Chronic motor cortex stimulation for phantom limb pain: correlations between pain relief and functional imaging studies

Rates and Predictors of Pain Reduction With Intracranial Stimulation for Intractable Pain Disorders

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Intracranial modulation paradigms, namely deep brain stimulation (DBS) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS), have been used to treat intractable pain disorders. However, treatment efficacy remains heterogeneous, and factors associated with pain reduction are not completely understood.

METHODS

We performed an individual patient review of pain outcomes (visual analog scale, quality-of-life measures, complications, pulse generator implant rate, cessation of stimulation) after implantation of DBS or MCS devices. We evaluated 663 patients from 36 study groups and stratified outcomes by pain etiology and implantation targets.

RESULTS

Included studies comprised primarily retrospective cohort studies. MCS patients had a similar externalized trial success rate compared with DBS patients (86% vs 81%; P = .16), whereas patients with peripheral pain had a higher trial success rate compared with patients with central pain (88% vs 79%; P = .004). Complication rates were similar for MCS and DBS patients (12% vs 15%; P = .79). Patients with peripheral pain had lower likelihood of device cessation compared with those with central pain (5.7% vs 10%; P = .03). Of all implanted patients, mean pain reduction at last follow-up was 45.8% (95% CI: 40.3-51.2) with a 31.2% (95% CI: 12.4-50.1) improvement in quality of life. No difference was seen between MCS patients (43.8%; 95% CI: 36.7-58.2) and DBS patients (48.6%; 95% CI: 39.2-58) or central (41.5%; 95% CI: 34.8-48.2) and peripheral (46.7%; 95% CI: 38.9-54.5) etiologies. Multivariate analysis identified the anterior cingulate cortex target to be associated with worse pain reduction, while postherpetic neuralgia was a positive prognostic factor.

CONCLUSION

Both DBS and MCS have similar efficacy and complication rates in the treatment of intractable pain. Patients with central pain disorders tended to have lower trial success and higher rates of device cessation. Additional prognostic factors include anterior cingulate cortex targeting and postherpetic neuralgia diagnosis. These findings underscore intracranial neurostimulation as an important modality for treatment of intractable pain disorders.

Themes in neuronavigation research: A machine learning topic analysis

Objective

To understand trends in neuronavigation we employed machine learning methods to perform a broad literature review which would be impractical by manual inspection.

Methods

PubMed was queried for articles with "Neuronavigation" in any field from inception-2020. Articles were designated neuronavigation-focused (NF) if "Neuronavigation" was a major MeSH. The latent dirichlet allocation topic modeling technique was used to identify themes of NF research.

Results

There were 3896 articles of which 1727 (44%) were designated as NF. Between 1999-2009 and 2010-2020, the number of NF publications experienced 80% growth. Between 2009-2014 and 2015-2020, there was a 0.3% decline. Eleven themes covered 1367 (86%) NF articles. "Resection of Eloquent Lesions" comprised the highest number of articles (243), followed by "Accuracy and Registration" (242), "Patient Outcomes" (156), "Stimulation and Mapping" (126), "Planning and Visualization" (123), "Intraoperative Tools" (104), "Placement of Ventricular Catheters" (86), "Spine Surgery" (85), "New Systems" (80), "Guided Biopsies" (61), and "Surgical Approach" (61). All topics except for "Planning and Visualization", "Intraoperative Tools", and "New Systems" exhibited a monotonic positive trend. When analyzing subcategories, there were a greater number of clinical assessments or usage of existing neuronavigation systems (77%) rather than modification or development of new apparatuses (18%).

Conclusion

NF research appears to focus on the clinical assessment of neuronavigation and to a lesser extent on the development of new systems. Although neuronavigation has made significant strides, NF research output appears to have plateaued in the last decade.

Deep brain stimulation for phantom limb pain

Phantom limb pain is a rare cause of chronic pain in children but it is associated with extremely refractory pain and disability. The reason for limb amputation is often due to treatment for cancer or trauma and it has a lower incidence compared to adults. The mechanism of why phantom pain exists remains uncertain and may be a result of cortical reorganisation as well as ectopic peripheral input. Treatment is aimed at reducing both symptoms as well as managing pain related disability and functional restoration. Neuromodulatory approaches using deep brain stimulation for phantom limb pain is reserved for only the most refractory cases. The targets for brain stimulation include the thalamic nuclei and motor cortex. Novel targets such as the anterior cingulate cortex remain experimental as cases of serious adverse effects such as seziures have limited their widespread uptake. A multidisciplinary approach is crucial to successful rehabilitation using a biopsychosocial pain management approach.

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

BACKGROUND

The treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) continues to be controversial as well as an economic health issue and a challenge to health care. Neurosurgery can offer different methods of neuromodulation that may improve patients' condition, including deep brain stimulation (DBS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), and posterior insula stimulation (PIS). There is no consensus of opinion as to the final effects of these procedures, which stimulation parameters to select, the correct timing, or how to select the patients who will best benefit from these procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence available regarding these 4 procedures and the management of NP.

METHODS

We conducted a PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library database search from 1990 to 2020. The strategy of the search concentrated on the following keywords: "neuropathic pain," "chronic pain," "deep brain stimulation," "motor cortex stimulation," "spinal cord stimulation," "insula stimulation," and "neuromodulation." Studies that provided data regarding the immediate and long-term effectiveness of the procedure, anatomic stimulation target, percentage of pain control, and cause of the NP were included.

RESULTS

The most frequent causes of NP were phantom limb pain and central poststroke pain in the MCS group; central poststroke pain, phantom limb pain, and spinal cord injury (SCI) in the DBS group; and complex regional pain syndrome and failed back surgery syndrome in the SCS group. Pain improvement varied between 35% and 80% in the MCS group and 50% and 60% in the DBS group. In the SCS group, successful rates varied between 38% and 89%.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights the literature supporting SCS, DBS, MCS, and PIS methods for the treatment of NP. We found consistent evidence supporting MCS, DBS, and SCS as possible treatments for NP; however, we were not able to define which procedure should be indicated for each cause. Furthermore, we did not find enough evidence to justify the routine use of PIS. We conclude that unanswered points need to be discussed in this controversial field and emphasize that new research must be developed to treat patients with NP, to improve their quality of life.

