Motor cortex stimulation as treatment of trigeminal neuropathic pain

Somatotopic organization of the ventral nuclear group of the dorsal thalamus: deep brain stimulation for neuropathic pain reveals new insights into the facial homunculus

Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is an experimental treatment for medication-refractory neuropathic pain. The ventral posteromedial (VPM) and ventral posterolateral (VPL) nuclei of the thalamus are popular targets for the treatment of facial and limb pain, respectively. While intraoperative testing is used to adjust targeting of patient-specific pain locations, a better understanding of thalamic somatotopy may improve targeting of specific body regions including the individual trigeminal territories, face, arm, and leg. To elucidate the somatotopic organization of the ventral nuclear group of the dorsal thalamus using in vivo macrostimulation data from patients undergoing DBS for refractory neuropathic pain. In vivo macrostimulation data was retrospectively collected for 14 patients who underwent DBS implantation for neuropathic pain syndromes at our institution. 56 contacts from 14 electrodes reconstructed with LeadDBS were assigned to macrostimulation-related body regions: tongue, face, arm, or leg. 33 contacts from 9 electrodes were similarly assigned to one of three trigeminal territories: V1, V2, or V3. MNI coordinates in the x, y, and z axes were compared by using MANOVA. Across the horizontal plane of the ventral nuclear group of the dorsal thalamus, the tongue was represented significantly medially, followed by the face, arm, and leg most laterally (p < 0.001). The trigeminal territories displayed significant mediolateral distribution, proceeding from V1 and V2 most medial to V3 most lateral (p < 0.001). Along the y-axis, V2 was also significantly anterior to V3 (p = 0.014). While our results showed that the ventral nuclear group of the dorsal thalamus displayed mediolateral somatotopy of the tongue, face, arm, and leg mirroring the cortical homunculus, the mediolateral distribution of trigeminal territories did not mirror the established cortical homunculus. This finding suggests that the facial homunculus may be inverted in the ventral nuclear group of the dorsal thalamus.

A Definition of Neuromodulation and Classification of Implantable Electrical Modulation for Chronic Pain

OBJECTIVES

Neuromodulation therapies use a variety of treatment modalities (eg, electrical stimulation) to treat chronic pain. These therapies have experienced rapid growth that has coincided with escalating confusion regarding the nomenclature surrounding these neuromodulation technologies. Furthermore, studies are often published without a complete description of the effective stimulation dose, making it impossible to replicate the findings. To improve clinical care and facilitate dissemination among the public, payors, research groups, and regulatory bodies, there is a clear need for a standardization of terms.

APPROACH

We formed an international group of authors comprising basic scientists, anesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, and engineers with expertise in neuromodulation. Because the field of neuromodulation is extensive, we chose to focus on creating a taxonomy and standardized definitions for implantable electrical modulation of chronic pain.

RESULTS

We first present a consensus definition of neuromodulation. We then describe a classification scheme based on the 1) intended use (the site of modulation and its indications) and 2) physical properties (waveforms and dose) of a neuromodulation therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This framework will help guide future high-quality studies of implantable neuromodulatory treatments and improve reporting of their findings. Standardization with this classification scheme and clear definitions will help physicians, researchers, payors, and patients better understand the applications of implantable electrical modulation for pain and guide informed treatment decisions.

Lateralized Supraspinal Functional Connectivity Correlate with Pain and Motor Dysfunction in Rat Hemicontusion Cervical Spinal Cord Injury

Afferent nociceptive activity in the reorganizing spinal cord after SCI influences supraspinal regions to establish pain. Clinical evidence of poor motor functional recovery in SCI patients with pain, led us to hypothesize that sensory-motor integration transforms into sensory-motor interference to manifest pain. This was tested by investigating supraspinal changes in a rat model of hemicontusion cervical SCI. Animals displayed ipsilateral forelimb motor dysfunction and pain, which persisted at 6 weeks after SCI. Using resting state fMRI at 8 weeks after SCI, RSFC across 14 ROIs involved in nociception, indicated lateral differences with a relatively weaker right-right connectivity (deafferented-contralateral) compared to left-left (unaffected-ipsilateral). However, the sensory (S1) and motor (M1/M2) networks showed greater RSFC using right hemisphere ROI seeds when compared to left. Voxel seeds from the somatosensory forelimb (S1FL) and M1/M2 representations reproduced the SCI-induced sensory and motor RSFC enhancements observed using the ROI seeds. Larger local connectivity occurred in the right sensory and motor networks amidst a decreasing overall local connectivity. This maladaptive reorganization of the right (deafferented) hemisphere localized the sensory component of pain emerging from the ipsilateral forepaw. A significant expansion of the sensory and motor network s overlap occurred globally after SCI when compared to sham, supporting the hypothesis that sensory and motor interference manifests pain. Voxel-seed based analysis revealed greater sensory and motor network overlap in the left hemisphere when compared to the right. This left predominance of the overlap suggested relatively larger pain processing in the unaffected hemisphere, when compared to the deafferented side.

