Classical, spaced, or accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation of motor cortex for treating neuropathic pain: A 3-arm parallel non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) at high frequency (HF) is an effective treatment of neuropathic pain. The classical HF-rTMS protocol (CHF-rTMS) includes a daily session for one week as an induction phase of treatment followed by more spaced sessions. Another type of protocol without an induction phase and based solely on spaced sessions of HF-rTMS (SHF-rTMS) has also been shown to produce neuropathic pain relief. However, CHF-rTMS and SHF-rTMS of M1 have never been compared regarding their analgesic potential. Another type of rTMS paradigm, called accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (ACC-iTBS), has recently been proposed for the treatment of depression, the other clinical condition for which HF-rTMS is proposed as an effective therapeutic strategy. ACC-iTBS combines a high number of pulses delivered in short sessions grouped into a few days of stimulation. This type of protocol has never been applied to M1 for the treatment of pain.

METHODS/DESIGN

The objective of this single-centre randomized study is to compare the efficacy of three different rTMS protocols for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain: CHF-rTMS, SHF-rTMS, and ACC-iTBS. The CHF-rTMS will consists of 10 stimulation sessions, including 5 daily sessions of 10Hz-rTMS (3,000 pulses per session) over one week, then one session per week for 5 weeks, for a total of 30,000 pulses delivered in 10 stimulation days. The SHF-rTMS protocol will only include 4 sessions of 20Hz-rTMS (1,600 pulses per session), one every 15 days, for a total of 6,400 pulses delivered in 4 stimulation days. The ACC-iTBS protocol will comprise 5 sessions of iTBS (600 pulses per session) completed in half a day for 2 consecutive days, repeated 5 weeks later, for a total of 30,000 pulses delivered in 4 stimulation days. Thus, CHF-rTMS and ACC-iTBS protocols will share a higher total number of TMS pulses (30,000 pulses) compared to SHF-rTMS protocol (6,400 pulses), while CHF-rTMS protocol will include a higher number of stimulation days (10 days) compared to ACC-iTBS and SHF-rTMS protocols (4 days). In all protocols, the M1 target will be defined in the same way and stimulated at the same intensity using a navigated rTMS (nTMS) procedure. The evaluation will be based on clinical outcomes with various scales and questionnaires assessed every week, from two weeks before the 7-week period of therapeutic stimulation until 4 weeks after. Additionally, three sets of neurophysiological outcomes (resting-state electroencephalography (EEG), nTMS-EEG recordings, and short intracortical inhibition measurement with threshold tracking method) will be assessed the week before and after the 7-week period of therapeutic stimulation.

DISCUSSION

This study will make it possible to compare the analgesic efficacy of the CHF-rTMS and SHF-rTMS protocols and to appraise that of the ACC-iTBS protocol for the first time. This study will also make it possible to determine the respective influence of the total number of pulses and days of stimulation delivered to M1 on the extent of pain relief. Thus, if their analgesic efficacy is not inferior to that of CHF-rTMS, SHF-rTMS and especially the new ACC-iTBS protocol could be an optimal compromise of a more easy-to-perform rTMS protocol for the treatment of patients with chronic neuropathic pain.

The Neurophysiological Effects of Theta Burst Stimulation as Measured by Electroencephalography: A Systematic Review

Theta burst stimulation (TBS) is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that can modulate neural activity. The effect of TBS on regions beyond the motor cortex remains unclear. With increased interest in applying TBS to nonmotor regions for research and clinical purposes, these effects must be understood and characterized. We synthesized the electrophysiological effects of a single session of TBS, as indexed by electroencephalography (EEG) and concurrent transcranial magnetic stimulation and EEG, in nonclinical participants. We reviewed 79 studies that administered either continuous TBS or intermittent TBS protocols. Broadly, continuous TBS suppressed and intermittent TBS facilitated evoked response component amplitudes. Response to TBS as measured by spectral power and connectivity was much more variable. Variability increased in the presence of task stimuli. There was a large degree of heterogeneity in the research methodology across studies. Additionally, the effect of individual differences on TBS response has been insufficiently investigated. Future research investigating the effects of TBS as measured by EEG must consider methodological and individual factors that may affect TBS outcomes.