Chronic subdural cortical stimulation for phantom limb pain: report of a series of two cases

Phantom limb pain is a complex, incompletely understood pain syndrome that is characterized by chronic painful paresthesias in a previous amputated body part. Limited treatment modalities exist that provide meaningful relief, including pharmacological treatments and spinal cord stimulation that are rarely successful for refractory cases. Here, we describe our two-patient cohort with recalcitrant upper extremity phantom limb pain treated with chronic subdural cortical stimulation. The patient with evidence of cortical reorganization and almost 60 years of debilitating phantom limb pain experienced sustained analgesic relief at a follow-up period of 6 months. The second patient became tolerant to the stimulation and his pain returned to baseline at a 1-month follow-up. Our unique case series report adds to the growing body of literature suggesting critical appraisal before widespread implementation of cortical stimulation for phantom limb pain can be considered.

Brain and spinal stimulation therapies for phantom limb pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although many treatments exist for phantom limb pain (PLP), the evidence supporting them is limited and there are no guidelines for PLP management. Brain and spinal cord neurostimulation therapies are targeted at patients with chronic PLP but have yet to be systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVE

To determine which types of brain and spinal stimulation therapy appear to be the best for treating chronic PLP.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews of effectiveness and epidemiology studies, and a survey of NHS practice.

POPULATION

All patients with PLP.

INTERVENTIONS

Invasive interventions - deep brain stimulation (DBS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. Non-invasive interventions - repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Phantom limb pain and quality of life.

DATA SOURCES

Twelve databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) and clinical trial registries were searched in May 2017, with no date limits applied.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full texts. Data extraction and quality assessments were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by another. A questionnaire was distributed to clinicians via established e-mail lists of two relevant clinical societies. All results were presented narratively with accompanying tables.

RESULTS

Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 30 non-comparative group studies, 18 case reports and 21 epidemiology studies were included. Results from a good-quality RCT suggested short-term benefits of rTMS in reducing PLP, but not in reducing anxiety or depression. Small randomised trials of tDCS suggested the possibility of modest, short-term reductions in PLP. No RCTs of invasive therapies were identified. Results from small, non-comparative group studies suggested that, although many patients benefited from short-term pain reduction, far fewer maintained their benefits. Most studies had important methodological or reporting limitations and few studies reported quality-of-life data. The evidence on prognostic factors for the development of chronic PLP from the longitudinal studies also had important limitations. The results from these studies suggested that pre-amputation pain and early PLP intensity are good predictors of chronic PLP. Results from the cross-sectional studies suggested that the proportion of patients with severe chronic PLP is between around 30% and 40% of the chronic PLP population, and that around one-quarter of chronic PLP patients find their PLP to be either moderately or severely limiting or bothersome. There were 37 responses to the questionnaire distributed to clinicians. SCS and DRG stimulation are frequently used in the NHS but the prevalence of use of DBS and MCS was low. Most responders considered SCS and DRG stimulation to be at least sometimes effective. Neurosurgeons had mixed views on DBS, but most considered MCS to rarely be effective. Most clinicians thought that a randomised trial design could be successfully used to study neurostimulation therapies.

LIMITATION

There was a lack of robust research studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently available studies of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neurostimulation treatments do not provide robust, reliable results. Therefore, it is uncertain which treatments are best for chronic PLP.

FUTURE WORK

Randomised crossover trials, randomised N-of-1 trials and prospective registry trials are viable study designs for future research.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017065387.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Pain Management in Athletes With Impairment: A Narrative Review of Management Strategies

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature related to different treatment strategies for the general population of individuals with amputation, spinal cord injury, and cerebral palsy, as well as how this may impact pain management in a correlated athlete population.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive literature search was performed linking pain with terms related to different impairment types.

MAIN RESULTS

There is a paucity in the literature relating to treatment of pain in athletes with impairment; however, it is possible that the treatment strategies used in the general population of individuals with impairment may be translated to the athlete population. There are a wide variety of treatment options including both pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments which may be applicable in the athlete.

CONCLUSIONS

It is the role of the physician to determine which strategy of the possible treatment options will best facilitate the management of pain in the individual athlete in a sport-specific setting.

Motor Cortex Stimulation for Deafferentation Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Since the early 1990s, motor cortex stimulation (MCS) has been a unique treatment modality for patients with drug-resistant deafferentation pain. While underpowered studies and case reports have limited definitive, data-driven analysis of MCS in the past, recent research has brought new clarity to the MCS literature and has helped identify appropriate indications for MCS and its long-term efficacy.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review, new research in MCS, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are analyzed and compared with historical landmark papers. Currently, MCS is effective in providing relief to 40-64% of patients, with decreasing analgesic effect over time addressed by altering stimulation settings. rTMS and tDCS, two historic, non-invasive stimulation techniques, are providing new alternatives for the treatment of deafferentation pain, with rTMS finding utility in identifying MCS responders. Future advances in electrode arrays, neuro-navigation, and high-definition tDCS hold promise in providing pain relief to growing numbers of patients. Deafferentation pain is severe, disabling, and remains a challenge for patients and providers alike. Over the last several years, the MCS literature has been revitalized with studies and meta-analyses demonstrating MCS effectiveness and providing guidance in identifying responders. At the same time, rTMS and tDCS, two time-honored non-invasive stimulation techniques, are finding new utility in managing deafferentation pain and identifying good MCS candidates. As the number of potential therapies grow, the clinician's role is shifting to personalizing treatment to the unique pain of each patient. With new treatment modalities, this form of personalized medicine is more possible than ever before.

