Neuromodulation for Medically Refractory Neuropathic Pain: Spinal Cord Stimulation, Deep Brain Stimulation, Motor Cortex Stimulation, and Posterior Insula Stimulation

Gasserian ganglion stimulation for refractory trigeminal neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Painful trigeminal neuropathy is a complex clinical entity due to its severity and refractoriness to pharmacological and interventional management. We describe our experience in treating refractory painful trigeminal neuropathy (RPTN) with gasserian ganglion stimulation (GGS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six patients with RPTN were treated with GGS in our Unit between 2019 and 2022. The following data were collected: socio-demographic characteristics, triggering event, duration of the disease and treatment received prior to surgery, pre- and post-intervention visual analogue scale (VAS) score, follow-up time, and pre- and post-intervention functionality and quality of life.

RESULTS

All patients were women who had received aggressive first-, second-, and third-line pharmacological, non-pharmacological, and interventional management before being referred for GGS. Patients reported a 50%-72% decrease in pain on VAS and improved functionality during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

GGS is a promising therapeutic alternative for patients with RPTN. Although the initial outcomes and experience are encouraging, RPTN is recommended on the basis of safety, reproducibility, and trends observed in clinical practice.

The Role of the Insula in Chronic Pain and Associated Structural Changes: An Integrative Review

Chronic pain affects a substantial portion of the global population, significantly impacting quality of life and well-being. This condition involves complex mechanisms, including dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system, which plays a crucial role in pain perception. The insula, a key brain region involved in pain processing, plays a critical role in pain perception and modulation. Lesions in the insula can result in pain asymbolia, where pain perception remains intact but emotional responses are inappropriate. The insula is anatomically and functionally divided into anterior and posterior regions, with the posterior insula processing nociceptive input based on intensity and location before relaying it to the anterior insula for emotional mediation. Understanding the insula's intricate role in pain processing is crucial, as it is involved in encoding prediction errors and mediating emotional dimensions of pain perception. The focus of this review was on synthesizing existing literature on the role of the insula in chronic pain and associated structural changes. The goal was to integrate findings from various sources to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic. The search strategy included a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and relevant keywords related to insula and chronic pain. The following databases were surveyed: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. We identified a total of 2515 articles, and after following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline based on eligibility criteria, 46 articles were used to synthesize this review. Our study highlights the pivotal role of the insula in chronic pain processing and associated structural changes, integrating findings from diverse studies and neuroimaging investigations. Beyond mere pain sensation, the insula contributes to emotional awareness, attention, and salience detection within the pain network. Various chronic pain conditions reveal alterations in insular activity and connectivity, accompanied by changes in gray matter volume and neurochemical profiles. Interventions targeting the insula show promise in alleviating chronic pain symptoms. However, further research is needed to understand underlying mechanisms, which can aid in developing more effective therapeutic interventions for pain.

Implantable Subdural Cortical Stimulation for Chronic Intractable Pain Treatment-The Mayo Experience and Review of Literature

OBJECTIVES

Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is an effective technique in treating chronic intractable pain for some patients. However, most studies are small case series (n < 20). Heterogeneity in technique and patient selection makes it difficult to draw consistent conclusions. In this study, we present one of the largest case series of subdural MCS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medical records of patients who underwent MCS at our institute between 2007 and 2020 were reviewed. Studies with at least 15 patients were summarized for comparison.

RESULTS

The study included 46 patients. Mean age was 56.2 ± 12.5 years (SD). Mean follow-up was 57.2 ± 41.9 months. Male-to-female ratio was 13:33. Of the 46 patients, 29 had neuropathic pain in trigeminal nerve territory/anesthesia dolorosa; nine had postsurgical/posttraumatic pain; three had phantom limb pain; two had postherpetic pain, and the rest had pain secondary to stroke, chronic regional pain syndrome, and tumor. The baseline numeric rating pain scale (NRS) was 8.2 ± 1.8 of 10, and the latest follow-up score was 3.5 ± 2.9 (mean improvement of 57.3%). Responders comprised 67% (31/46)(NRS ≥ 40% improvement). Analysis showed no correlation between percentage of improvement and age (p = 0.352) but favored male patients (75.3% vs 48.7%, p = 0.006). Seizures occurred in 47.8% of patients (22/46) at some point but were all self-limiting, with no lasting sequelae. Other complications included subdural/epidural hematoma requiring evacuation (3/46), infection (5/46), and cerebrospinal fluid leak (1/46). These complications resolved with no long-term sequelae after further interventions.