Cortical stimulation for chronic pain: from anecdote to evidence

Epidural stimulation of the motor cortex (eMCS) was devised in the 1990's, and has now largely supplanted thalamic stimulation for neuropathic pain relief. Its mechanisms of action involve activation of multiple cortico-subcortical areas initiated in the thalamus, with involvement of endogenous opioids and descending inhibition toward the spinal cord. Evidence for clinical efficacy is now supported by at least seven RCTs; benefits may persist up to 10 years, and can be reasonably predicted by preoperative use of non-invasive repetitive magnetic stimulation (rTMS). rTMS first developed as a means of predicting the efficacy of epidural procedures, then as an analgesic method on its own right. Reasonable evidence from at least six well-conducted RCTs favors a significant analgesic effect of high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex in neuropathic pain (NP), and less consistently in widespread/fibromyalgic pain. Stimulation of the dorsolateral frontal cortex (DLPFC) has not proven efficacious for pain, so far. The posterior operculo-insular cortex is a new and attractive target but evidence remains inconsistent. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is applied upon similar targets as rTMS and eMCS; it does not elicit action potentials but modulates the neuronal resting membrane state. tDCS presents practical advantages including low cost, few safety issues, and possibility of home-based protocols; however, the limited quality of most published reports entails a low level of evidence. Patients responsive to tDCS may differ from those improved by rTMS, and in both cases repeated sessions over a long time may be required to achieve clinically significant relief. Both invasive and non-invasive procedures exert their effects through multiple distributed brain networks influencing the sensory, affective and cognitive aspects of chronic pain. Their effects are mainly exerted upon abnormally sensitized pathways, rather than on acute physiological pain. Extending the duration of long-term benefits remains a challenge, for which different strategies are discussed in this review.

Pre-motor versus motor cerebral cortex neuromodulation for chronic neuropathic pain

Electrical stimulation of the cerebral cortex (ESCC) has been used to treat intractable neuropathic pain for nearly two decades, however, no standardized approach for this technique has been developed. In order to optimize targeting and validate the effect of ESCC before placing the permanent grid, we introduced initial assessment with trial stimulation, using a temporary grid of subdural electrodes. In this retrospective study we evaluate the role of electrode location on cerebral cortex in control of neuropathic pain and the role of trial stimulation in target-optimization for ESCC. Location of the temporary grid electrodes and location of permanent electrodes were evaluated in correlation with the long-term efficacy of ESCC. The results of this study demonstrate that the long-term effect of subdural pre-motor cortex stimulation is at least the same or higher compare to effect of subdural motor or combined pre-motor and motor cortex stimulation. These results also demonstrate that the initial trial stimulation helps to optimize permanent electrode positions in relation to the optimal functional target that is critical in cases when brain shift is expected. Proposed methodology and novel results open a new direction for development of neuromodulation techniques to control chronic neuropathic pain.

What Are the Results and the Prognostic Factors of Motor Cortex Stimulation in Patients with Facial Pain? A Systematic Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Facial pain (FP) is a type of neuropathic pain which recognizes both central and peripheral causes. It can be difficult to treat because it can often become resistant to pharmacological treatments. Motor Cortex Stimulation (MCS) has been used in selected cases, but the correct indications of MCS in FP have not been fully established. Here we systematically reviewed the literature regarding MCS in FP analysing the results of this technique and studying the possible role of different factors in the prognosis of these patients.

METHODS

A literature search was performed through different databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Embase) according to PRISMA guidelines using the following terms in any possible combination: "facial pain" or "trigeminal" or "anaesthesia dolorosa" and "motor cortex stimulation."

RESULTS

111 articles were reviewed, and 12 studies were included in the present analysis for a total of 108 patients. Overall, at latest follow-up (FU), 70.83% of patients responded to MCS. The preoperative VAS significantly decreased at the latest FU (8.83 ± 1.17 and 4.31 ± 2.05, respectively; p < 0.0001). Younger age (p = 0.0478) and a peripheral FP syndrome (p = 0.0006) positively affected the definitive implantation rate on univariate analysis. Younger age emerged as a factor strongly associated to a higher probability to go to a definitive MCS implant on multivariate analysis (p = 0.0415).