A review of the management of phantom limb pain: challenges and solutions

BACKGROUND

Phantom limb pain (PLP) occurs in 50% and 80% of amputees. Although it is often classified as a neuropathic pain, few of the large-scale trials of treatments for neuropathic pain included sufficient numbers of PLP sufferers to have confidence that they are effective in this condition. Many therapies have been administered to amputees with PLP over the years; however, as of yet, there appears to be no first-line treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To comprehensively review the literature on treatment modalities for PLP and to identify the challenges currently faced by clinicians dealing with this pain.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, Cochrane and psycINFO databases were searched using "Phantom limb" initially as a MeSH term to identify treatments that had been tried. Then, a secondary search combining phantom limb with each treatment was performed to find papers specific to each therapy. Each paper was assessed for its research strength using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight therapies were identified. Overall, the quality of evidence was low. There was one high-quality study which used repetitive transcutaneous magnetic stimulation and found a statistical reduction in pain at day 15 but no difference at day 30. Significant results from single studies of moderate level quality were available for gabapentin, ketamine and morphine; however, there was a risk of bias in these papers. Mirror therapy and associated techniques were assessed through two systematic reviews, which conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support their use.

CONCLUSION

No decisions can be made for the first-line management of PLP, as the level of evidence is too low. Robust studies on homogeneous populations, an understanding of what amputees consider a meaningful reduction in PLP and agreement of whether pain intensity is the legitimate therapeutic target are urgently required.

Clinical Significance of Invasive Motor Cortex Stimulation for Trigeminal Facial Neuropathic Pain Syndromes

BACKGROUND:

Invasive neuromodulation of the cortical surface for various chronic pain syndromes has been performed for >20 years. The significance of motor cortex stimulation (MCS) in chronic trigeminal neuropathic pain (TNP) syndromes remains unclear. Different techniques are performed worldwide in regard to operative procedure, stimulation parameters, test trials, and implanted materials.

OBJECTIVE:

To present the clinical experiences of a single center with MCS, surgical approach, complications, and follow-up as a prospective, noncontrolled clinical trial.

METHODS:

The implantation of epidural leads over the motor cortex was performed via a burr hole technique with neuronavigation and intraoperative neurostimulation. Special focus was placed on a standardized test trial with an external stimulation device and the implementation of a double-blinded or placebo test phase to identify false-positive responders.

RESULTS:

A total of 36 patients with TNP were operated on, and MCS was performed. In 26 of the 36 patients (72%), a significant pain reduction from a mean of 8.11 to 4.58 (on the visual analog scale) during the test trial was achieved (P <.05). Six patients were identified as false-positive responders (17%). At the last available follow-up of 26 patients (mean, 5.6 years), active MCS led to a significant pain reduction compared with the preoperative pain ratings (mean visual analog scale score, 5.01; P <.05).

CONCLUSION:

MCS is an additional therapeutic option for patients with refractory chronic TNP, and significant long-term pain suppression can be achieved. Placebo or double-blinded testing is mandatory.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: stimulation of the intracranial and extracranial space and head for chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has identified a need for evaluation and analysis of the practice of neurostimulation of the brain and extracranial nerves of the head to treat chronic pain.

METHODS

The INS board of directors chose an expert panel, the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC), to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature, current research, and clinical experience and to give guidance for the appropriate use of these methods. The literature searches involved key word searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar dated 1970-2013, which were graded and evaluated by the authors.

RESULTS

The NACC found that evidence supports extracranial stimulation for facial pain, migraine, and scalp pain but is limited for intracranial neuromodulation. High cervical spinal cord stimulation is an evolving option for facial pain. Intracranial neurostimulation may be an excellent option to treat diseases of the nervous system, such as tremor and Parkinson's disease, and in the future, potentially Alzheimer's disease and traumatic brain injury, but current use of intracranial stimulation for pain should be seen as investigational.

CONCLUSIONS

The NACC concludes that extracranial nerve stimulation should be considered in the algorithmic treatment of migraine and other disorders of the head. We should strive to perfect targets outside the cranium when treating pain, if at all possible.

Phantom limb pain: A review of evidence-based treatment options

Phantom limb pain (PLP) is not uncommon after amputation. PLP is described as a painful sensation perceived in the missing limb. Despite of its complicated pathophysiology, high prevalence of PLP has been associated with poor health-related quality of life, low daily activity and short walking distances. A prompt and effective management of PLP is essential in caring for the amputee population. Current treatments including physical therapy, psychotherapy, medications, and interventions have been used with limited success. In this review, we provided an updated and evidence-based review of treatment options for PLP.

Supraspinal stimulation for treatment of refractory pain

Refractory pain syndromes often have far reaching effects and are quite a challenge for primary care providers and specialists alike to treat. With the help of site-specific neuromodulation and appropriate patient selection these difficult to treat pain syndromes may be managed. In this article, we focus on supraspinal stimulation (SSS) for treatment of intractable pain and discuss off-label uses of deep brain stimulation (DBS) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS) in context to emerging indications in neuromodulation. Consideration for neuromodulatory treatment begins with rigorous patient selection based on exhaustive conservative management, elimination of secondary gains, and a proper psychology evaluation. Trial stimulation prior to DBS is nearly always performed while trial stimulation prior to MCS surgery is symptom dependent. Overall, a review of the literature demonstrates that DBS should be considered for refractory conditions including nociceptive/neuropathic pain, phantom limb pain, and chronic cluster headache (CCH). MCS should be considered primarily for trigeminal neuropathic pain (TNP) and central pain. DBS outcome studies for post-stroke pain as well as MCS studies for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) show more modest results and are also discussed in detail.