Exploring the use of bimodal transcranial direct current stimulation to enhance movement in individuals with patellofemoral pain-A sham-controlled double blinded pilot study

Introduction

In individuals with patellofemoral pain (PFP), addressing increased knee valgus during weight-bearing activities typically involves strengthening weak hip muscles. However, recent literature highlights the role of altered descending central control in abnormal movements associated with PFP. While transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has demonstrated the capacity to enhance neuroplasticity, its application targeting the corticomotor function of gluteal muscles in PFP remains unexplored. This study aimed to investigate the effects of combining bimodal tDCS with exercise on frontal plane kinematics in individuals with PFP. The hypothesis was that bimodal tDCS, specifically targeting the corticomotor function of the gluteal muscles, would augment the effectiveness of exercise interventions in improving frontal plane kinematics compared to sham stimulation.

Methods

Ten participants with PFP participated in two sessions involving either bimodal tDCS or sham stimulation, concurrently with hip strengthening exercises. Weight-bearing tasks, including single leg squat, single leg landing, single leg hopping, forward step-down, and lateral step-down, were performed and recorded before and after each session. Pain visual analog scale (VAS) scores were also documented. A one-way ANOVA with repeated measures was employed to compare kinematics, while a Friedman test was used to compare VAS across the three conditions (pre-test, post-tDCS, and post-Sham).

Results

We observed no significant differences in trunk lean angle, hip and knee frontal plane projection angles, or dynamic valgus index among the three conditions during the five weight-bearing tasks. VAS scores did not differ across the three conditions.

Discussion and conclusion

A single session of tDCS did not demonstrate immediate efficacy in enhancing frontal plane kinematics or relieving pain in individuals with PFP. Considering observed positive outcomes in other neurological and orthopedic populations with multi-session tDCS applications, suggesting potential cumulative effects, further research is essential to explore the effects of multi-session tDCS on weight-bearing movement and underlying neurophysiology in individuals with PFP.

Non-invasive cortical stimulation for drug-resistant pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neuromodulation techniques are being increasingly used to alleviate pain and enhance quality of life. Non-invasive cortical stimulation was originally intended to predict the efficacy of invasive (neurosurgical) techniques, but has now gained a place as an analgesic procedure in its own right.

RECENT FINDINGS

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): Evidence from 14 randomised, placebo-controlled trials (~750 patients) supports a significant analgesic effect of high-frequency motor cortex rTMS in neuropathic pain. Dorsolateral frontal stimulation has not proven efficacious so far. The posterior operculo-insular cortex is an attractive target but evidence remains insufficient. Short-term efficacy can be achieved with NNT (numbers needed to treat) ~2-3, but long-lasting efficacy remains a challenge.Like rTMS, transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) induces activity changes in distributed brain networks and can influence various aspects of pain. Lower cost relative to rTMS, few safety issues and availability of home-based protocols are practical advantages. The limited quality of many published reports lowers the level of evidence, which will remain uncertain until more prospective controlled studies are available.

SUMMARY

Both rTMS and tDCS act preferentially upon abnormal hyperexcitable states of pain, rather than acute or experimental pain. For both techniques, M1 appears to be the best target for chronic pain relief, and repeated sessions over relatively long periods of time may be required to obtain clinically significant benefits. Patients responsive to tDCS may differ from those improved by rTMS.

Prolonged Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation Can Regulate Sensitivity on Aβ Fibers: An Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy Study

Objective

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) induces analgesic effects in both experimental pain and clinical pain conditions. However, whether rTMS can modulate sensory and pain thresholds on sensory fibers is still unclear. Here, we compared the effects of three rTMS paradigms on sensory and pain thresholds conducted by different sensory fibers (Aβ, Aδ, and C fibers) with sham stimulation and investigate the potential brain activation using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS).

Methods

Forty right-handed healthy subjects were randomly allocated into one of four groups. Each subject received one session rTMS [prolonged continuous theta-burst stimulation (pcTBS), intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS), 10 Hz rTMS or sham]. Current perception threshold (CPT), pain tolerance threshold (PTT), and fNIRS were measured at baseline, immediately after stimulation, and 1 h after stimulation, respectively.

Results

Significant differences between treatments were observed for changes for CPT 2,000 Hz between baseline and 1 h after rTMS (F = 6.551, P < 0.001): pcTBS versus sham (P = 0.004) and pcTBS versus 10 Hz rTMS (P = 0.007). There were significant difference in average HbO μm in the right frontopolar cortex (FPC) [channel 23: P = 0.030 (pcTBS versus sham: P = 0.036)], left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) [channel 7: P = 0.006 (pcTBS versus sham: P = 0.004)], left FPC [channel 17: P = 0.014 (pcTBS versus sham: P = 0.046), channel 22: P = 0.004 (pcTBS versus sham: P = 0.004)] comparing four group in 1 h after stimulation in PTT 2000 Hz (Aβ-fiber).