CONCLUSION

Our study further supports the use of MCS as an effective treatment modality for several chronic intractable pain conditions and provides a benchmark to the current literature.

Current Neurostimulation Therapies for Chronic Pain Conditions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neurostimulation treatment options have become more commonly used for chronic pain conditions refractory to these options. In this review, we characterize current neurostimulation therapies for chronic pain conditions and provide an analysis of their effectiveness and clinical adoption. This manuscript will inform clinicians of treatment options for chronic pain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Non-invasive neurostimulation includes transcranial direct current stimulation and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, while more invasive options include spinal cord stimulation (SCS), peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation, motor cortex stimulation, and deep brain stimulation. Developments in transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, spinal cord stimulation, and peripheral nerve stimulation render these modalities most promising for the alleviating chronic pain. Neurostimulation for chronic pain involves non-invasive and invasive modalities with varying efficacy. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to delineate the outcomes of neurostimulatory modalities more precisely.

Low-Energy Transcranial Navigation-Guided Focused Ultrasound for Neuropathic Pain: An Exploratory Study

Neuromodulation using high-energy focused ultrasound (FUS) has recently been developed for various neurological disorders, including tremors, epilepsy, and neuropathic pain. We investigated the safety and efficacy of low-energy FUS for patients with chronic neuropathic pain. We conducted a prospective single-arm trial with 3-month follow-up using new transcranial, navigation-guided, focused ultrasound (tcNgFUS) technology to stimulate the anterior cingulate cortex. Eleven patients underwent FUS with a frequency of 250 kHz and spatial-peak temporal-average intensity of 0.72 W/cm2. A clinical survey based on the visual analog scale of pain and a brief pain inventory (BPI) was performed during the study period. The average age was 60.55 ± 13.18 years-old with a male-to-female ratio of 6:5. The median current pain decreased from 10.0 to 7.0 (p = 0.021), median average pain decreased from 8.5 to 6.0 (p = 0.027), and median maximum pain decreased from 10.0 to 8.0 (p = 0.008) at 4 weeks after treatment. Additionally, the sum of daily life interference based on BPI was improved from 59.00 ± 11.66 to 51.91 ± 9.18 (p = 0.021). There were no side effects such as burns, headaches, or seizures, and no significant changes in follow-up brain magnetic resonance imaging. Low-energy tcNgFUS could be a safe and noninvasive neuromodulation technique for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain.

Gamma Knife surgery and deep brain stimulation of the centromedian nucleus for chronic pain: A systematic review

Chronic pain has been a major problem in personal quality of life and social economy, causing psychological disorders in people and a larger amount of money loss in society. Some targets were adopted for chronic pain, but the efficacy of the CM nucleus for pain was still unclear. A systematic review was performed to summarize GK surgery and DBS of the CM nucleus for chronic pain. PubMed, Embase and Medline were searched to review all studies discussing GK surgery and DBS on the CM nucleus for chronic pain. Studies that were review, meet, conference, not English or not the therapy of pain were excluded. Demographic characteristics, surgery parameters and outcomes of pain relief were selected. In total, 101 patients across 12 studies were included. The median age of most patients ranged from 44.3 to 80 years when the duration of pain ranged from 5 months to 8 years. This review showed varied results of 30%-100% pain reduction across studies. The difference in the effect between GK surgery and DBS cannot be judged. Moreover, three retrospective articles related to GK surgery of the CM nucleus for trigeminal neuralgia presented an average pain relief rate of 34.6-82.5%. Four studies reported adverse effects in a small number of patients. GK surgery and DBS of the CM nucleus might be promising therapeutic approaches for chronic refractory pain. More rigorous studies and larger samples with longer follow-up periods are needed to support the effectiveness and safety.

