Postoperative Analgesic Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Randomized Control Trial

Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation in pain and opioid consumption after spine surgery

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has shown promising results in alleviating different types of pain. The present study compares the efficacy of 3 sessions of anodal tDCS applied over primary motor area (M1) or the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) or sham on reducing pain and the total opioid consumption in post-operative spine surgery patients.

MATERIALS

Sixty-seven out of 75 eligible patients for post-operative spine surgery were randomly allocated into one of the three experimental groups. Group A received anodal tDCS applied over M1 cortex, group B over left DLPF cortex (2mA, 20 min) and group C received sham tDCS, all for 3 consecutive postoperative days. Patients were evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and adynamic visual analogue scale (DVAS) at baseline, and on each of the treatment days. The total morphine consumption over the 3 post-operative days was assessed.

RESULTS

Two-way repeated measures ANOVA showed no statistically significant difference in resting VAS between the 3 groups. However, there was significant pain improvement (P< 0.001) in DVAS in both active groups (group A and B) compared to the sham group (group C) in the post-operative period, with no significant difference between the active groups. Morphine consumption was significantly reduced in both active groups compared with the sham group, but there was no difference in consumption between the active groups.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant post-operative reduction in morphine consumption and DVAS scores after three sessions of active tDCS.

SIGNIFICANCE

tDCS is a promising tool for alleviating pain in the field of postoperative spine surgery.

Evidence-Based Guidelines and Secondary Meta-Analysis for the Use of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects.

OBJECTIVE

We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 session of stimulation testing: pain, Parkinson's disease motor function and cognition, stroke motor function and language, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, schizophrenia, and drug addiction.

METHODS

Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective), or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies.

RESULTS

Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A), such as depression, and probably effective (Level B), such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson's disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia, and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases, and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with the largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy).

CONCLUSION

All recommendations listed here are based on current published PubMed-indexed data. Despite high levels of evidence in some conditions, it must be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs.

Multimodal Analgesia in Spine Surgery: An Umbrella Review

OBJECTIVE

In recent years, there has been a growing interest regarding the implementation of multimodal analgesia as an important component of the ideal perioperative patient management. The aim of the current umbrella review was to establish the role of multimodal analgesia in patients undergoing spine surgery during the immediate postoperative period.

METHODS

A systematic review of the pertinent literature was performed. The evaluation was based on a multitude of primary endpoints including the postoperative requirements for patient-controlled analgesia, pain intensity, back-related disability, overall functionality, patient satisfaction, complications, length of hospitalization, and costs.

RESULTS

The results were summarized using a meta-analysis in the presence of quantitative data or in a narrative review, otherwise. There was a large body of high-quality evidence supporting that the implementation of multimodal analgesia improves patient outcome in terms of the intensity of postoperative pain, the requirements for postoperative opioid analgesia, and the opioid-associated side effects. Similarly, limited high-quality evidence supported that multimodal analgesia improved patients' functionality and satisfaction while decreasing the length of hospitalization and overall costs of surgery. However, the results were inconclusive as far as the disability was concerned.

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal analgesia seems to have an essential role for the optimal management of patients undergoing spine surgery. Future research is required to optimize the multimodal analgesia protocols in this group of patients.

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.

Non-invasive brain stimulation modalities for the treatment and prevention of opioid use disorder: a systematic review of the literature

The U.S. is currently facing an unprecedented epidemic of opioid-related deaths. Despite the efficacy of the current treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD), including psychosocial interventions and medication-assisted therapy (MAT), many patients remain treatment-resistant and at high risk for overdose. A potential augmentation strategy includes the use of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and auricular vagus nerve stimulation (aVNS). These approaches may have therapeutic benefits by directly or indirectly modulating the neurocircuitry affected in OUD. In this review, we evaluate the available studies on NIBS in the context of OUD withdrawal and detoxification, maintenance, and cravings, while also considering analgesia and safety concerns. In the context of opioid withdrawal and detoxification, a percutaneous form of aVNS has positive results in open-label trials, but has not yet been tested against sham. No randomized studies have reported on the safety and efficacy of NIBS specifically for maintenance treatment in OUD. TMS and tDCS have demonstrated effects on cravings, although published studies were limited by small sample sizes. NIBS may play a role in reducing exposure to opioids and the risk of developing OUD, as demonstrated by studies using tDCS in an experimental pain condition and TMS in a post-operative setting. Overall, while the preliminary evidence and safety for NIBS in the prevention and treatment of OUD appears promising, further research is needed with larger sample sizes, placebo control, and objective biomarkers as outcome measures before strong conclusions can be drawn.

Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined With Patient-Controlled Intravenous Morphine Analgesia on Analgesic Use and Post-Thoracotomy Pain. A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Sham-Controlled, Proof-of-Concept Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is used for various chronic pain conditions, but experience with tDCS for acute postoperative pain is limited. This study investigated the effect of tDCS vs. sham stimulation on postoperative morphine consumption and pain intensity after thoracotomy.

METHODS

This is a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in lung cancer patients undergoing thoracotomy under general anesthesia. All patients received patient-controlled (PCA) intravenous morphine and intercostal nerve blocks at the end of surgery. The intervention group (a-tDCS, n = 31) received anodal tDCS over the left primary motor cortex (C3-Fp2) for 20 min at 1.2 mA, on five consecutive days; the control group (n = 31) received sham stimulation. Morphine consumption, number of analgesia demands, and pain intensity at rest, with movement and with cough were recorded at the following intervals: immediately before (T1), immediately after intervention (T2), then every hour for 4 h (Т3-Т6), then every 6 h (Т7-Т31) for 5 days. We recorded outcomes on postoperative days 1 and 5 and conducted a phone interview inquiring about chronic pain 1 year later (NCT03005548).

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients enrolled, but tDCS was prematurely stopped in six patients. Fifty-five patients (27 a-tDCS, 28 sham) had three or more tDCS applications and were included in the analysis. Cumulative morphine dose in the first 120 h after surgery was significantly lower in the tDCS [77.00 (54.00-123.00) mg] compared to sham group [112.00 (79.97-173.35) mg, p = 0.043, Cohen's d = 0.42]. On postoperative day 5, maximum visual analog scale (VAS) pain score with cough was significantly lower in the tDCS group [29.00 (20.00-39.00) vs. 44.50 (30.00-61.75) mm, p = 0.018], and pain interference with cough was 80% lower [10.00 (0.00-30.00) vs. 50.00 (0.00-70.00), p = 0.013]. One year after surgery, there was no significant difference between groups with regard to chronic pain and analgesic use.

CONCLUSION

In lung cancer patients undergoing thoracotomy, three to five tDCS sessions significantly reduced cumulative postoperative morphine use, maximum VAS pain scores with cough, and pain interference with cough on postoperative day 5, but there was no obvious long-term benefit from tDCS.

Patient-Controlled Intravenous Morphine Analgesia Combined with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Post-Thoracotomy Pain: A Cost-Effectiveness Study and A Feasibility For Its Future Implementation

This prospective randomized study aims to evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with patient controlled intravenous morphine analgesia (PCA-IV) as part of multimodal analgesia after thoracotomy. Patients assigned to the active treatment group (a-tDCS, n = 27) received tDCS over the left primary motor cortex for five days, whereas patients assigned to the control group (sham-tDCS, n = 28) received sham tDCS stimulations. All patients received postoperative PCA-IV morphine. For cost-effectiveness analysis we used data about total amount of PCA-IV morphine and maximum visual analog pain scale with cough (VASP-C_max). Direct costs of hospitalization were assumed as equal for both groups. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as the incremental cost (RSD or US$) per incremental gain in mm of VASP-C_max reduction. Calculated ICER was 510.87 RSD per VASP-C_max 1 mm reduction. Conversion on USA market (USA data 1.325 US$ for 1 mg of morphine) revealed ICER of 189.08 US$ or 18960.39 RSD/1 VASP-C_max 1 mm reduction. Cost-effectiveness expressed through ICER showed significant reduction of PCA-IV morphine costs in the tDCS group. Further investigation of tDCS benefits with regards to reduction of postoperative pain treatment costs should also include the long-term benefits of reduced morphine use.