CONCLUSION

Our results evidenced the effectiveness of MCS in treating FP. Moreover, the younger age emerged as a positive prognostic factor for definitive implantation. Further studies with longer FU are needed to better evaluate the long-term results of MCS.

Long-term Effect and Predictive Factors of Motor Cortex and Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain

The long-term effects of motor cortex stimulation (MCS) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remain unknown. To identify the long-term effects after MCS or SCS and determine any associated predictive factors for the outcomes. Fifty patients underwent MCS (n = 15) or SCS (n = 35) for chronic neuropathic pain. The degree of pain was assessed preoperatively, at 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery, and during the time of the last follow-up using Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Percentage of pain relief (PPR) was calculated, with “long-term effect” defined as PPR ≥ 30% and the presence of continued pain relief over 12 months. Outcomes were classified into excellent (PPR ≥ 70%) and good (PPR 30–69%) sub-categories. Long-term effects of MCS and SCS were observed in 53.3% and 57.1% of the patients, respectively. There were no predictive factors of long-term effects identified for any of the various preoperative conditions. However, the VAS at 1 month after surgery was significantly associated with the long-term effects in both MCS and SCS. All patients with an excellent outcome at 1 month after the surgery continued to exhibit these effects. In contrast, patients with the good outcome at 1 month exhibited a significant decrease in the effects at 6 months after surgery. The long-term effects of MCS and SCS were approximately 50% during the more than 8.5 and 3.5 years of follow-up, respectively. The VAS at 1 month after surgery may be a postoperative predictor of the long-term effects for both MCS and SCS.

Potential Mechanisms Supporting the Value of Motor Cortex Stimulation to Treat Chronic Pain Syndromes

Throughout the first years of the twenty-first century, neurotechnologies such as motor cortex stimulation (MCS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have attracted scientific attention and been considered as potential tools to centrally modulate chronic pain, especially for those conditions more difficult to manage and refractory to all types of available pharmacological therapies. Interestingly, although the role of the motor cortex in pain has not been fully clarified, it is one of the cortical areas most commonly targeted by invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation technologies. Recent studies have provided significant advances concerning the establishment of the clinical effectiveness of primary MCS to treat different chronic pain syndromes. Concurrently, the neuromechanisms related to each method of primary motor cortex (M1) modulation have been unveiled. In this respect, the most consistent scientific evidence originates from MCS studies, which indicate the activation of top-down controls driven by M1 stimulation. This concept has also been applied to explain M1-TMS mechanisms. Nevertheless, activation of remote areas in the brain, including cortical and subcortical structures, has been reported with both invasive and non-invasive methods and the participation of major neurotransmitters (e.g., glutamate, GABA, and serotonin) as well as the release of endogenous opioids has been demonstrated. In this critical review, the putative mechanisms underlying the use of MCS to provide relief from chronic migraine and other types of chronic pain are discussed. Emphasis is placed on the most recent scientific evidence obtained from chronic pain research studies involving MCS and non-invasive neuromodulation methods (e.g., tDCS and TMS), which are analyzed comparatively.

The effects of anodal-tDCS on corticospinal excitability enhancement and its after-effects: conventional vs. unihemispheric concurrent dual-site stimulation

Previous researchers have approved the ability of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) to enhance corticospinal excitability (CSE). The primary aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of concurrent stimulation of M1 and a functionally connected cortical site of M1 on CSE modulation. This new technique is called unihemispheric concurrent dual-site a-tDCS (a-tDCSUHCDS). The secondary aim was to investigate the mechanisms underlying the efficacy of this new approach in healthy individuals. In a randomized crossover study, 12 healthy right-handed volunteers received a-tDCS under five conditions: a-tDCS of M1, a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-primary sensory cortex (S1), a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-primary visual cortex (V1), and sham a-tDCSUHCDS. Peak-to-peak amplitude of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) induced MEPs, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and intracortical facilitation (ICF) were assessed before and four times after each condition. A-tDCSUHCDS conditions induced larger MEPs than conventional a-tDCS. The level of M1 CSE was significantly higher following a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC than other a-tDCSUHCDS conditions (p < 0.001), and lasted for over 24 h. The paired-pulse TMS results after a-tDCS of M1-DLPFC showed significant facilitatory increase and inhibitory change. A-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC increases M1 CSE twofold that of conventional a-tDCS. A-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC enhances the activity of glutamergic mechanisms for at least 24 h. Such long-lasting M1 CSE enhancement induced by a-tDCSUHCDS of M1-DLPFC could be a valuable finding in clinical scenarios such as learning, motor performance, or pain management. The present study has been registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial at http://www.anzctr.org.au/ with registry number of ACTRN12614000817640.