Pharmacological Methods of Pain Management: Narrative Review of Medication Used

Background

Pain management is a critical aspect of healthcare, aimed at alleviating discomfort and improving the quality of life for individuals experiencing acute or chronic pain. Pharmacological methods constitute a primary approach to pain management, including a diverse array of drugs that work through different mechanisms.

Aim

Identifying medications commonly employed in pain management, focusing on their mechanism of actions, uses, efficacy and pharmacological applications.

Methods

The methodology involved a systematic search of scientific literature using various databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Relevant articles published between 2000 and 2023 were screened for inclusion. The selected studies encompassed original research, review articles, therapeutic guidelines and randomized controlled trials.

Results

The findings of this review suggest that a multimodal approach combining various analgesics can enhance pain relief while minimizing adverse effects. It emphasizes the importance of assessing pain intensity, determining the underlying etiology, and utilizing evidence-based guidelines to optimize pain management outcomes.

Conclusion

Pharmacological methods of pain management are an essential component of pain management strategies to achieve optimal pain relief while minimizing adverse effects. The article concludes with a discussion on emerging trends and future directions in pharmacological pain management, including novel drug targets and advances in drug delivery systems.

Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that is disproportionate in magnitude or duration to the typical course of pain after similar injury. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal management of CRPS, although a broad range of interventions have been described and are commonly used. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of any intervention used to reduce pain, disability, or both, in adults with CRPS.

METHODS

We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, LILACS and Epistemonikos from inception to October 2022, with no language restrictions. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CRPS, using any diagnostic criteria.  Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools respectively. We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes quality of life, emotional well-being, and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement with treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the previous version of this overview and five Cochrane and 12 non-Cochrane reviews in the current version. Using the AMSTAR 2 tool, we judged Cochrane reviews to have higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. The studies in the included reviews were typically small and mostly at high risk of bias or of low methodological quality. We found no high-certainty evidence for any comparison.  There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may reduce pain intensity post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to -3.4, P = 0.001; I2 = 81%; 4 trials, n = 181) and moderate-certainty evidence that they are probably associated with increased adverse events of any nature (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.47; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 168.0; 4 trials, n = 181).  There was moderate-certainty evidence that lidocaine local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade probably does not reduce pain intensity compared with placebo, and low-certainty evidence that it may not reduce pain intensity compared with ultrasound of the stellate ganglion. No effect size was reported for either comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that topical dimethyl sulfoxide may not reduce pain intensity compared with oral N-acetylcysteine, but no effect size was reported. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous bupivacaine brachial plexus block may reduce pain intensity compared with continuous bupivacaine stellate ganglion block, but no effect size was reported. For a wide range of other commonly used interventions, the certainty in the evidence was very low and provides insufficient evidence to either support or refute their use. Comparisons with low- and very low-certainty evidence should be treated with substantial caution. We did not identify any RCT evidence for routinely used pharmacological interventions for CRPS such as tricyclic antidepressants or opioids.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite a considerable increase in included evidence compared with the previous version of this overview, we identified no high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of any therapy for CRPS. Until larger, high-quality trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult. Current non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for CRPS are of low methodological quality and should not be relied upon to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the evidence.

Neurotechnology for Pain

Neurotechnologies for treating pain rely on electrical stimulation of the central or peripheral nervous system to disrupt or block pain signaling and have been commercialized to treat a variety of pain conditions. While their adoption is accelerating, neurotechnologies are still frequently viewed as a last resort, after many other treatment options have been explored. We review the pain conditions commonly treated with electrical stimulation, as well as the specific neurotechnologies used for treating those conditions. We identify barriers to adoption, including a limited understanding of mechanisms of action, inconsistent efficacy across patients, and challenges related to selectivity of stimulation and off-target side effects. We describe design improvements that have recently been implemented, as well as some cutting-edge technologies that may address the limitations of existing neurotechnologies. Addressing these challenges will accelerate adoption and change neurotechnologies from last-line to first-line treatments for people living with chronic pain.

