic Effects of Superinductive Magnetic Filed on Low Back Pain

Safety and Efficacy of Axon Therapy (SEAT Study), Utilizing Magnetic Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (mPNS) for Treatment of Neuropathic Pain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About