Is transcranial magnetic stimulation as treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury efficient? A systematic review

Pain in the Context of Sensory Deafferentation

Pain that accompanies deafferentation is one of the most mysterious and misunderstood medical conditions. Prevalence rates for the assorted conditions vary considerably but the most reliable estimates are greater than 50% for strokes involving the somatosensory system, brachial plexus avulsions, spinal cord injury, and limb amputation, with controversy surrounding the mechanistic contributions of deafferentation to ensuing neuropathic pain syndromes. Deafferentation pain has also been described for loss of other body parts (e.g., eyes and breasts) and may contribute to between 10% and upwards of 30% of neuropathic symptoms in peripheral neuropathies. There is no pathognomonic test or sign to identify deafferentation pain, and part of the controversy surrounding it stems from the prodigious challenges in differentiating cause and effect. For example, it is unknown whether cortical reorganization causes pain or is a byproduct of pathoanatomical changes accompanying injury, including pain. Similarly, ascertaining whether deafferentation contributes to neuropathic pain, or whether concomitant injury to nerve fibers transmitting pain and touch sensation leads to a deafferentation-like phenotype can be clinically difficult, although a detailed neurologic examination, functional imaging, and psychophysical tests may provide clues. Due in part to the concurrent morbidities, the physical, psychologic, and by extension socioeconomic costs of disorders associated with deafferentation are higher than for other chronic pain conditions. Treatment is symptom-based, with evidence supporting first-line antineuropathic medications such as gabapentinoids and antidepressants. Studies examining noninvasive neuromodulation and virtual reality have yielded mixed results.

Choosing the optimal target area for repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation in treating neuropathic pain in spinal cord injury patients: a comparative analysis

Objective

The specific target area of repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in treating neuropathic pain resulting from spinal cord injury (SCI-NP) remains uncertain.

Methods

Thirty-four participants with SCI-NP were allocated into three groups, namely, the motor cortex (M1, A) group, the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDLPFC, B) group, and the control (sham stimulation, C) group. The intervention was administered totally 10 times. Outcome measures assessed pre-(T0) and post-(T1)intervention, including Numerical Rating scale (NRS), anxiety (SAS), depression (SDS), sleep quality (PSQI), brief pain inventory (BPI), and impression of change.

Results

All outcomes in groups A and B significantly changed after intervention (p < 0.05), and the delta value (T1-T0) also significantly changed than group C (p < 0.05). The delta value of SDS in the group B was better than the group A, and the change of pain degree in the group B was moderately correlated with the change in PSQI (r = 0.575, p < 0.05). Both patients in the groups A and B showed significant impression of change about their received therapy (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Both targets are effective, but LDLPFC is more effective in reducing depression in SCI-NP. Healthcare providers might select the suitable area according to the specific attributes of their patients.

Comparison of intermittent theta burst stimulation and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain: A sham-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain with sham controls, using neuropathic pain-specific evaluation tools.

DESIGN

A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.

SETTING

Rehabilitation medicine department of a university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-three patients with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups (real iTBS, real rTMS, and sham rTMS). Each patient underwent five sessions of assigned stimulation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Before and after completion of the five sessions, patients were evaluated using the self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, Numeric Rating Scale, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, and Neuropathic Pain Scale.

RESULTS

Real iTBS and real rTMS reduced pain levels after stimulation according to all the evaluation tools, and the changes were significant when compared to the values of the sham rTMS group. No significant differences were found between the real iTBS and real rTMS groups.

CONCLUSION

Both iTBS and rTMS were effective in reducing spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain. When safety, convenience, and compliance are considered, iTBS would have an advantage over rTMS in clinical situations with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.Trial Registration: This trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (registration no. KCT0004976).

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain and Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Neuropathic pain and neuropsychiatric symptoms are common complications reported by the traumatic brain injury (TBI) population. Although a growing body of research has indicated the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the management of neurological and psychiatric disorders, little evidence has been presented to support the effects of rTMS on neuropathic pain and neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with TBI in all age groups. In addition, a better understanding of the potential factors that might influence the therapeutic effect of rTMS is necessary. The objective of this preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis was to quantify the effects of rTMS on physical and psychological symptoms in individuals with TBI. We systematically searched six databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rTMS in TBI patients reporting pain and neuropsychiatric outcomes published until March 20, 2022. The mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was estimated separately for outcomes to understand the mean effect size. Twelve RCTs with 276 TBI patients were ultimately selected from 1605 records for systematic review, and 11 of the studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, five of the included studies showed a low risk of bias. The effects of rTMS on neuropathic pain were statistically significant ( $\text{MD}=-1.00$ , 95% CI -1.76 to -0.25, $P=0.009$ ), with high heterogeneity ( $I^2=76\%$ ). A significant advantage of 1 Hz rTMS over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) in improving depression ( $\text{MD}=-6.52$ , 95% CI -11.58 to -1.46, $P=0.01$ ) was shown, and a significant improvement was noted in the Rivermead Post-Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire-13 (RPQ-13) scores of mild TBI patients after rTMS ( $\text{MD}=-5.87$ , 95% CI -10.63 to -1.11, $P=0.02$ ). However, no significance was found in cognition measurement. No major adverse events related to rTMS were reported. Moderate evidence suggests that rTMS can effectively and safely improve neuropathic pain, while its effectiveness on depression, postconcussion symptoms, and cognition is limited. More trials with a larger number of participants are needed to draw firm conclusions. This trial is registered with PROSPERO (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021242364.