Role of patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain: a comprehensive narrative review

Background/importance

Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy is crucial and is traditionally performed with clinical selection followed by a screening trial. The factors influencing patient selection and the importance of trialing have not been systematically evaluated.

Objective

We report a narrative review conducted to synthesize evidence regarding patient selection and the role of SCS trials.

Evidence review

Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for reports (any design) of SCS in adult patients, from their inception until March 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were carried out using DistillerSR. Data were organized into tables and narrative summaries, categorized by study design. Importance of patient variables and trialing was considered by looking at their influence on the long-term therapy success.

Findings

Among 7321 citations, 201 reports consisting of 60 systematic reviews, 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 41 observational studies (OSs), 51 registry-based reports, and 13 case reports on complications during trialing were included. Based on RCTs and OSs, the median trial success rate was 72% and 82%, and therapy success was 65% and 61% at 12 months, respectively. Although several psychological and non-psychological determinants have been investigated, studies do not report a consistent approach to patient selection. Among psychological factors, untreated depression was associated with poor long-term outcomes, but the effect of others was inconsistent. Most RCTs except for chronic angina involved trialing and only one RCT compared patient selection with or without trial. The median (range) trial duration was 10 (0–30) and 7 (0–56) days among RCTs and OSs, respectively.

Conclusions

Due to lack of a consistent approach to identify responders for SCS therapy, trialing complements patient selection to exclude patients who do not find the therapy helpful and/or intolerant of the SCS system. However, more rigorous and large studies are necessary to better evaluate its role.

Clinical outcomes and complications of peripheral nerve field stimulation in the management of refractory trigeminal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) is a tool in the armamentarium of treatment options for trigeminal pain. The efficacy of this modality in mitigating trigeminal pain remains unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the existing literature on PNFS and elucidate pain score outcomes associated with its use in patients with trigeminal pain.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA framework. The PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were queried on June 10, 2020. Studies reporting pain outcomes in more than 5 adult patients treated with PNFS for facial pain were included. The primary outcome of the study was the mean difference in the visual analog scale (VAS) score from the last follow-up to baseline, and it was analyzed by an inverse-variance, random-effect model. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and a funnel plot.

RESULTS

Of the 4597 studies screened for inclusion, 46 relevant full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Eleven observational cohort studies from the 46 articles were found to be eligible, and reported on a total of 109 patients. In 86% (94/109) of cases, trial stimulation was successful and followed by a permanent system implantation. VAS scores improved by 75% (mean difference 6.32/10 points, 95% CI 5.38-7.27 points) compared to baseline. Seventy-six percent (42/55) of patients became medication free or required lower doses of medications. The complication rate necessitating surgical revision was estimated at 32% per procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the belief that PNFS provides effective, long-term pain control for trigeminal pain. Statistical heterogeneity was considerable across all studies. Future work should be aimed at conducting double-blind randomized controlled trials to determine the utility of PNFS for treating various forms of trigeminal pain for which limited therapeutic options exist.

Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Low Back Pain Syndrome: Mechanisms of Modulation, Technical Features and Clinical Application

Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) is a common disease with several negative consequences on the quality of life, work and activity ability and increased costs to the health-care system. When pharmacological, psychological, physical and occupational therapies or surgery fail to reduce CLBP, patients may be a candidate for Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS). SCS consists of the transcutaneous or surgical implantation of different types of electrodes in the epidural space; electrodes are then connected to an Implanted Pulse Generator (IPG) that generates stimulating currents. Through spinal and supraspinal mechanisms based on the “gate control theory for pain transmission”, SCS reduces symptoms of CLBP in the almost totality of well-selected patients and its effect lasts up to eight years in around 75% of patients. However, the evidence in favor of SCS still remains weak, mainly due to poor trial methodology and design. This narrative review is mainly addressed to those professionals that may encounter patients with CLBP failing conventional treatments. For this reason, we report the mechanisms of pain relief during SCS, the technical features and some clinical considerations about the application of SCS in patients with CLBP.