Postamputation pain: epidemiology, mechanisms, and treatment

Postamputation pain (PAP) is highly prevalent after limb amputation but remains an extremely challenging pain condition to treat. A large part of its intractability stems from the myriad pathophysiological mechanisms. A state-of-art understanding of the pathophysiologic basis underlying postamputation phenomena can be broadly categorized in terms of supraspinal, spinal, and peripheral mechanisms. Supraspinal mechanisms involve somatosensory cortical reorganization of the area representing the deafferentated limb and are predominant in phantom limb pain and phantom sensations. Spinal reorganization in the dorsal horn occurs after deafferentataion from a peripheral nerve injury. Peripherally, axonal nerve damage initiates inflammation, regenerative sprouting, and increased "ectopic" afferent input which is thought by many to be the predominant mechanism involved in residual limb pain or neuroma pain, but may also contribute to phantom phenomena. To optimize treatment outcomes, therapy should be individually tailored and mechanism based. Treatment modalities include injection therapy, pharmacotherapy, complementary and alternative therapy, surgical therapy, and interventions aimed at prevention. Unfortunately, there is a lack of high quality clinical trials to support most of these treatments. Most of the randomized controlled trials in PAP have evaluated medications, with a trend for short-term Efficacy noted for ketamine and opioids. Evidence for peripheral injection therapy with botulinum toxin and pulsed radiofrequency for residual limb pain is limited to very small trials and case series. Mirror therapy is a safe and cost-effective alternative treatment modality for PAP. Neuromodulation using implanted motor cortex stimulation has shown a trend toward effectiveness for refractory phantom limb pain, though the evidence is largely anecdotal. Studies that aim to prevent PA P using epidural and perineural catheters have yielded inconsistent results, though there may be some benefit for epidural prevention when the infusions are started more than 24 hours preoperatively and compared with nonoptimized alternatives. Further investigation into the mechanisms responsible for and the factors associated with the development of PAP is needed to provide an evidence-based foundation to guide current and future treatment approaches.

Motor cortex stimulation activates the incertothalamic pathway in an animal model of spinal cord injury

We have shown previously that electrical stimulation of the motor cortex reduces spontaneous painlike behaviors in animals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Because SCI pain behaviors are associated with abnormal inhibition in the inhibitory nucleus zona incerta (ZI) and because inactivation of the ZI blocks motor cortex stimulation (MCS) effects, we hypothesized that the antinociceptive effects of MCS are due to enhanced inhibitory inputs from ZI to the posterior thalamus (Po)-an area heavily implicated in nociceptive processing. To test this hypothesis, we used a rodent model of SCI pain and performed in vivo extracellular electrophysiological recordings in single well-isolated neurons in anesthetized rats. We recorded spontaneous activity in ZI and Po from 48 rats before, during, and after MCS (50 μA, 50 Hz; 300-ms pulses). We found that MCS enhanced spontaneous activity in 35% of ZI neurons and suppressed spontaneous activity in 58% of Po neurons. The majority of MCS-enhanced ZI neurons (81%) were located in the ventrorateral subdivision of ZI-the area containing Po-projecting ZI neurons. In addition, we found that inactivation of ZI using muscimol (GABAA receptor agonist) blocked the effects of MCS in 73% of Po neurons. Although we cannot eliminate the possibility that muscimol spread to areas adjacent to ZI, these findings support our hypothesis and suggest that MCS produces antinociception by activating the incertothalamic pathway.

PERSPECTIVE

This article describes a novel brain circuit that can be manipulated, in rats, to produce antinociception. These results have the potential to significantly impact the standard of care currently in place for the treatment of patients with intractable pain.

Motor cortex stimulation for facial chronic neuropathic pain: A review of the literature

Background:

Facial chronic neuropathic pain (FCNP) is a disabling clinical entity, its incidence is increasing within the chronic pain population. There is indication for neuromodulation when conservative treatment fails. Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) has emerged as an alternative in the advanced management of these patients. The aim of this work is to review the worldwide literature on MCS for FCNP.

Methods:

A PubMed search from 1990 to 2012 was conducted using established MeSH words. A total of 126 relevant articles on MCS focused on chronic pain were selected and analysed. Series of cases were divided in (1) series focused on MCS for FCNP, and (2) MCS series of FCNP mixed with other chronic pain entities.

Results:

A total of 118 patients have been trialed for MCS for FCNP, 100 (84.7%) pursued permanent implantation of the system, and 84% of them had good pain control at the end of the study. Male: female ratio was about 1:2 in the whole group of studies; mean age was 58 years (range, 28–83), and mean pain duration was 7 years (range, 0.6–25). Four randomized controlled studies have been reported, all of them not focused on MCS for FCNP. The most common complication was seizure followed by wound infection. Preoperative evaluation, surgical techniques, and final settings varied among the series.

Conclusion:

MCS for FNCP is a safe and efficacious treatment option when previous managements have failed; however, there is still lack of strong evidence (larger randomized controlled multicentre studies) that MCS can be offered in a regular basis to FNCP patients.

Chronic pain following spinal cord injury

Most patients with insults to the spinal cord or central nervous system suffer from excruciating, unrelenting, chronic pain that is largely resistant to treatment. This condition affects a large percentage of spinal cord injury patients, and numerous patients with multiple sclerosis, stroke and other conditions. Despite the recent advances in basic science and clinical research the pathophysiological mechanisms of pain following spinal cord injury remain unknown. Here we describe a novel mechanism of loss of inhibition within the thalamus that may predispose for the development of this chronic pain and discuss a potential treatment that may restore inhibition and ameliorate pain.

Motor cortex stimulation reduces hyperalgesia in an animal model of central pain

Electrical stimulation of the primary motor cortex has been used since 1991 to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Since its inception, motor cortex stimulation (MCS) treatment has had varied clinical outcomes. Until this point, there has not been a systematic study of the stimulation parameters that most effectively treat chronic pain, or of the mechanisms by which MCS relieves pain. Here, using a rodent model of central pain, we perform a systematic study of stimulation parameters used for MCS and investigate the mechanisms by which MCS reduces hyperalgesia. Specifically, we study the role of the inhibitory nucleus zona incerta (ZI) in mediating the analgesic effects of MCS. In animals with mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia, we find that stimulation at 50 μA, 50 Hz, and 300 μs square pulses for 30 minutes is sufficient to reverse mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia. We also find that stimulation of the ZI mimics the effects of MCS and that reversible inactivation of ZI blocks the effects of MCS. These findings suggest that the reduction of hyperalgesia may be due to MCS effects on ZI. In an animal model of central pain syndrome, motor cortex stimulation reduces hyperalgesia by activating zona incerta and therefore restoring inhibition in the thalamus.

