Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation As Alternative To Nerve Blocks In Anesthesia, Pain Medicine And Rehabilitation Of Nonspecific Chronic Pain
NCT ID: NCT07273006
Last Updated: 2026-01-13
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
PHASE4
82 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2026-09-01
2029-08-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
From a socioeconomic perspective, chronic pain entails an impact of up to USD 635 billion annually just in United States (USA). In fact, spinal pain alone represents the condition with the highest direct costs (around USD 134.5 billion in USA) and additional indirect costs due to absenteeism and presenteeism, which impair productivity and work performance. These figures are expected to be substantially higher when considered at a global scale.
One of the main aggravating factors of this condition is that in up to 90% of patients experiencing pain there is no identifiable anatomopathological substrate that reliably explains the symptoms (non-specific pain). Radiological findings are extremely common in asymptomatic populations, and making diagnostic or therapeutic decisions based on such findings, promotes overdiagnosis and low-value clinical cascades. It is estimated that up to 50% of imaging requests and 60% of spinal surgeries6 are unnecessary or unjustified. For this reason, Clinical Practice Guidelines recommend prioritizing interventional diagnostic techniques based on functional criteria over the interpretation of radiological findings, as they allow for more sensitive and specific identification of nociceptive sources (with a recommendation grade I-II).
In this context, the motivation of the project is to study PENS as a non-pharmacological, safe, and transferable alternative to nerve blocks, reducing the risk of complications associated with the use of local anesthetics/corticosteroids and large-gauge needles. According to recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirming immediate analgesic responses, PENS could be a feasible alternative that maintains functional diagnostic and therapeutic value with a generally mild adverse-event profile and lower cost.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Compared to Passive Assisted Neurodynamics in Brachial Plexus Neuropathy
NCT05432973
Erector Spinae Plane Block Vs. IPACK Block with Adductor Canal Block for Total Knee Arthroplasty
NCT06233630
Electrical Nerve Block for Amputation Pain
NCT02221934
Peripheral Regional Blockade and EMG
NCT06982027
A Comparison of Epidural Block With Adding Sciatic Block to Continuous Femoral Block in Total Knee Arthroplasty
NCT02235506
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Beyond its direct health consequences, LBP imposes a considerable economic burden on both individuals and societies, as its highest incidence occurs during the most productive working years (approximately 45-55 years old). In the USA alone, direct costs related to spinal disorders reached USD 315 billion between 2012 and 2014, in addition to productivity losses estimated in hundreds of millions of workdays each year. Considering its growing prevalence and socioeconomic implications, LBP is regarded as a global health priority.
LBP may originate from a wide variety of musculoskeletal, neurological, or visceral conditions, and its clinical expression may combine nociceptive mechanisms (related to tissue injury or stimulation of lumbar structures), neuropathic mechanisms (involving lesions or disease of the somatosensory system), and nociplastic mechanisms (involving altered nociceptive processing without structural lesions, often with central sensitization and descending inhibitory dysfunction).
Current clinical frameworks establish that in up to 90% of patients, it is not possible to identify a clear anatomopathological pain source (thus defined as non-specific LBP). The main challenge lies in identifying which structures (i.e., intervertebral discs, facet /zygapophyseal joints, sacroiliac joints, ligaments, or myofascial tissues) are the nociceptive sources. The absence of a defined structural correlate (as most structural abnormalities are also frequent in asymptomatic individuals) largely explains the high recurrence and chronicity rates, as well as the frequency of ineffective treatments, unjustified surgeries, and the economic impact of healthcare utilization without a clearly established etiology. Consequently, diagnosis in these patients is essentially clinical and based on exclusion criteria, with a therapeutic focus on symptom modulation and functional recovery rather than on identifying and correcting a single structural lesion.
