New-Onset Stutter After Electrode Insertion in the Ventrocaudalis Nucleus for Face Pain

Insertional effect following electrode implantation: an underreported but important phenomenon

Deep brain stimulation has revolutionized the treatment of movement disorders and is gaining momentum in the treatment of several other neuropsychiatric disorders. In almost all applications of this therapy, the insertion of electrodes into the target has been shown to induce some degree of clinical improvement prior to stimulation onset. Disregarding this phenomenon, commonly referred to as 'insertional effect', can lead to biased results in clinical trials, as patients receiving sham stimulation may still experience some degree of symptom amelioration. Similar to the clinical scenario, an improvement in behavioural performance following electrode implantation has also been reported in preclinical models. From a neurohistopathologic perspective, the insertion of electrodes into the brain causes an initial trauma and inflammatory response, the activation of astrocytes, a focal release of gliotransmitters, the hyperexcitability of neurons in the vicinity of the implants, as well as neuroplastic and circuitry changes at a distance from the target. Taken together, it would appear that electrode insertion is not an inert process, but rather triggers a cascade of biological processes, and, as such, should be considered alongside the active delivery of stimulation as an active part of the deep brain stimulation therapy.

Deep Brain Stimulation for Chronic Facial Pain: An Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-Analysis

Despite available, advanced pharmacological and behavioral therapies, refractory chronic facial pain of different origins still poses a therapeutic challenge. In circumstances where there is insufficient responsiveness to pharmacological/behavioral therapies, deep brain stimulation should be considered as a potential effective treatment option. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis including searches on PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (2000–2022). The primary endpoint was the change in pain intensity (visual analogue scale; VAS) at a defined time-point of ≤3 months post-DBS. In addition, correlation and regression analyses were performed to identify predictive markers (age, duration of pain, frequency, amplitude, intensity, contact configuration, and the DBS target). A total of seven trials consisting of 54 screened patients met the inclusion criteria. DBS significantly reduced the pain levels after 3 months without being related to a specific DBS target, age, contact configuration, stimulation intensity, frequency, amplitude, or chronic pain duration. Adverse events were an infection or lead fracture (19%), stimulation-induced side effects (7%), and three deaths (unrelated to DBS—from cancer progression or a second stroke). Although comparable long-term data are lacking, the current published data indicate that DBS (thalamic and PVG/PAG) effectively suppresses facial pain in the short-term. However, the low-quality evidence, reporting bias, and placebo effects must be considered in future randomized-controlled DBS trials for facial pain.

Disfluency clusters in speakers with and without neurogenic stuttering following traumatic brain injury

PURPOSE

Analyze the characteristics and rate of disfluency clusters in adults with and without neurogenic stuttering after traumatic brain injury (TBI).

METHOD

Twenty adults with TBI participated in this study, including 10 with neurogenic stuttering (Group B) and 10 without -stuttering (Group A). Disfluency clusters in speech samples were classified into three types: Stuttering-like (SLD), other (OD), and mixed (MIX).

RESULTS

Speakers with and without neurogenic stuttering produced the same mean number of disfluency clusters. In addition, the mean length of clusters did not differ between these speaker groups although the longest clusters did. The most frequently occurring cluster type for people with neurogenic stuttering was MIX and OD for people without stuttering. Although the speakers in Group A produced stuttering-like disfluencies, these never occurred together to form a SLD type cluster. For Group B, the starter units of the clusters were usually stuttering-like disfluencies, while for Group A, the starter units were mostly interruptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to non-stuttering speakers, stuttering after TBI did not increase the number of clusters, but rather lengthened them. In speakers with neurogenic stuttering, the number and length of clusters were related to the manifestation of other communication deficits, not to the frequency of stuttering-like disfluencies. Still, SLD clusters occurred only in those people with neurogenic stuttering. These findings raise questions about the nature of both neurogenic stuttering and the dynamics of disfluency clustering.