Motor cortex stimulation: functional magnetic resonance imaging–localized treatment for three sources of intractable facial pain

Neuropathic facial pain can be a debilitating condition characterized by stabbing, burning, dysesthetic sensation. With a large range of causes and types, including deafferentation, postherpetic, atypical, and idiopathic, both medicine and neurosurgery have struggled to find effective treatments that address this broad spectrum of facial pain. The authors report the use of motor cortex stimulation to alleviate 3 distinct conditions associated with intractable facial pain: trigeminal deafferentation pain following rhizotomy, deafferentation pain secondary to meningioma, and postherpetic neuralgia. Functional MR imaging was used to localize facial areas on the precentral gyrus prior to surgery. All 3 patients experienced long-lasting complete or near-complete resolution of pain following electrode implantation. Efficacy in pain reduction was achieved through variation of stimulation settings over the course of treatment, and it was assessed using the visual analog scale and narrative report. Surgical complications included moderate postsurgical incisional pain, transient cerebral edema, and intraoperative seizure. The authors' results affirm the efficacy and broaden the application of motor cortex stimulation to several forms of intractable facial pain.

Efficacy and safety of motor cortex stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain: critical review of the literature

OBJECT

The authors systematically reviewed the published literature to evaluate the efficacy of and adverse effects after motor cortex stimulation (MCS) for chronic neuropathic pain.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed database (1991-2006) using the key words "motor cortex," "stimulation," and "pain" yielded 244 articles. Only original nonduplicated articles were selected for further analysis; 14 studies were identified for critical review. All were series of cases and none was controlled. The outcomes in 210 patients were assessed and expressed as the percentage of patients that improved with the procedure. Results A good response to MCS (pain relief > or = 40-50%) was observed in approximately 55% of patients who underwent surgery and in 45% of the 152 patients with a postoperative follow-up > or = 1 year. Visual analog scale scores were provided in 76 patients, revealing an average 57% improvement in the 41 responders. A good response was achieved in 54% of the 117 patients with central pain and 68% of the 44 patients with trigeminal neuropathic pain. Adverse effects were reported in 10 studies, including 157 patients. Infections (5.7%) and hardware-related problems (5.1%) were relatively common complications. Seizures occurred in 19 patients (12%) in the early postoperative period, but no chronic epilepsy was reported. Conclusions The results of the authors' review of the literature suggest that MCS is safe and effective in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Results must be considered with caution, however, as none of the trials were blinded or controlled. Studies with a better design are mandatory to confirm the efficacy of MCS for chronic neuropathic pain.

Motor cortex stimulation in patients with Parkinson disease: 12-month follow-up in 4 patients

OBJECT

Since the initial 1991 report by Tsubokawa et al., stimulation of the M1 region of cortex has been used to treat chronic pain conditions and a variety of movement disorders.

METHODS

A Medline search of the literature published between 1991 and the beginning of 2007 revealed 459 cases in which motor cortex stimulation (MCS) was used. Of these, 72 were related to a movement disorder. More recently, up to 16 patients specifically with Parkinson disease were treated with MCS, and a variety of results were reported. In this report the authors describe 4 patients who were treated with extradural MCS.

RESULTS

Although there were benefits seen within the first 6 months in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III scores (decreased by 60%), tremor was only modestly managed with MCS in this group, and most benefits seen initially were lost by the end of 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there have been some positive findings using MCS for Parkinson disease, a larger study may be needed to better determine if it should be pursued as an alternative surgical treatment to DBS.

Efficacy of motor cortex stimulation in the treatment of neuropathic pain: a randomized double-blind trial

Object

In this study the authors used a double-blind protocol to assess the efficacy of motor cortex stimulation (MCS) for treating neuropathic pain.

Methods

Eleven patients with unilateral neuropathic pain (visual analog scale [VAS] score 8–10) of different origins and topography were selected for MCS. A 20-contact grid was implanted through a craniotomy centered over the motor cortex contralateral to the painful area. The motor cortex strip was identified using neuroimages, somatosensory evoked potentials, acute electrical stimulation, and corticocortical evoked potentials. Subacute therapeutic stimulation trials allowed the authors to determine the most efficient pair of contacts to use for long-term MCS. The grid was replaced with a 4-contact electrode connected to an internalized stimulator. Bipolar stimulation at a 40-Hz frequency, 90-μsec pulse width, amplitude 2–7 V, and 1 hour in “ON” and 4 hours in “OFF” mode was used. Pain was evaluated using the VAS, Bourhis, and McGill pain scales applied each month for 1 year. At Day 60 or 90, the stimulators were turned to OFF mode for 30 days in a randomized, double-blind fashion. The statistical tool used was the Wilcoxon test.

Results

Three patients did not report improvement in the subacute trial and were excluded from long-term MCS; the remaining patients underwent long-term stimulation. Significant improvement of pain was induced by MCS (p < 0.01); this persisted during the follow-up period. Turning stimulation to OFF mode increased pain significantly (p < 0.05). Improvement at 1 year was ≥ 40% (40–86%) in all cases.

Conclusions

Motor cortex stimulation is an efficient treatment for neuropathic pain, according to an evaluation facilitated by a double-blind maneuver. Subacute stimulation trials are recommended to determine the optimum motor cortex area to be stimulated and to identify nonresponders.