Although scientific evidence consistently supports the high percentage of non-specific LBP cases and discourage routine imaging in such patients, this practice remains common in hospital care. It is estimated that 30% to 55% of imaging studies requested for LBP are unnecessary or not clinically indicated. The indiscriminate use of imaging not only generates unnecessary costs and delays, but also exposes patients to unjustified radiation and overdiagnosis risk. For example, the prevalence of disc protrusions in asymptomatic individuals increases from 30% at age 20 to 84% at age 80, which may lead to misinterpreting benign degenerative changes as pathological, fueling overtreatment and patient anxiety.
Consequently, this practice directly impacts the high rate of unnecessary spinal surgeries. It is estimated that up to 60% of spinal surgeries are performed unnecessarily, without clear indications, neurological deficits, or relevant radiographic findings. These procedures not only expose patients to avoidable risks with limited effectiveness, but also represent an annual cost of USD 4 billion in the USA.
In the absence of clinical or radiological criteria with sufficient diagnostic precision, international clinical practice guidelines, such as those of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, recommend diagnostic anesthetic blocks as the reference procedure to confirm the nociceptive source (with evidence level I-II and moderate to strong recommendation strength). These diagnostic blocks consist of controlled injections of local anesthetics to determine the involvement of specific structures depending on the patient's pain relief response. For example, the facet joint can be functionally identified as the pain source through controlled infiltration of local anesthetic into the medial branches of the dorsal rami that innervate the lumbar facets. If a transient and reproducible analgesic response occurs after the block (particularly when comparative blocks with anesthetics of different duration are used) the diagnosis of facet joint syndrome is confirmed, supporting the appropriateness of subsequent interventions.
Despite their strong recommendation level, these procedures are not free of complications and risks, associated with large-gauge needles and local anesthetic administration. Common complications include peripheral nerve injury from direct mechanical trauma, intrafascicular injection, ischemia, or anesthetic neurotoxicity, with reported incidences of transient neuropathic symptoms ranging from 0% to 41%, and permanent injury below 1%. Other potential complications include systemic toxicity of local anesthetics (potentially severe if intravascular injection occurs), local infection or abscess formation, and, less frequently, nerve compression due to fibrosis or hematoma. Risk factors such as middle age (40-65 years), smoking, pre-existing neuropathy, or metabolic diseases (e.g., diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) increase susceptibility to neural damage. Although ultrasound-guided techniques have substantially reduced the risk of major events, they do not eliminate the possibility of post-block neuropathies or adverse anesthetic reactions.
PENS constitutes a minimally invasive alternative that avoids corticosteroids and anesthetics, reduces exposure to large-volume injectables, and produces reproducible analgesic responses, useful as a functional test supporting the diagnostic hypothesis, while also serving as a therapeutic option within a multimodal pain management approach. This technique applies low- or high-frequency electrical currents (2-100 Hz) via fine needles, aiming to activate large-diameter myelinated afferent fibers and modulate nociceptive transmission at the spinal level. It has been shown to induce endogenous analgesic mechanisms through opioid neurotransmitter (µ, δ, κ) release and activation of descending inhibitory pathways, reducing central sensitization and improving conditioned pain modulation. These neurophysiological effects explain its capacity to reduce primary and secondary hyperalgesia observed in chronic musculoskeletal syndromes, particularly in the short term. Indeed, systematic reviews and meta-analyses report that PENS reduces pain and disability compared to placebo and other interventions.
These properties suggest that PENS may represent a feasible and safe alternative to anesthetic blocks for modulating facet-origin lumbar pain, offering an option that eliminates the risks associated with drugs used in blocks (e.g., systemic toxicity of local anesthetics, allergic reactions, systemic corticosteroid effects, hyperglycemia, adrenal suppression) by not requiring substance injection. From a mechanical perspective, PENS uses solid fine-gauge needles (≈0.25-0.30 mm; 32-34G), significantly thinner than those typically used for medial branch blocks (≈22-25G; 0.5-0.7 mm), thereby reducing tissue trauma, hematoma risk, and nerve injury probability. The absence of injectables also decreases the risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity and prevents intra-articular or perineural pressure increases.