Overcoming clinical challenges of refractory neuropathic pain

INTRODUCTION

: Refractory neuropathic pain (ReNP), and its definition, is widely disputed amongst clinicians due in part to unclear categorical diagnosing guidelines, overall time duration of neuropathic pain, and the exhaustiveness of treatment options. Usually ReNP is defined as chronic, intractable, and unresponsive neuropathic pain that have otherwise been untreatable.

AREAS COVERED

: In this narrative review, we discuss and summarize the effectiveness of prospective ReNP research conducted over the past 10 years. This research looks at pharmacological and interventional therapies in clinical trial settings. The pharmacological therapies discussed include the use of adjuvant treatments to improve the safety and efficacy of conventional approaches. Different modalities of administration, such as injection therapy and intrathecal drug delivery systems, provide targeted drug delivery. Interventional therapies such as neuromodulation, pulse radiofrequency, and nerve lesioning are more invasive, however, they are increasingly utilized in the field, as reflected in ongoing clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

: Based on the current data from RCTs and systematic reviews, it is clear that single drug therapy cannot be effective and has significant limitations. Transitioning to interventional modalities that showed more promising results sooner rather than later may be even more cost-efficient than attempting different conservative treatments with a high failure rate.

High-voltage long-duration pulsed radiofrequency attenuates neuropathic pain in CCI rats by inhibiting Cav2.2 in spinal dorsal horn and dorsal root ganglion

Inclinicalpractice, high-voltage, long-duration pulsed radiofrequency (HL-PRF) is effective for several types of intractable neuropathic pain (NP), but the mechanisms have not been well explored. Cav2.2 channels could increase neuronal excitability and neurotransmission accompanying NP. This study investigated the relationship of the efficacy of HL-PRF on NP with the levels of Cav2.2 in the spinal dorsal horn (SDH) and dorsal root ganglions (DRGs) of chronic constriction injury (CCI) in rats. Sham HL-PRF, GVIA (a specific Cav2.2 channel blocker), HL-PRF, or GVIA + HL-PRF was applied to CCI rats. The results showed: compared with the sham group, the PWT and PWL of CCI rats decreased significantly (P < 0.05), and Cav2.2 expression was elevated significantly in the SDH and DRGs (P < 0.05). Compared with the CCI group, both HL-PRF and ω-conotoxin GVIA treatment reversed the increased PWT and PWL (P < 0.05) and downregulated the overexpression of Cav2.2 in the SDH and DRGs (P < 0.05). Furthermore, PWT, PWL, and the expression of Cav2.2 in the SDH and DRGs were not significantly different among the 3 treatment groups. HL-PRF on L₅ DRG reversed the hyperalgesia behavior of NP and reduced the levels of Cav2.2 in the ipsilateral SDH and DRGs in CCI rats. Moreover, the underlying mechanism may be related to the downregulation of CaV2.2 protein levels in both SDH and DRG.

Radioneuromodulation by Dual-Target Irradiation in Pain Crisis From Trigeminal Neuralgia