Simultaneous trial of deep brain and motor cortex stimulation in chronic intractable neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Both motor cortex stimulation (MCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ventralis caudalis (Vc) thalamus have been shown to be effective in chronic neuropathic pain, and the modulation of thalamic and thalamocortical activity is regarded as a possible mechanism. Although Vc DBS and MCS have a common analgesic mechanism, the application of MCS and DBS is still considered empirical, and there is no consensus on which method is better.

METHODS

We performed a simultaneous trial of thalamic Vc DBS and MCS in 9 patients with chronic neuropathic pain and investigated the results of the stimulation trial and long-term pain relief.

RESULTS

Of the 9 patients initially implanted with both DBS and MCS electrodes, 8 (89%) had a successful trial; 6 of these 8 patients (75%) responded to MCS, and the remaining 2 responded to Vc DBS. During the long-term follow-up, the mean numeric rating scale score decreased significantly (p < 0.05). The percentages of pain relief in the chronic MCS group and the chronic DBS group were 37.9 ± 16.5 and 37.5%, respectively, and there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.157).

CONCLUSION

Considering the initial success rate and the less invasive nature of epidural MCS compared with DBS, we think that MCS would be a more reasonable initial means of treatment for chronic intractable neuropathic pain.

Use of cortical stimulation in neuropathic pain, tinnitus, depression, and movement disorders

Medical treatment must strike a balance between benefit and risk. As the field of neuromodulation develops, decreased invasiveness, in combination with maintenance of efficacy, has become a goal. We provide a review of the history of cortical stimulation from its origins to the current state. The first part discusses neuropathic pain and the nonpharmacological treatment options used. The second part covers transitions to tinnitus, believed by many to be another deafferentation disorder, its classification, and treatment. The third part focuses on major depression. The fourth section concludes with the discussion of the use of cortical stimulation in movement disorders. Each part discusses the development of the field, describes the current care protocols, and suggests future avenues for research needed to advance neuromodulation.

Invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation for treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury: a review

CONTEXT

Past evidence has shown that invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation may be effective for relieving central pain.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a topical review of the literature on brain neurostimulation techniques in patients with chronic neuropathic pain due to traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) and to assess the current evidence for their therapeutic efficacy.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed using following terms: "Spinal cord injury", "Neuropathic pain", "Brain stimulation", "Deep brain stimulation" (DBS), "Motor cortex stimulation" (MCS), "Transcranial magnetic stimulation" (TMS), "Transcranial direct current stimulation" (tDCS), "Cranial electrotherapy stimulation" (CES).

RESULTS

Invasive neurostimulation therapies, in particular DBS and epidural MCS, have shown promise as treatments for neuropathic and phantom limb pain. However, the long-term efficacy of DBS is low, while MCS has a relatively higher potential with lesser complications that DBS. Among the non-invasive techniques, there is accumulating evidence that repetitive TMS can produce analgesic effects in healthy subjects undergoing laboratory-induced pain and in chronic pain conditions of various etiologies, at least partially and transiently. Another very safe technique of non-invasive brain stimulation - tDCS - applied over the sensory-motor cortex has been reported to decrease pain sensation and increase pain threshold in healthy subjects. CES has also proved to be effective in managing some types of pain, including neuropathic pain in subjects with SCI.

CONCLUSION

A number of studies have begun to use non-invasive neuromodulatory techniques therapeutically to relieve neuropathic pain and phantom phenomena in patients with SCI. However, further studies are warranted to corroborate the early findings and confirm different targets and stimulation paradigms. The utility of these protocols in combination with pharmacological approaches should also be explored.

Central neuromodulation for refractory pain

Chronic neuropathic pain affects 8.2% of adults, extrapolated to roughly 18 million people every year in the United States. Patients who have pain that cannot be controlled with pharmacologic management or less invasive techniques can be considered for deep brain stimulation or motor cortex stimulation. These techniques are not currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chronic pain and are, thus, considered off-label use of medical devices for this patient population. Conclusive effectiveness studies are still needed to demonstrate the best targets as well as the reliability of the results with these approaches.