Conclusion

Prolonged continuous theta-burst stimulation can regulate sensitivity on Aβ fibers. In addition, single-session pcTBS placed on left M1 can increase the excitability of DLPFC and FPC, indicating the interaction between M1 and prefrontal cortex may be a potential mechanism of analgesic effect of rTMS. Studies in patients with central post-stroke pain are required to confirm the potential clinical applications of pcTBS.

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.

Prolonged Continuous Theta Burst Stimulation of the Motor Cortex Modulates Cortical Excitability But not Pain Perception

Over the past decade, theta-burst stimulation (TBS) has become a focus of interest in neurostimulatory research. Compared to conventional repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), TBS produces more robust changes in cortical excitability (CE). There is also some evidence of an analgesic effect of the method. Previously published studies have suggested that different TBS parameters elicit opposite effects of TBS on CE. While intermittent TBS (iTBS) facilitates CE, continuous TBS (cTBS) attenuates it. However, prolonged TBS (pTBS) with twice the number of stimuli produces the opposite effect. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study with healthy subjects (n = 24), we investigated the effects of various pTBS (cTBS, iTBS, and placebo TBS) over the right motor cortex on CE and pain perception. Changes in resting motor thresholds (RMTs) and absolute motor-evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes were assessed before and at two time-points (0–5 min; 40–45 min) after pTBS. Tactile and thermal pain thresholds were measured before and 5 min after application. Compared to the placebo, prolonged cTBS (pcTBS) transiently increased MEP amplitudes, while no significant changes were found after prolonged iTBS. However, the facilitation of CE after pcTBS did not induce a parallel analgesic effect. We confirmed that pcTBS with twice the duration converts the conventional inhibitory effect into a facilitatory one. Despite the short-term boost of CE following pcTBS, a corresponding analgesic effect was not demonstrated. Therefore, the results indicate a more complex regulation of pain, which cannot be explained entirely by the modulation of excitability.

New Developments in Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in Chronic Pain

Purpose of Review

The goal of this review is to present a summary of the recent literature of a non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) to alleviate pain in people with chronic pain syndromes. This article reviews the current evidence for the use of transcranial direct current (tDCS) and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) to improve outcomes in chronic pain. Finally, we introduce the reader to novel stimulation methods that may improve therapeutic outcomes in chronic pain.

Recent Findings

While tDCS is approved for treatment of fibromyalgia in Canada and the European Union, no NIBS method is currently approved for chronic pain in the United States. Increasing sample sizes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) seems the most efficient way to increase confidence in initial promising results. Trends at funding agencies reveal increased interest and support for NIBS such as recent Requests for Application from the National Institutes of Health. NIBS in conjunction with cognitive behavioral therapy and physical therapy may enhance outcomes in chronic pain. Novel stimulation methods, such as transcranial ultrasound stimulation, await rigorous study in chronic pain.

The "virtual lesion" approach to transcranial magnetic stimulation: studying the brain-behavioral relationships in experimental pain

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be used to create a temporary “virtual lesion” (VL) of a target cortical area, disrupting its function and associated behavior. Transcranial magnetic stimulation can therefore test the functional role of specific brain areas. This scoping review aims at investigating the current literature of the “online” TMS-evoked VL approach to studying brain–behavioral relationships during experimental pain in healthy subjects. Ovid-Medline, Embase, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched. Included studies tested different TMS-based VLs of various pain brain areas during continuous experimental pain or when time-locked to a noxious stimulus. Outcome measures assessed different pain measurements. Initial screening resulted in a total of 403 studies, of which 17 studies were included in the review. The VLs were directed to the prefrontal, primary and secondary somatosensory, primary motor, and parietal cortices through single/double/triple/sequence of five-TMS pulses or through repeated TMS during mechanical, electrical contact, radiant heat, or capsaicin-evoked noxious stimulation. Despite a wide variability among the VL protocols, outcome measures, and study designs, a behavioral VL effect (decrease or increase in pain responses) was achieved in the majority of the studies. However, such findings on the relationships between the modified brain activity and the manifested pain characteristics were often mixed. To conclude, TMS–elicited VLs during experimental pain empower our understanding of brain–behavior relationships at specific time points during pain processing. The mixed findings of these relationships call for an obligatory standard of all pain-related TMS protocols for clearly determining the magnitude and direction of TMS-induced behavioral effects.