Background Radioneuromodulation (RNM) can explain the immediate pain relief experienced by a subgroup of patients after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for trigeminal neuralgia (TN). In this study, our main objective was to demonstrate that a minimum of a 50% reduction in TN pain can be achieved consistently in under 72 hours by targeting the affected nerve, the contralateral centromedian nucleus, and parafascicular complex in patients experimenting a prolonged refractory pain crisis. Methodology We treated eight patients experiencing severe TN pain crisis in whom percutaneous procedures had failed or were unwanted with SRS with an intention to procure pain relief in under 72 hours. The affected trigeminal nerve was targeted using a 4-mm collimator with an 80 to 90-Gy dose; an additional target was defined in the mesial portions of the thalamus and irradiated using the 4-mm collimator with a 120 to 140-Gy dose. Results The median duration of TN was 60 months, the median duration of pain crisis was 10.7 weeks despite the best medical treatment, and the mean presenting visual analogue score (VAS) was 10 at the time of treatment. The median follow-up was 135 days (range, 65-210). Twenty-four hours after treatment, two (25%) patients had no pain (VAS 0), three (37.5%) had mild pain (VAS 1 to 3), and three (37.5%) had moderate pain (VAS 4 to 7). Forty-eight hours after treatment, all patients reported pain relief, seven (87.5%) reported >50%, and one (12.5%) patients reported 30% relief. The three-month median VAS score was 3 (range, 0 to 5). At the last follow-up, there were no adverse events to report. Conclusions Dual irradiation to the affected trigeminal nerve and contralateral mesial structures of the thalamus may provide fast pain relief for patients experiencing a prolonged pain crisis from TN, which veers away from the concept that the SRS pain relief effect is generally delayed and holds no place in the management of such patients. Although this is a small series with a limited follow-up duration, no adverse effects were noted. RNM can be defined as the capacity to alter neuronal activity through targeted delivery of a stimulus of radiation at a duration too brief to be explained by the development of a focal lesion. The immediate pain relief and its habitual oscillatory nature of lesser pain recurrence in most patients until enough time elapses for pain stabilization clinically demonstrates that the pain circuitry is altered and remains functional, thus accomplishing a neuromodulation effect even at the face of an apparent doses suspected to be ablative. Further research is needed to understand if this clinical effect is achieved with a suspected sub-ablative dose.

Brain stimulation: a therapeutic approach for the treatment of neurological disorders

Brain stimulation has become one of the most acceptable therapeutic approaches in recent years and a powerful tool in the remedy against neurological diseases. Brain stimulation is achieved through the application of electric currents using non-invasive as well as invasive techniques. Recent technological advancements have evolved into the development of precise devices with capacity to produce well-controlled and effective brain stimulation. Currently, most used non-invasive techniques are repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), whereas the most common invasive technique is deep brain stimulation (DBS). In last decade, application of these brain stimulation techniques has not only exploded but also expanded to wide variety of neurological disorders. Therefore, in the current review, we will provide an overview of the potential of both non-invasive (rTMS and tDCS) and invasive (DBS) brain stimulation techniques in the treatment of such brain diseases.

Neuromodulation for chronic pain

Neuromodulation is an expanding area of pain medicine that incorporates an array of non-invasive, minimally invasive, and surgical electrical therapies. In this Series paper, we focus on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies discussed within the framework of other invasive, minimally invasive, and non-invasive neuromodulation therapies. These therapies include deep brain and motor cortex stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and the non-invasive treatments of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. SCS methods with electrical variables that differ from traditional SCS have been approved. Although methods devoid of paraesthesias (eg, high frequency) should theoretically allow for placebo-controlled trials, few have been done. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that SCS is superior to reoperation or conventional medical management for failed back surgery syndrome, and conflicting evidence as to the superiority of traditional SCS over sham stimulation or between different SCS modalities. Peripheral nerve stimulation technologies have also undergone rapid development and become less invasive, including many that are placed percutaneously. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that peripheral nerve stimulation is effective for neuropathic pain in an extremity, low quality evidence that it is effective for back pain with or without leg pain, and conflicting evidence that it can prevent migraines. In the USA and many areas in Europe, deep brain and motor cortex stimulation are not approved for chronic pain, but are used off-label for refractory cases. Overall, there is mixed evidence supporting brain stimulation, with most sham-controlled trials yielding negative findings. Regarding non-invasive modalities, there is moderate quality evidence that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation does not provide meaningful benefit for chronic pain in general, but conflicting evidence regarding pain relief for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcranial direct current stimulation, there is low-quality evidence supporting its benefit for chronic pain, but conflicting evidence regarding a small treatment effect for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, there is low-quality evidence that it is superior to sham or no treatment for neuropathic pain, but conflicting evidence for non-neuropathic pain. Future research should focus on better evaluating the short-term and long-term effectiveness of all neuromodulation modalities and whether they decrease health-care use, and on refining selection criteria and treatment variables.