Deep brain stimulation of the ventral striatum/anterior limb of the internal capsule in thalamic pain syndrome: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic neuropathic pain in thalamic pain syndrome remains intractable. Its poor response is ascribed to destruction of the integrated neuromatrix in experience of pain. Deep brain stimulation is a promising technique to modulate activity of implicated structures. However, traditional approaches targeting sensori-motor substrates have failed to affect disability. The offending lesion in thalamic pain syndrome that almost invariably destroys sensory pain pathways may render these classical approaches ineffective. Instead, we hypothesize that targeting structures representing emotion and affective behavior-ventral striatum/anterior limb of the internal capsule, may alleviate disability.

METHODS/DESIGN

We present the design of our phase I randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled, crossover trial that examines safety, feasibility and efficacy of our proposed approach. In our ongoing trial, we intend to enroll ten patients with thalamic pain syndrome. Following implantation, patients are randomized to receive active deep brain stimulation to the ventral striatum/anterior limb of the internal capsule or sham for 3 months, after which they are crossed over. The primary endpoint is Pain Disability Index. Other outcomes include visual analog scale, depression and anxiety inventories, quality of life, and functional neuroimaging.

DISCUSSION

Designing trials of deep brain stimulation for pain is challenging owing to the ethical-scientific dilemma of introducing a control arm, complicated blinding, heterogeneous etiologies, patient expectations, and inadequate assessment of disability. The quality of evidence in the field is classified as level III (poor) because it mainly includes a multitude of uncontrolled case series reporting variable outcomes, with little regard for the placebo effect related to implantation. Without valid data on efficacy, use of deep brain stimulation for pain remains "off label". We present our trial design to discuss feasibility of conducting sham-controlled phase I studies that may represent significant refinement for the field. Double-blinding would reduce influence of patient expectations and therapeutic confusion amongst investigators. With a cross-over approach, the dilemma regarding including a control group can be mitigated. Use of homogeneous etiology, measurement of disability, depression and quality of life, besides pain perception, all represent strategies to evaluate efficacy rigorously. Functional imaging would serve to define mechanisms underlying observed effects and may help optimize future targeting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01072656.

Cortical presynaptic control of dorsal horn C-afferents in the rat

Lamina 5 sensorimotor cortex pyramidal neurons project to the spinal cord, participating in the modulation of several modalities of information transmission. A well-studied mechanism by which the corticospinal projection modulates sensory information is primary afferent depolarization, which has been characterized in fast muscular and cutaneous, but not in slow-conducting nociceptive skin afferents. Here we investigated whether the inhibition of nociceptive sensory information, produced by activation of the sensorimotor cortex, involves a direct presynaptic modulation of C primary afferents. In anaesthetized male Wistar rats, we analyzed the effects of sensorimotor cortex activation on post tetanic potentiation (PTP) and the paired pulse ratio (PPR) of dorsal horn field potentials evoked by C–fiber stimulation in the sural (SU) and sciatic (SC) nerves. We also explored the time course of the excitability changes in nociceptive afferents produced by cortical stimulation. We observed that the development of PTP was completely blocked when C-fiber tetanic stimulation was paired with cortex stimulation. In addition, sensorimotor cortex activation by topical administration of bicuculline (BIC) produced a reduction in the amplitude of C–fiber responses, as well as an increase in the PPR. Furthermore, increases in the intraspinal excitability of slow-conducting fiber terminals, produced by sensorimotor cortex stimulation, were indicative of primary afferent depolarization. Topical administration of BIC in the spinal cord blocked the inhibition of C–fiber neuronal responses produced by cortical stimulation. Dorsal horn neurons responding to sensorimotor cortex stimulation also exhibited a peripheral receptive field and responded to stimulation of fast cutaneous myelinated fibers. Our results suggest that corticospinal inhibition of nociceptive responses is due in part to a modulation of the excitability of primary C–fibers by means of GABAergic inhibitory interneurons.

Neuromodulation for cephalgias

Headaches (cephalgias) are a common reason for patients to seek medical care. There are groups of patients with recurrent headache and craniofacial pain presenting with malignant course of their disease that becomes refractory to pharmacotherapy and other medical management options. Neuromodulation can be a viable treatment modality for at least some of these patients. We review the available evidence related to the use of neuromodulation modalities for the treatment of medically refractory craniofacial pain of different nosology based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2(nd) edition (ICHD-II) classification. This article also reviews the scientific rationale of neuromodulation application in management of cephalgias.

Motor cortex stimulation for facial chronic neuropathic pain: A review of the literature

Background:

Facial chronic neuropathic pain (FCNP) is a disabling clinical entity, its incidence is increasing within the chronic pain population. There is indication for neuromodulation when conservative treatment fails. Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) has emerged as an alternative in the advanced management of these patients. The aim of this work is to review the worldwide literature on MCS for FCNP.