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation to Improve the Dysfunction of Descending Pain Modulatory System Related to Opioids in Chronic Non-cancer Pain: An Integrative Review of Neurobiology and Meta-Analysis

Background: Opioid long-term therapy can produce tolerance, opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH), and it induces dysfunction in pain descending pain inhibitory system (DPIS). Objectives: This integrative review with meta-analysis aimed: (i) To discuss the potential mechanisms involved in analgesic tolerance and opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH). (ii) To examine how the opioid can affect the function of DPIS. (ii) To show evidence about the tDCS as an approach to treat acute and chronic pain. (iii) To discuss the effect of tDCS on DPIS and how it can counter-regulate the OIH. (iv) To draw perspectives for the future about the tDCS effects as an approach to improve the dysfunction in the DPIS in chronic non-cancer pain. Methods: Relevant published randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing active (irrespective of the stimulation protocol) to sham tDCS for treating chronic non-cancer pain were identified, and risk of bias was assessed. We searched trials in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane trials databases. tDCS protocols accepted were application in areas of the primary motor cortex (M1), dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), or occipital area. Results: Fifty-nine studies were fully reviewed, and 24 with moderate to the high-quality methodology were included. tDCS improved chronic pain with a moderate effect size [pooled standardized mean difference; -0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.91 to -0.41]. On average, active protocols led to 27.26% less pain at the end of treatment compared to sham [95% CI; 15.89-32.90%]. Protocol varied in terms of anodal or cathodal stimulation, areas of stimulation (M1 and DLPFC the most common), number of sessions (from 5 to 20) and current intensity (from 1 to 2 mA). The time of application was 20 min in 92% of protocols. Conclusion: In comparison with sham stimulation, tDCS demonstrated a superior effect in reducing chronic pain conditions. They give perspectives that the top-down neuromodulator effects of tDCS are a promising approach to improve management in refractory chronic not-cancer related pain and to enhance dysfunctional neuronal circuitries involved in the DPIS and other pain dimensions and improve pain control with a therapeutic opioid-free. However, further studies are needed to determine individualized protocols according to a biopsychosocial perspective.

Effects of Acute and Subchronic Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) on Morphine-Induced Responses in Hotplate Apparatus

Background:

The endogenous opioid system plays a basic role in pain suppression. The opiate analgesia is the most powerful and useful technique for reducing severe pain in many medical conditions. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a neuromodulator technique by which the cerebral cortex is stimulated with a weak and constant electrical current by the painless and non-invasive method.

Materials and Methods:

In this experimental study, we investigated the effect of tDCS on morphine (1.25, 2.5 and 5 mg/kg)-induced pain responses; as we applied left prefrontal anodal stimulation with 0.2 mA intensity and 20 minutes.

Results:

our results revealed that the acute (One-time electrical stimulation 24 hours after the last administration of morphine three days) and subchronic (three times electrical stimulation; one session/day before each administration of morphine three days) left prefrontal anodal tDCS does not alter pain perception induced by different dose of morphine significantly.

Conclusion:

Finally, our data indicated that there is no potentiated effect between acute tDCS or subchronic tDCS and morphine administration with tested parameters significantly.

Transcranial direct current stimulation to prevent and treat surgery-induced opioid dependence: a systematic review

Opioid misuse leading to dependence is a major health issue. Recent studies explored valid alternatives to treat pain in postsurgical settings. This systematic review aims to discuss the role of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in preventing and treating postoperative pain and opioid dependence. PubMed and Embase databases were screened, considering studies testing tDCS effects on pain and opioid consumption in surgical settings and opioid addiction. Eight studies met our inclusion criteria. Results showed a reduction of postoperative pain, opioid consumption and cue-induced craving following cortical stimulation. Despite the limited number of studies, this review shows preliminary encouraging evidence regarding the analgesic role of tDCS. However, future studies are needed to further investigate the application of tDCS in postsurgical settings.

Anatomical Parameters of tDCS to Modulate the Motor System after Stroke: A Review

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation method to modulate the local field potential in neural tissue and consequently, cortical excitability. As tDCS is relatively portable, affordable, and accessible, the applications of tDCS to probe brain-behavior connections have rapidly increased in the last 10 years. One of the most promising applications is the use of tDCS to modulate excitability in the motor cortex after stroke and promote motor recovery. However, the results of clinical studies implementing tDCS to modulate motor excitability have been highly variable, with some studies demonstrating that as many as 50% or more of patients fail to show a response to stimulation. Much effort has therefore been dedicated to understand the sources of variability affecting tDCS efficacy. Possible suspects include the placement of the electrodes, task parameters during stimulation, dosing (current amplitude, duration of stimulation, frequency of stimulation), individual states (e.g., anxiety, motivation, attention), and more. In this review, we first briefly review potential sources of variability specific to stroke motor recovery following tDCS. We then examine how the anatomical variability in tDCS placement [e.g., neural target(s) and montages employed] may alter the neuromodulatory effects that tDCS exerts on the post-stroke motor system.

Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)

A group of European experts was commissioned by the European Chapter of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology to gather knowledge about the state of the art of the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) from studies published up until September 2016, regarding pain, Parkinson's disease, other movement disorders, motor stroke, poststroke aphasia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, consciousness disorders, Alzheimer's disease, tinnitus, depression, schizophrenia, and craving/addiction. The evidence-based analysis included only studies based on repeated tDCS sessions with sham tDCS control procedure; 25 patients or more having received active treatment was required for Class I, while a lower number of 10-24 patients was accepted for Class II studies. Current evidence does not allow making any recommendation of Level A (definite efficacy) for any indication. Level B recommendation (probable efficacy) is proposed for: (i) anodal tDCS of the left primary motor cortex (M1) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in fibromyalgia; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in major depressive episode without drug resistance; (iii) anodal tDCS of the right DLPFC (with left DLPFC cathode) in addiction/craving. Level C recommendation (possible efficacy) is proposed for anodal tDCS of the left M1 (or contralateral to pain side, with right orbitofrontal cathode) in chronic lower limb neuropathic pain secondary to spinal cord lesion. Conversely, Level B recommendation (probable inefficacy) is conferred on the absence of clinical effects of: (i) anodal tDCS of the left temporal cortex (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in tinnitus; (ii) anodal tDCS of the left DLPFC (with right orbitofrontal cathode) in drug-resistant major depressive episode. It remains to be clarified whether the probable or possible therapeutic effects of tDCS are clinically meaningful and how to optimally perform tDCS in a therapeutic setting. In addition, the easy management and low cost of tDCS devices allow at home use by the patient, but this might raise ethical and legal concerns with regard to potential misuse or overuse. We must be careful to avoid inappropriate applications of this technique by ensuring rigorous training of the professionals and education of the patients.

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation for chronic pain in the elderly: a pilot study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive neuromodulatory technique that can affect human pain perception. The present open-label, single-arm study investigated whether primary motor cortex anodal tDCS treatment reduces chronic foot pain intensity and improves depression and pain-related anxiety symptoms in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis.

METHODS

Ten patients with symptomatic treatment-resistant plantar fasciitis were enrolled in the study. The treatment consisted of anodal tDCS over the motor area of the leg contralateral to the symptomatic foot for 20 min, at 2 mA for 5 consecutive days. Pre-tDCS (T0), post-tDCS (T1), 1 week (T2), and 4 weeks (T3) post-treatment assessments were conducted consisting of the Visual Analog Scale for pain intensity, the Foot Function Index (FFI), the Pain Anxiety Symptom Scale (PASS-20), and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HDRS-17 items).

RESULTS

Anodal tDCS treatment induced a significant improvement in pain intensity; FFI and PASS scores that were maintained up to 4 weeks post-treatment. In addition, patients reported taking fewer pain medication tablets following the treatments.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that anodal tDCS may be a viable treatment to control pain and psychological comorbidity in elderly patients with treatment-resistant foot pain.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2013

This paper is the thirty-sixth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2013 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia; stress and social status; tolerance and dependence; learning and memory; eating and drinking; alcohol and drugs of abuse; sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology; mental illness and mood; seizures and neurologic disorders; electrical-related activity and neurophysiology; general activity and locomotion; gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions; cardiovascular responses; respiration and thermoregulation; and immunological responses.

Patient-conducted anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex alleviates pain in trigeminal neuralgia

Background

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) of the primary motor cortex has been shown to modulate pain and trigeminal nociceptive processing.

Methods

Ten patients with classical trigeminal neuralgia (TN) were stimulated daily for 20 minutes over two weeks using anodal (1 mA) or sham tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1) in a randomized double-blind cross-over design. Primary outcome variable was pain intensity on a verbal rating scale (VRS 0–10). VRS and attack frequency were assessed for one month before, during and after tDCS. The impact on trigeminal pain processing was assessed with pain-related evoked potentials (PREP) and the nociceptive blink reflex (nBR) following electrical stimulation on both sides of the forehead before and after tDCS.

Results

Anodal tDCS reduced pain intensity significantly after two weeks of treatment. The attack frequency reduction was not significant. PREP showed an increased N2 latency and decreased peak-to-peak amplitude after anodal tDCS. No severe adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

Anodal tDCS over two weeks ameliorates intensity of pain in TN. It may become a valuable treatment option for patients unresponsive to conventional treatment.