Neuroplasticity Modifications Following a Lower-Limb Amputation: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although there are studies that have examined brain functional reorganization following upper-limb amputation, understanding of the brain changes that occur in people with lower-limb amputation is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate modifications in the brain following lower-limb amputation.

METHODS

We included case-control studies that evaluate neuroplasticity in the central nervous system using neuroimaging techniques. A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane.

RESULTS

Eleven articles were included (total n = 204 people with unilateral lower-limb amputation). These studies showed an increase in cerebellar gray matter volume in prosthesis users, as well as a decrease in thickness of the premotor cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, temporo-occipital junction, precentral gyrus, visual areas, and somatosensory cortex. Regarding white matter, the trials observed a decrease in the integrity at the corona radiata, the connections between the premotor areas, the fronto-occipital fasciculus and the corpus callosum. In addition, a decreased functional connectivity between cortical and subcortical areas has been described.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower-limb amputation causes changes in several brain structures that may occur in the absence of pain and regardless of prosthesis use. The modifications observed include thinning or loss of gray matter volume, decrease in the integrity of the white matter connections between brain structures and changes in the functional connectivity between cortical and subcortical areas.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Non-invasive Motor Cortex Neuromodulation Reduces Secondary Hyperalgesia and Enhances Activation of the Descending Pain Modulatory Network

Central sensitization is a driving mechanism in many chronic pain patients, and manifests as hyperalgesia and allodynia beyond any apparent injury. Recent studies have demonstrated analgesic effects of motor cortex (M1) stimulation in several chronic pain disorders, yet its neural mechanisms remain uncertain. We evaluated whether anodal M1 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) would mitigate central sensitization as measured by indices of secondary hyperalgesia. We used a capsaicin-heat pain model to elicit secondary mechanical hyperalgesia in 27 healthy subjects. In an assessor and subject-blind randomized, sham-controlled, crossover trial, anodal M1 tDCS decreased the intensity of pinprick hyperalgesia more than cathodal or sham tDCS. To elucidate the mechanism driving analgesia, subjects underwent fMRI of painful mechanical stimuli prior to and following induction of the pain model, after receiving M1 tDCS. We hypothesized that anodal M1 tDCS would enhance engagement of a descending pain modulatory (DPM) network in response to mechanical stimuli. Anodal tDCS normalized the effects of central sensitization on neurophysiological responses to mechanical pain in the medial prefrontal cortex, pregenual anterior cingulate cortex, and periaqueductal gray, important regions in the DPM network. Taken together, these results provide support for the hypothesis that anodal M1-tDCS reduces central sensitization-induced hyperalgesia through the DPM network in humans.

Motor cortex stimulation: a systematic literature-based analysis of effectiveness and case series experience

Background

Aim to quantitatively analyze the clinical effectiveness for motor cortex stimulation (MCS) to refractory pain.

Methods

The literatures were systematically searched in database of Cocharane library, Embase and PubMed, using relevant strategies. Data were extracted from eligible articles and pooled as mean with standard deviation (SD). Comparative analysis was measured by non-parametric t test and linear regression model.

Results

The pooled effect estimate from 12 trials (n = 198) elucidated that MCS shown the positive effect on refractory pain, and the total percentage improvement was 35.2% in post-stroke pain and 46.5% in trigeminal neuropathic pain. There is no statistical differences between stroke involved thalamus or non-thalamus. The improvement of plexus avulsion (29.8%) and phantom pain (34.1%) was similar. The highest improvement rate was seen in post-radicular plexopathy (65.1%) and MCS may aggravate the pain induced by spinal cord injury, confirmed by small sample size. Concurrently, Both the duration of disease (r = 0.233, p = 0.019*) and the time of follow-up (r = 0.196, p = 0.016*) had small predicative value, while age (p = 0.125) had no correlation to post-operative pain relief.