Methods:

A PubMed search from 1990 to 2012 was conducted using established MeSH words. A total of 126 relevant articles on MCS focused on chronic pain were selected and analysed. Series of cases were divided in (1) series focused on MCS for FCNP, and (2) MCS series of FCNP mixed with other chronic pain entities.

Results:

A total of 118 patients have been trialed for MCS for FCNP, 100 (84.7%) pursued permanent implantation of the system, and 84% of them had good pain control at the end of the study. Male: female ratio was about 1:2 in the whole group of studies; mean age was 58 years (range, 28–83), and mean pain duration was 7 years (range, 0.6–25). Four randomized controlled studies have been reported, all of them not focused on MCS for FCNP. The most common complication was seizure followed by wound infection. Preoperative evaluation, surgical techniques, and final settings varied among the series.

Conclusion:

MCS for FNCP is a safe and efficacious treatment option when previous managements have failed; however, there is still lack of strong evidence (larger randomized controlled multicentre studies) that MCS can be offered in a regular basis to FNCP patients.

Cerebral stimulation for the affective component of neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVES

To review the current state of cerebral stimulation for neuropathic pain and to propose that cerebral stimulation should aim also at the affective sphere of chronic pain rather than solely focusing on the primary sensory-discriminative sphere.

METHODS

The past and current goals of cerebral stimulation are reviewed as well as its limitations. A novel deep brain stimulation approach is proposed to evaluate this conceptual shift from somatosensory to affective sphere of pain targeting.

APPROACH

Thalamic and other central pain syndromes are typically intractable to current treatment methods, including cerebral neuromodulation of somatosensory pathways, leading to long-term distress and disability. Our modern understanding of chronic pain pathophysiology is based largely on the neuromatrix theory, where cognitive, affective, and sensory-discriminative spheres contribute equally to the overall pain experience. During the last decade, the safety and feasibility of chronic stimulation of neural pathways related to mood and affect has been explored with promising results. Here, we propose a novel approach to modulate the affective sphere of chronic pain by targeting similar networks in patients with treatment-refractory central pain. Our primary goal is not to produce (or measure) analgesia, but rather to modulate the affective burden of chronic pain.

DISCUSSION

Cerebral neuromodulation for neuropathic pain has had limited efficacy thus far. Shifting our aim to neural networks related to the affective sphere of pain may allow us to reduce pain conditioning and pain-related disability. Our ultimate goal is to promote rehabilitation from chronic pain-social and occupational.

Brain stimulation in the treatment of chronic neuropathic and non-cancerous pain

Chronic neuropathic pain is one of the most prevalent and debilitating disorders. Conventional medical management, however, remains frustrating for both patients and clinicians owing to poor specificity of pharmacotherapy, delayed onset of analgesia and extensive side effects. Neuromodulation presents as a promising alternative, or at least an adjunct, as it is more specific in inducing analgesia without associated risks of pharmacotherapy. Here, we discuss common clinical and investigational methods of neuromodulation. Compared to clinical spinal cord stimulation (SCS), investigational techniques of cerebral neuromodulation, both invasive (deep brain stimulation [DBS] and motor cortical stimulation [MCS]) and noninvasive (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS] and transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS]), may be more advantageous. By adaptively targeting the multidimensional experience of pain, subtended by integrative pain circuitry in the brain, including somatosensory and thalamocortical, limbic and cognitive, cerebral methods may modulate the sensory-discriminative, affective-emotional and evaluative-cognitive spheres of the pain neuromatrix. Despite promise, the current state of results alludes to the possibility that cerebral neuromodulation has thus far not been effective in producing analgesia as intended in patients with chronic pain disorders. These techniques, thus, remain investigational and off-label. We discuss issues implicated in inadequate efficacy, variability of responsiveness, and poor retention of benefit, while recommending design and conceptual refinements for future trials of cerebral neuromodulation in management of chronic neuropathic pain.

PERSPECTIVE

This critical review focuses on factors contributing to poor therapeutic utility of invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation in the treatment of chronic neuropathic and pain of noncancerous origin. Through key clinical trial design and conceptual refinements, retention and consistency of response may be improved, potentially facilitating the widespread clinical applicability of such approaches.