In terms of practical safety, adverse events with PENS are usually mild and self-limited (transient localized pain, small bruising, occasional vasovagal reactions), with a particularly favorable profile in patients with comorbidities where blocks carry higher risk (e.g., poorly controlled diabetes, prior adverse reactions to anesthetics, or contraindications to corticosteroids). With aseptic technique and ultrasound guidance when appropriate, PENS offers a minimally invasive alternative that preserves the diagnostic/therapeutic modulation capability over the facet target, while substantially reducing pharmacological and mechanical risks associated with conventional blocks.
Therefore, the general objective is to evaluate PENS as a diagnostic alternative not inferior to nerve blocks and as a therapeutic modality in chronic LBP of suspected facet origin, to establish its optimal dosage, and to assess its safety, resource utilization, and cost-utility in multicenter outpatient settings.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
DIAGNOSTIC
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
PENS
A single ultrasound-guided session will be applied using fine solid needles (0.32 mm diameter), accounting for dual innervation. Electrical parameters will be fixed within recommended ranges (10 Hz, 250 µs, current intensity sufficient to produce a strong but tolerable sensation below the motor threshold using a standardized ramp, and session duration of 20 minutes).
Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
A single ultrasound-guided session will be applied using fine solid needles (0.32 mm diameter), accounting for dual innervation. Electrical parameters will be fixed within recommended ranges (10 Hz, 250 µs, current intensity sufficient to produce a strong but tolerable sensation below the motor threshold using a standardized ramp, and session duration of 15-20 minutes)
Nerve block
Two adjacent levels per joint will be blocked in a single session. After minimal intradermal infiltration for local anesthesia, a sterile 25G-22G needle will be inserted in-plane toward the target under continuous visualization. Before administering the drug in opaque syringes, negative aspiration and fractional injection will be performed, confirming the absence of abnormal resistance or radiating pain. The diagnostic injectate will be a local anesthetic without corticosteroid (1% lidocaine) with low volumes of 0.5 ml per branch to limit diffusion.
Nerve block with Lidocain
Two adjacent levels per joint will be blocked in a single session. After minimal intradermal infiltration for local anesthesia, a sterile 25G-22G needle will be inserted in-plane toward the target under continuous visualization. Before administering the drug in opaque syringes, negative aspiration and fractional injection will be performed, confirming the absence of abnormal resistance or radiating pain. The diagnostic injectate will be a local anesthetic without corticosteroid (1% lidocaine) with low volumes of 0.5 ml per branch to limit diffusion
PENS + nerve block
Both procedures will be performed in a single visit (first PENS, followed by the nerve block) following the same procedures described above
Nerve block with Lidocain
Two adjacent levels per joint will be blocked in a single session. After minimal intradermal infiltration for local anesthesia, a sterile 25G-22G needle will be inserted in-plane toward the target under continuous visualization. Before administering the drug in opaque syringes, negative aspiration and fractional injection will be performed, confirming the absence of abnormal resistance or radiating pain. The diagnostic injectate will be a local anesthetic without corticosteroid (1% lidocaine) with low volumes of 0.5 ml per branch to limit diffusion
Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
A single ultrasound-guided session will be applied using fine solid needles (0.32 mm diameter), accounting for dual innervation. Electrical parameters will be fixed within recommended ranges (10 Hz, 250 µs, current intensity sufficient to produce a strong but tolerable sensation below the motor threshold using a standardized ramp, and session duration of 15-20 minutes)
PENS + placebo block
In the same visit, PENS will be applied following the same described protocol, and the full ritual of the nerve block will be reproduced. However, in this group, no active drug will be administered (a minimal volume of inert solution will be injected into the subcutaneous/superperiosteal plane to mimic the injection sensation without depositing perineural anesthetic).
Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
A single ultrasound-guided session will be applied using fine solid needles (0.32 mm diameter), accounting for dual innervation. Electrical parameters will be fixed within recommended ranges (10 Hz, 250 µs, current intensity sufficient to produce a strong but tolerable sensation below the motor threshold using a standardized ramp, and session duration of 15-20 minutes)
Sham Block
The full ritual of the nerve block will be reproduced. However, in this group, no active drug will be administered (a minimal volume of inert solution will be injected into the subcutaneous/superperiosteal plane to mimic the injection sensation without depositing perineural anesthetic)
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Nerve block with Lidocain
Two adjacent levels per joint will be blocked in a single session. After minimal intradermal infiltration for local anesthesia, a sterile 25G-22G needle will be inserted in-plane toward the target under continuous visualization. Before administering the drug in opaque syringes, negative aspiration and fractional injection will be performed, confirming the absence of abnormal resistance or radiating pain. The diagnostic injectate will be a local anesthetic without corticosteroid (1% lidocaine) with low volumes of 0.5 ml per branch to limit diffusion
Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
A single ultrasound-guided session will be applied using fine solid needles (0.32 mm diameter), accounting for dual innervation. Electrical parameters will be fixed within recommended ranges (10 Hz, 250 µs, current intensity sufficient to produce a strong but tolerable sensation below the motor threshold using a standardized ramp, and session duration of 15-20 minutes)
Sham Block
The full ritual of the nerve block will be reproduced. However, in this group, no active drug will be administered (a minimal volume of inert solution will be injected into the subcutaneous/superperiosteal plane to mimic the injection sensation without depositing perineural anesthetic)
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* A balanced sex distribution and a wide range of body mass index (BMI) will be promoted to allow subgroup analyses and to explore potential associations between obesity and procedural complications, thus strengthening the external validity of the study. This demographic selection is justified by prevalence patterns reported in the literature and by the need to capture clinically relevant effect modifiers in real clinical environments.
* The suspicion of facet joint pain will be based on a compatible axial clinical pattern and the absence of objective neurological deficit, considering that neither physical examination nor imaging tests provide sufficient specificity. Therefore, diagnostic confirmation will be performed functionally through ultrasound-guided medial branch diagnostic blocks, which are the most reliable tool for attributing pain to the facet joint. The dual innervation of each lumbar facet joint will be considered; thus, two adjacent levels will be blocked per joint (the medial branch at the affected level and the one immediately above).
* Eligible patients will be those with a positive functional screening in two independent medial branch diagnostic blocks performed with anesthetics of different duration, in separate sessions, to reduce false positives.
* The diagnosis will be confirmed in cases reporting clinically relevant pain relief within the expected pharmacological window.
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
80 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Universidad Francisco de Vitoria
OTHER
Medical University of Warsaw
OTHER
Jagiellonian University
OTHER
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
JUAN ANTONIO VALERA CALERO
Doctor in Health Sciences
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Juan Antonio Valera-Calero, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Medical University of Warsaw
Warsaw, Warszawa, Poland
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Phan KH, Anderson JG, Bohay DR. Complications Associated with Peripheral Nerve Blocks. Orthop Clin North Am. 2021 Jul;52(3):279-290. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2021.03.007. Epub 2021 May 7.
Hall AM, Aubrey-Bassler K, Thorne B, Maher CG. Do not routinely offer imaging for uncomplicated low back pain. BMJ. 2021 Feb 12;372:n291. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n291. No abstract available.
Chou R, Fu R, Carrino JA, Deyo RA. Imaging strategies for low-back pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009 Feb 7;373(9662):463-72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60172-0.
Valera-Calero JA, Plaza-Manzano G, Rabanal-Rodriguez G, Diaz-Arribas MJ, Kobylarz MD, Buffet-Garcia J, Fernandez-de-Las-Penas C, Navarro-Santana MJ. Current State of Dry Needling Practices: A Comprehensive Analysis on Use, Training, and Safety. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024 Nov 14;60(11):1869. doi: 10.3390/medicina60111869.
Rabanal-Rodriguez G, Navarro-Santana MJ, Valera-Calero JA, Gomez-Chiguano GF, Kocot-Kepska M, Fernandez-de-Las-Penas C, Plaza-Manzano G. Neurophysiological Effects of Dry Needling: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2025 Sep 6:S0003-9993(25)00887-1. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2025.08.019. Online ahead of print.