Motor cortex stimulation for pain and movement disorders

Since initial reports in the early 1990s, stimulation of the M1 region of the cortex (MCS) has been used to treat chronic refractory pain conditions and a variety of movement disorders. A Medline search of literature between 1991 and 2007 revealed 512 cases using MCS. Although most of these relate to the treatment of pain (422), 84 of them involve movement disorders. More recently, several studies have specifically looked at treating Parkinson's disease (PD) with MCS. We report here several of our own cases using MCS to treat poststroke and non-poststroke pain syndromes and movement disorders (n = 8), PD (n = 4), ET (n = 2), and cortico-basal degeneration (n = 1). We also cover the essential history of this procedure and our current research using computational modeling to understand further the underlying mechanisms of MCS.

fMRT vor Motorkortexstimulation beim Phantomschmerz

This study deals with the diagnostic value of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in a patient with phantom limb pain following traumatic amputation of the right arm. After failure with medication, resection of stump neurinoma, and spinal cord stimulation, fMRI with evidence of cortical reorganization was performed. Tactile stimulation of the perioral region and motor imagery with cranial, tactile stimulation of the stump led to a caudal shift in fMRI activity. Subsequent motor cortex stimulation brought relief from the pain. By detecting cortical reorganization, fMRI contributes to the indication for motor cortex stimulation for phantom pain and aids in electrode positioning.

Stimulation of primary motor cortex for intractable deafferentation pain

The stimulation of the primary motor cortex (M1) has proved to be an effective treatment for intractable deafferentation pain. This treatment started in 1990, and twenty-eight studies involving 271 patients have been reported so far. The patients who have been operated on were suffering from post-stroke pain (59%), trigeminal neuropathic pain, brachial plexus injury, spinal cord injury, peripheral nerve injury and phantom-limb pain. The method of stimulation was: a) epidural, b) subdural, and c) within the central sulcus. Overall, considering the difficulty in treating central neuropathic pain, trigeminal neuropathic pain and certain types of refractory peripheral pain, the electrical stimulation of M1 is a very promising technique; nearly 60% of the treated patients improved with a higher than 50% pain relief after several months of follow-up and sometimes of a few years in most reports. The mechanism of pain relief by the electrical stimulation of M1 has been under investigation. Recently, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of M1 has been reported to be effective on deafferentation pain. In the future, rTMS may take over from electrical stimulation as a treatment for deafferentation pain.

Extradural cortical stimulation for central pain

Central pain results from a central nervous system injury and represents a challenge for the pain therapist. Human studies have shown that motor cortex stimulation (MCS), i.e. the placement of a stimulating plate on the dura overlying the motor cortex can relieve brain central pain. Studies suggest that MCS directly affects activity in the first and second order somatosensory areas, thalamic nuclei and also inhibits spinal primary afferents and spinothalamic tract neurons. The following factors have been found to predict analgesia by MCS: intact or almost intact corticospinal motor function, mild or negligible sensory loss, absence of thermal sensory threshold alteration within the painful area, positive response to the barbiturate and/or ketamine test, positive response to the propofol test, positive response to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). The targeting of the cortical area is made by anatomical localization by computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), neuronavigation, intraoperative neurophysiological recordings, functional MRI (fMRI), and intraoperative clinical assessment. We perform the procedure under local anaesthesia. We describe in detail our surgical technique and stimulation protocol. Furthermore, we review the most important studies with respect to their results, the observed side effects and complications. The future prospects and likely developments of MCS for central pain are also discussed.

Motor cortex stimulation for neuropathic pain

Since the initial publication of Tsubokawa in 1991, epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is increasingly reported as an effective surgical option for the treatment of refractory neuropathic pain although its mechanism of action remains poorly understood. The authors review the extensive literature published over the last 15 years on central and neuropathic pain. Optimal patient selection remains difficult and the value of pharmacological tests or transcranial magnetic stimulation in predicting the efficacy of MCS has not been established. Pre-operative functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), 3-dimensional volume MRI, neuronavigation and intra-operative neurophysiological monitoring have contributed to improvements in the technique for identifying the precise location of the targeted motor cortical area and the correct placement of the electrode array. MCS should be considered as the treatment of choice in post-stroke pain, thalamic pain or facial anesthesia dolorosa. In brachial plexus avulsion pain, it is preferable to propose initially dorsal root entry zone (DREZ)-tomy; MCS may be offered after DREZotomy has failed to control the pain. In our experience, the results of MCS on phantom limb pain are promising. In general, the efficacy of MCS depends on: a) the accurate placement of the stimulation electrode over the appropriate area of the motor cortex, and b) on sophisticated programming of the stimulation parameters. A better understanding of the MCS mechanism of action will probably make it possible to adjust better the stimulation parameters. The conclusions of multicentered randomised studies, now in progress, will be very useful and are likely to promote further research and clinical applications in this field.

Motor cortex stimulation and neuropathic facial pain

✓Trigeminal neuropathic pain is a syndrome of severe, constant facial pain related to disease of or injury to the trigeminal nerve or ganglion. Causes of this type of pain can include injury from sinus or dental surgery, skull and/or facial trauma, or intentional destruction for therapeutic reasons (deafferentation) as well as intrinsic pathological conditions in any part of the trigeminal system. Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is a relatively new technique that has shown some promise in the treatment of trigeminal neuropathic pain. This technique has the potential to revolutionize the treatment of chronic pain. The authors present a review of the literature, focusing on surgical technique, device programming, safety, and efficacy, and suggest some initial guidelines for standardization of these aspects. It is important to evaluate MCS critically in a prospective, controlled fashion.