Current and future options for the management of phantom-limb pain

Phantom-limb pain (PLP) belongs among difficult-to-treat chronic pain syndromes. Treatment options for PLP are to a large degree implicated by the level of understanding the mechanisms and nature of PLP. Research and clinical findings acknowledge the neuropathic nature of PLP and also suggest that both peripheral as well as central mechanisms, including neuroplastic changes in central nervous system, can contribute to PLP. Neuroimaging studies in PLP have indicated a relation between PLP and the neuroplastic changes. Further, it has been shown that the pathological neuroplastic changes could be reverted, and there is a parallel between an improvement (reversal) of the neuroplastic changes in PLP and pain relief. These findings facilitated explorations of novel neuromodulatory treatment strategies, adding to the variety of treatment approaches in PLP. Overall, available treatment options in PLP include pharmacological treatment, supportive non-pharmacological non-invasive strategies (eg, neuromodulation using transcranial magnetic stimulation, visual feedback therapy, or motor imagery; peripheral transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, physical therapy, reflexology, or various psychotherapeutic approaches), and invasive treatment strategies (eg, surgical destructive procedures, nerve blocks, or invasive neuromodulation using deep brain stimulation, motor cortex stimulation, or spinal cord stimulation). Venues of further development in PLP management include a technological and methodological improvement of existing treatment methods, an implementation of new techniques and products, and a development of new treatment approaches.

Phantom limb pain: low frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in unaffected hemisphere

Phantom limb pain is very common after limb amputation and is often difficult to treat. The motor cortex stimulation is a valid treatment for deafferentation pain that does not respond to conventional pain treatment, with relief for 50% to 70% of patients. This treatment is invasive as it uses implanted epidural electrodes. Cortical stimulation can be performed noninvasively by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). The stimulation of the hemisphere that isn't involved in phantom limb (unaffected hemisphere), remains unexplored. We report a case of phantom limb pain treated with 1 Hz rTMS stimulation over motor cortex in unaffected hemisphere. This stimulation produces a relevant clinical improvement of phantom limb pain; however, further studies are necessary to determine the efficacy of the method and the stimulation parameters.

Motor cortex and deep brain stimulation for the treatment of intractable neuropathic face pain

Intractable neuropathic face pain is a syndrome of unremitting severe pain that stems from abnormal nociceptive processing at various levels of the trigeminal system. Treatment of this debilitating condition has long presented a challenge for physicians due to its refractoriness to standard pharmacologic therapies. With few viable treatments, surgical procedures such as motor cortex stimulation (MCS) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) provide additional options. This article reviews the current literature and practices regarding patient selection criteria, potential mechanisms of action, surgical technique, and outcome of patients with neuropathic face pain treated with MCS and DBS.

Motor cortex stimulation for pain and movement disorders

Since initial reports in the early 1990s, stimulation of the M1 region of the cortex (MCS) has been used to treat chronic refractory pain conditions and a variety of movement disorders. A Medline search of literature between 1991 and 2007 revealed 512 cases using MCS. Although most of these relate to the treatment of pain (422), 84 of them involve movement disorders. More recently, several studies have specifically looked at treating Parkinson's disease (PD) with MCS. We report here several of our own cases using MCS to treat poststroke and non-poststroke pain syndromes and movement disorders (n = 8), PD (n = 4), ET (n = 2), and cortico-basal degeneration (n = 1). We also cover the essential history of this procedure and our current research using computational modeling to understand further the underlying mechanisms of MCS.

Longlasting antalgic effects of daily sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in central and peripheral neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

A single session of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over motor cortex had been reported to produce short term relief of some types of chronic pain. The present study investigated whether five consecutive days of rTMS would lead to longer lasting pain relief in unilateral chronic intractable neuropathic pain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty eight patients with therapy resistant chronic unilateral pain syndromes (24 each with trigeminal neuralgia (TGN) and post-stroke pain syndrome (PSP)) participated. Fourteen from each group received 10 minutes real rTMS over the hand area of motor cortex (20 Hz, 10x10 s trains, intensity 80% of motor threshold) every day for five consecutive days. The remaining patients received sham stimulation. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs (LANSS) scale, before, after the first, fourth, and fifth sessions, and two weeks after the last session.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in basal pain ratings between patients receiving real- and sham-rTMS. However, a two factor ANOVA revealed a significant "+/- TMS" x "time" interaction indicating that real and sham rTMS had different effects on the VAS and LANSS scales. Post hoc testing showed that in both groups of patients, real-rTMS led to a greater improvement in scales than sham-rTMS, evident even two weeks after the end of the treatment. No patient experienced adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

These results confirm that five daily sessions of rTMS over motor cortex can produce longlasting pain relief in patients with TGN or PSP.