Conclusions

MCS is conducive to the patients with refractory pain. The duration of disease and the time of follow-up can be regarded as predictive factor. Meanwhile, further studies are needed to reveal the mechanism of MCS and to reevaluate the cost-benefit aspect with better-designed clinical trials.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12883-019-1273-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Low-Frequency rTMS of the Primary Motor Area Does Not Modify the Response of the Cerebral Cortex to Phasic Nociceptive Stimuli

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive technique of cortical stimulation. Although the exact mechanism of action is not clearly understood, it has been postulated that rTMS action on pain depends most on stimulation sites and stimulation parameters. Most studies concern high-frequency rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1). High-frequency rTMS over motor cortex seems to induce an analgesic effect while contrasting results were reported after low-frequency rTMS. The aim of the current study was to investigate the effects of 1 Hz rTMS stimulation over the left primary motor cortex on subjective laser pain rating and laser evoked potential (LEP) amplitudes in healthy subjects. Subjects underwent two different sessions (real and sham rTMS) according to a cross-sectional design. In each session, LEPs and laser-pain rating to stimulation of both right and left hand dorsum were collected before 1 Hz rTMS over the left M1 area (baseline), which lasted 20 min. Then, LEPs and laser-pain rating were measured immediately after rTMS (T0), after 20 min from T0 (T0+20), and after 40 min from T0 (T0+40). We could not find any modification of both laser-pain rating and LEP parameters (latencies and amplitudes) following 1 Hz rTMS. Therefore, our results show that the low-frequency rTMS of the M1 area does not change the response of the cerebral cortex to pain.

Progressive Thinning of Visual Motion Area in Lower Limb Amputees

Accumulating evidence has indicated that amputation or deafferentation of a limb induces functional or structural reorganization in the visual areas. However, the extent of the visual areas involved after lower limb amputation remains uncertain. In this investigation, we studied 48 adult patients with unilateral lower limb amputation and 48 matched healthy controls using T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Template-based regions of interest analysis was implemented to detect the changes of cortical thickness in the specific visual areas. Compared with normal controls, amputees exhibited significantly lower thickness in the V5/middle temporal (V5/MT+) visual area, as well as a trend of cortical thinning in the V3d. There was no significant difference in the other visual areas between the two groups. In addition, no significant difference of cortical thickness was found between patients with amputation at different levels. Across all amputees, correlation analyses revealed that the cortical thickness of the V5/MT+ was negatively correlated to the time since amputation. In conclusion, our findings indicate that the amputation of unilateral lower limb could induce changes in the motor-related visual cortex and provide an update on the plasticity of the human brain after limb injury.

Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on recovery of function after spinal cord injury

A major goal of rehabilitation strategies after spinal cord injury (SCI) is to enhance the recovery of function. One possible avenue to achieve this goal is to strengthen the efficacy of the residual neuronal pathways. Noninvasive repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been used in patients with motor disorders as a tool to modulate activity of corticospinal, cortical, and subcortical pathways to promote functional recovery. This article reviews a series of studies published during the last decade that used rTMS in the acute and chronic stages of paraplegia and tetraplegia in humans with complete and incomplete SCI. In the studies, rTMS has been applied over the arm and leg representations of the primary motor cortex to target 3 main consequences of SCI: sensory and motor function impairments, spasticity, and neuropathic pain. Although some studies demonstrated that consecutive sessions of rTMS improve aspects of particular functions, other studies did not show similar effects. We discuss how rTMS parameters and postinjury reorganization in the corticospinal tract, motor cortical, and spinal cord circuits might be critical factors in understanding the advantages and disadvantages of using rTMS in patients with SCI. The available data highlight the limited information on the use of rTMS after SCI and the need to further understand the pathophysiology of neuronal structures affected by rTMS to maximize the potential beneficial effects of this technique in humans with SCI.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)

A group of European experts was commissioned to establish guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) from evidence published up until March 2014, regarding pain, movement disorders, stroke, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, consciousness disorders, tinnitus, depression, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, craving/addiction, and conversion. Despite unavoidable inhomogeneities, there is a sufficient body of evidence to accept with level A (definite efficacy) the analgesic effect of high-frequency (HF) rTMS of the primary motor cortex (M1) contralateral to the pain and the antidepressant effect of HF-rTMS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). A Level B recommendation (probable efficacy) is proposed for the antidepressant effect of low-frequency (LF) rTMS of the right DLPFC, HF-rTMS of the left DLPFC for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, and LF-rTMS of contralesional M1 in chronic motor stroke. The effects of rTMS in a number of indications reach level C (possible efficacy), including LF-rTMS of the left temporoparietal cortex in tinnitus and auditory hallucinations. It remains to determine how to optimize rTMS protocols and techniques to give them relevance in routine clinical practice. In addition, professionals carrying out rTMS protocols should undergo rigorous training to ensure the quality of the technical realization, guarantee the proper care of patients, and maximize the chances of success. Under these conditions, the therapeutic use of rTMS should be able to develop in the coming years.