Presurgical planning for tumor resectioning

Since the birth of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)-a noninvasive tool able to visualize brain function-now 15 years ago, several clinical applications have emerged. fMRI follows from the neurovascular coupling between neuronal electrical activity and cerebrovascular physiology that leads to three effects that can contribute to the fMRI signal: an increase in the blood flow velocity, in the blood volume and in the blood oxygenation level. The latter effect, gave the technique the name blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) fMRI. One of the major clinical uses is presurgical fMRI in patients with brain abnormalities. The goals of presurgical fMRI are threefold: 1) assessing the risk of neurological deficit that follows a surgical procedure, 2) selecting patients for invasive intraoperative mapping, and 3) guiding of the surgical procedure itself. These are reviewed here. Unfortunately, randomized trials or outcome studies that definitively show benefits to the final outcome of the patient when applying fMRI presurgically have not been performed. Therefore, fMRI has not yet reached the status of clinical acceptance. The final purpose of this article is to define a roadmap of future research and developments in order to tilt pre-surgical fMRI to the status of clinical validity and acceptance.

Neurostimulation for chronic noncancer pain: an evaluation of the clinical evidence and recommendations for future trial designs

Object

Neurostimulation to treat chronic pain includes approved and investigational therapies directed at the spinal cord, thalamus, periaqueductal or periventricular gray matter, motor cortex, and peripheral nerves. Persistent pain after surgery and work-related or neural injuries are common indications for such treatments. In light of the risks, efforts, costs, and expectations associated with neurostimulation therapies, a careful reexamination of the methods used to gather evidence for this treatment’s long-term efficacy is in order.

Methods

The authors combed English-language publications to determine the nature of the evidence supporting the efficacy of neurostimulation therapies for chronic noncancer pain. To formulate recommendations for the design of future studies, the results of their analysis were compared with established guidelines for the evaluation of medical evidence.

Evidence supporting the efficacy of neurostimulation has been collected predominantly from retrospective series or from prospective studies whose design or methods of analysis make them subject to limited interpretation. To date, there has been no successful clinical study focused on establishing the efficacy of neurostimulation for pain and incorporating sufficient numbers of participants, matched control groups, sham stimulation, randomization, prospectively defined end points, and methods for controlling experimental bias. Currently available data provide little support for the common practices of psychological or pharmacological screening or trial stimulation to predict and/or improve long-term results.

Conclusions

These findings do not diminish the value of previous investigations or positive patient experiences and do not mean that the treatments are ineffective; rather, they reveal that new data are required to answer the questions raised in and by previous study data. Future analyses of emerging neurostimulation modalities for pain should, whenever feasible, require unambiguous diagnoses as an entry criterion and should involve the use of randomization, parallel control groups that receive sham stimulation, and blinding of patients, investigators, and device programmers. Given the chronicity of patient symptoms and stimulation therapies, efficacy should be studied for 1 year or longer after device implantation. Meticulous study methods are especially important to evaluate new therapies like motor cortex and occipital nerve stimulation.

Deep brain stimulation for phantom limb pain

Phantom limb pain is an often severe and debilitating phenomenon that has been reported in up to 85% of amputees. Its pathophysiology is poorly understood. Peripheral and spinal mechanisms are thought to play a role in pain modulation in affected individuals; however central mechanisms are also likely to be of importance. The neuromatrix theory postulates a genetically determined representation of body image, which is modified by sensory input to create a neurosignature. Persistence of the neurosignature may be responsible for painless phantom limb sensations, whereas phantom limb pain may be due to abnormal reorganisation within the neuromatrix. This study assessed the clinical outcome of deep brain stimulation of the periventricular grey matter and somatosensory thalamus for the relief of chronic neuropathic pain associated with phantom limb in three patients. These patients were assessed preoperatively and at 3 month intervals postoperatively. Self-rated visual analogue scale pain scores assessed pain intensity, and the McGill Pain Questionnaire assessed the quality of the pain. Quality of life was assessed using the EUROQOL EQ-5D scale. Periventricular gray stimulation alone was optimal in two patients, whilst a combination of periventricular gray and thalamic stimulation produced the greatest degree of relief in one patient. At follow-up (mean 13.3 months) the intensity of pain was reduced by 62% (range 55-70%). In all three patients, the burning component of the pain was completely alleviated. Opiate intake was reduced in the two patients requiring morphine sulphate pre-operatively. Quality of life measures indicated a statistically significant improvement. This data supports the role for deep brain stimulation in patients with phantom limb pain. The medical literature relating to the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and treatment of this clinical entity is reviewed in detail.

Motor cortex stimulation for long-term relief of chronic neuropathic pain: A 10 year experience

Chronic subthreshold stimulation of the contralateral precentral gyrus is used in patients with intractable neuropathic pain for more than 15 years. The aim of this study was to analyse retrospectively our own patient group with long term follow-up of 10 years. Seventeen patients with chronic neuropathic pain were treated with contralateral epidural stimulation electrodes. In 10 cases, trigeminal neuropathic pain (TNP) and in seven cases post-stroke pain (PSP) were diagnosed. The placement of the electrodes was performed in local anaesthesia using neuronavigation and intraoperative neuromonitoring. A test trial of minimum one week including double-blind testing was conducted and pain intensity was measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Correct placement of the electrode was achieved in all patients using intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. Double-blind testing was able to identify 6 (35%) non-responders. In 5 of 10 (50%) with TNP and 3 of 7 (43%) with PSP a positive effect with pain reduction > or = 50% was observed. The mean follow-up period was 3.6 years (range 1-10 years) and includes a patient with 10 years of positive stimulation effect. Stimulation of the motor cortex is a treatment option for patients with chronic neuropathic pain localized in the face or upper extremity. Double-blind testing can identify non-responders. Patients with TNP profit more than patients with PSP. The positive effect can last for ten years in long-term follow-up.