Neurogenic pain relief by repetitive transcranial magnetic cortical stimulation depends on the origin and the site of pain

OBJECTIVE

Drug resistant neurogenic pain can be relieved by repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the motor cortex. This study was designed to assess the influence of pain origin, pain site, and sensory loss on rTMS efficacy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixty right handed patients were included, suffering from intractable pain secondary to one of the following types of lesion: thalamic stroke, brainstem stroke, spinal cord lesion, brachial plexus lesion, or trigeminal nerve lesion. The pain predominated unilaterally in the face, the upper limb, or the lower limb. The thermal sensory thresholds were measured within the painful zone and were found to be highly or moderately elevated. Finally, the pain level was scored on a visual analogue scale before and after a 20 minute session of "real" or "sham" 10 Hz rTMS over the side of the motor cortex corresponding to the hand on the painful side, even if the pain was not experienced in the hand itself.

RESULTS

and discussion: The percentage pain reduction was significantly greater following real than sham rTMS (-22.9% v -7.8%, p = 0.0002), confirming that motor cortex rTMS was able to induce antalgic effects. These effects were significantly influenced by the origin and the site of pain. For pain origin, results were worse in patients with brainstem stroke, whatever the site of pain. This was consistent with a descending modulation within the brainstem, triggered by the motor corticothalamic output. For pain site, better results were obtained for facial pain, although stimulation was targeted on the hand cortical area. Thus, in contrast to implanted stimulation, the target for rTMS procedure in pain control may not be the area corresponding to the painful zone but an adjacent one. Across representation plasticity of cortical areas resulting from deafferentation could explain this discrepancy. Finally, the degree of sensory loss did not interfere with pain origin or pain site regarding rTMS effects.

CONCLUSION

Motor cortex rTMS was found to result in a significant but transient relief of chronic pain, influenced by pain origin and pain site. These parameters should be taken into account in any further study of rTMS application in chronic pain control.

Neurosurgical approaches to pain treatment

In a multidisciplinary approach to the management of chronic pain, neurosurgical methods are an indispensable part of the therapeutic armamentarium. With the exception of percutaneous interventions for trigeminal neuralgia and facet joint syndromes, most ablative pain surgery procedures (neurotomy, rhizotomy, sympathectomy, etc.) have been replaced by neuromodulatory approaches such as electrical stimulation of the central nervous system (CNS). However, cordotomy is still a valuable operation for certain forms of cancer related pains (Pancoast's syndrome, breakthrough pain) which are relatively resistant to pharmacotherapy. Another example of ablative surgery is the dorsal root entry zone (DREZ) operation, which is generally the only treatment option for pain due to root avulsion and segmental pain in spinal cord injury. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has proven to be most useful for the management of pain following peripheral nerve injury (including complex regional pain syndromes) and rhizopathy. For these conditions which are otherwise often therapy resistant, SCS may produce substantial and long-lasting pain relief in 60-70% of the patients. Considering that such pains are common and the fact that SCS has been shown to be cost-effective, this treatment is no doubt at present underused. Complications and side-effects are very rare. SCS has also been found to be useful for pain in peripheral vascular disorders and angina pectoris. In the latter condition the overall results are favorable in about 80% of patients with a significant reduction of the frequency and severity of angina attacks and the need for nitrates. Stimulation of the motor cortex is a novel and promising treatment of central, post-stroke pain and painful trigeminal neuropathy.

Chronic precentral stimulation in trigeminal neuropathic pain

The results of Deep Brain Stimulation in deafferentation pain syndromes, in particular in thalamic pain, indicate that excellent long-term pain relief can hardly ever be achieved. We report 7 cases using Motor-Cortex-Stimulation for treating severe trigeminal neuropathic pain syndromes, i.e., dysaesthesia, anaesthesia dolorosa and postherpetic neuralgia. The first implantation of the stimulation device for precentral cerebral stimulation was performed in June 1993, the last in September 1995. In all but one case the impulse-generator was implanted after a successful period of test stimulation. Successful means a pain reduction of more than 50% as assessed with a Visual Analogue Scale. Excluding one case, in whom a prolonged focal seizure resulting in a postictal speech arrest occurred during test stimulation, there have been no operative complications and the postoperative course was uneventful. In all the other patients the pain inhibition appeared below the threshold for producing motor effects. Initially these patients reported a good to excellent pain relief. In three of 6 patients a good to excellent pain control was maintained for a follow-up period of 5 months to 2 years. In the remaining three patients the positive effect decreased over several months.