Mogedano-Cruz S, Lopez-Perez M, Gijon-Lago D, Romero-Morales C, Alonso-Perez JL, Villafane JH, Saiz SLJ, Sosa-Reina MD. Peripheral Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Neuropathies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Pain Manag Nurs. 2025 Feb;26(1):93-101. doi: 10.1016/j.pmn.2024.11.005. Epub 2024 Dec 13.
GBD 2021 Low Back Pain Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of low back pain, 1990-2020, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023 May 22;5(6):e316-e329. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(23)00098-X. eCollection 2023 Jun.
Plaza-Manzano G, Gomez-Chiguano GF, Cleland JA, Arias-Buria JL, Fernandez-de-Las-Penas C, Navarro-Santana MJ. Effectiveness of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pain. 2020 Jul;24(6):1023-1044. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1559. Epub 2020 Apr 4.
Olivier TJ, Konda C, Pham T, Baltich Nelson B, Patel A, Sharma GS, Trivedi K, Annaswamy TM. Clinical practice guidelines on interventional management of low back pain: A synthesis of recommendations. PM R. 2023 Aug;15(8):1052-1063. doi: 10.1002/pmrj.12930.
Busse JW, Genevay S, Agarwal A, Standaert CJ, Carneiro K, Friedrich J, Ferreira M, Verbeke H, Brox JI, Xiao H, Virdee JS, Gunderson J, Foster G, Heegsma C, Samer CF, Coen M, Guyatt GH, Wang X, Sadeghirad B, Malam F, Zeraatkar D, Vandvik PO, Zhou T, Xie F, Siemieniuk RAC, Agoritsas T. Commonly used interventional procedures for non-cancer chronic spine pain: a clinical practice guideline. BMJ. 2025 Feb 19;388:e079970. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2024-079970.
Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Soin A, Albers SL, Beall D, Latchaw R, Sanapati MR, Shah S, Atluri S, Abd-Elsayed A, Abdi S, Aydin S, Bakshi S, Boswell MV, Buenaventura R, Cabaret J, Calodney AK, Candido KD, Christo PJ, Cintron L, Diwan S, Gharibo C, Grider J, Gupta M, Haney B, Harned ME, Helm Ii S, Jameson J, Jha S, Kaye AM, Knezevic NN, Kosanovic R, Manchikanti MV, Navani A, Racz G, Pampati V, Pasupuleti R, Philip C, Rajput K, Sehgal N, Sudarshan G, Vanaparthy R, Wargo BW, Hirsch JA. Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Facet Joint Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines Facet Joint Interventions 2020 Guidelines. Pain Physician. 2020 May;23(3S):S1-S127.
AlAli KF. Unnecessary spine surgery: can we solve this ongoing conundrum? Front Surg. 2023 Aug 25;10:1270975. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1270975. eCollection 2023. No abstract available.
Logan GS, Pike A, Copsey B, Parfrey P, Etchegary H, Hall A. What do we really know about the appropriateness of radiation emitting imaging for low back pain in primary and emergency care? A systematic review and meta-analysis of medical record reviews. PLoS One. 2019 Dec 5;14(12):e0225414. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225414. eCollection 2019.
Jenkins HJ, Downie AS, Maher CG, Moloney NA, Magnussen JS, Hancock MJ. Imaging for low back pain: is clinical use consistent with guidelines? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2018 Dec;18(12):2266-2277. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.004. Epub 2018 May 3.
Maher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Non-specific low back pain. Lancet. 2017 Feb 18;389(10070):736-747. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30970-9. Epub 2016 Oct 11.
de Luca K, Tavares P, Yang H, Hurwitz EL, Green BN, Dale H, Haldeman S. Spinal Pain, Chronic Health Conditions and Health Behaviors: Data from the 2016-2018 National Health Interview Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Apr 3;20(7):5369. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20075369.
Cohen SP, Vase L, Hooten WM. Chronic pain: an update on burden, best practices, and new advances. Lancet. 2021 May 29;397(10289):2082-2097. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00393-7.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
UComplutenseMadrid-PENSAR
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.