Electrical stimulation of the primary somatosensory cortex inhibits spinal dorsal horn neuron activity

Cortical stimulation has been demonstrated to alleviate certain pain conditions. The aim of this study was to determine the responses of the spinal cord dorsal horn neurons to stimulation of the primary somatosensory cortex (SSC). We hypothesized that direct stimulation of the SSC will inhibit the activity of spinal dorsal horn neurons by activating the descending inhibitory system. Thirty-four wide dynamic range spinal dorsal horn neurons were recorded in response to graded mechanical stimulation (brush, pressure, and pinch) at their respective receptive fields while a stepwise electrical stimulation (300 Hz, 0.1 ms, at 10, 20, and 30 V) was applied in the SSC through a bipolar tungsten electrode. The responses to brush at control, 10 V, 20 V, 30 V, and recovery were 16.0 +/- 2.3, 15.8 +/- 2.2, 14.6 +/- 1.8, 14.8 +/- 2.0, and 17.0 +/- 2.2 spikes/s, respectively. The responses to pressure at control, 10 V, 20 V, 30 V, and recovery were 44.7 +/- 5.5, 37.0 +/- 5.6, 29.5 +/- 4.8, 31.6 +/- 5.2, and 43.2 +/- 5.7 spikes/s, respectively. The responses to pinch at control, 10 V, 20 V, 30 V, and recovery were 58.1 +/- 7.0, 42.9 +/- 5.5, 34.8 +/- 3.9, 34.6 +/- 4.4, and 52.6 +/- 6.0 spikes/s, respectively. Significant decreases of the dorsal horn neuronal responses to pressure and pinch were observed during SSC stimulation. It is concluded that electrical stimulation of the SSC produces transient inhibition of the responses of spinal cord dorsal horn neurons to higher intensity mechanical stimuli without affecting innocuous stimuli.

Combination of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging-guided Neuronavigation and Intraoperative Cortical Brain Mapping Improves Targeting of Motor Cortex Stimulation in Neuropathic Pain

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate, regardless of the clinical results, the contribution of combining functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) with intraoperative cortical brain mapping (iCM) as functional targeting methods for epidural chronic motor cortex stimulation (MCS) in refractory neuropathic pain.

METHODS:

Eighteen neuropathic pain patients (central stroke in six; trigeminal neuropathy in six; syrinx or amputation in six) who underwent operations for epidural MCS were studied with preoperative fMRI and iCM. fMRI investigated motor tasks of hands (as well as foot and tongue, when painful). fMRI data were analyzed with Statistical Parametric Mapping99 software (University College London, London, England; initial analysis threshold corresponding to P &lt; 0.001), registered in a neuronavigation system, and correlated during surgery with iCM. The primary aim of this study was to improve the topographical precision of MCS. Matching of fMRI and iCM specifically was examined.

RESULTS:

Correspondence between the contour of the fMRI activation area and iCM in precentral gyrus (mean distance, 3.8 mm) was found in 17 (94%) of 18 patients. Eleven of them showed correspondence for more restrictive values of the analysis threshold (P &lt; 0.0001); in six patients, the quality of the iCM was reduced by somatosensory wave attenuation and general anesthesia. In this group of six patients, a combination of both techniques was used for the final targeting. Correspondence was not found in one patient as the result of image distortion and residual motion artifact. At follow-up (4–60 mo), MCS induced significant pain relief in a total of 11 patients (61%).

CONCLUSION:

This study confirms the functional accuracy of fMRI guidance in neuropathic pain and illustrates the usefulness of combining fMRI guidance with iCM to improve the functional targeting in MCS. Because appropriate targeting is crucial to obtaining pain relief, this combination may increase the analgesic efficacy of MCS.

Recovery of Pain Control by Intensive Reprogramming after Loss of Benefit from Motor Cortex Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain

INTRODUCTION

Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) may serve as an adjunct in managing neuropathic pain after other conservative and interventional methods have failed. However, the magnitude and duration of the benefit are highly variable, with a significant percentage of patients losing pain relief over time. We investigated whether intensive reprogramming could recapture the beneficial effects of MCS.

METHODS

Six patients who had previously undergone MCS implantation for neuropathic pain but had lost benefit were brought back for 1-5 days of intensive reprogramming. Four patients were evaluated as inpatients while the others were seen as outpatients during multiple visits over several days. Several hours a day were spent with each patient. Patients completed visual analog scale (VAS) ratings at intervals throughout the reprogramming period to judge effectiveness of stimulation. Pre- and postadjustment VAS were compared using a paired t test.

RESULTS

The patients' average age was 50 years (range 26-71). The diagnoses were trigeminal neuropathic pain (2 patients), complex regional pain syndrome I (2), phantom limb pain (1) and poststroke pain (1). The mean duration of pain was 6 years. The MCS benefit had initially lasted for a mean of 7.16 months (range 2-18 months). After reprogramming, 5 of 6 patients experienced improvement in pain. Average VAS scores decreased from 7.44 to 2.28 (p < 0.001) in those patients who responded to reprogramming. The average stimulation parameters in these patients were 5 V amplitude (range 1.7-10), 313 micros pulse width (range 240-390) and frequency of 84 Hz (range 55-130). Three patients experienced seizures during reprogramming. The mean seizure threshold was 8.9 V. No patient experienced seizures at their therapeutic settings. Pain control has been maintained after discharge.

CONCLUSION

Intensive reprogramming can recapture the benefit of MCS in patients who have lost pain control. The use of broad dipoles using two contacts rather than one contact of the 1 x 4 electrode array improved the ability to recapture beneficial stimulation. There is a significant risk of seizures during aggressive reprogramming.

Functional imaging and the neural systems of chronic pain

Pain remains a serious health care problem affecting millions of individuals, costing billions of dollars, and causing an immeasurable amount of human suffering. In designing improved therapies, there is still much to learn about peripheral nociceptor, nerves, and the spinal cord, and brain stem modulatory systems. Nevertheless, it is the brain that presents us with an incredible opportunity to understand the experience we call pain. Functional neuroimaging is helping to unlock the secrets of the sensory and emotional components of pain and its autonomic responses. These techniques are helping us to understand that pain is not a static disease with the pathologic findings localized to the periphery but is instead a highly plastic condition affecting multiple central neural systems. Functional neuroimaging is transforming our understanding of the neurobiology of pain and will be instrumental in helping us to design more rational treatments ultimately aimed at reducing the impact of pain on our patients. It is opening windows into the function of the brain that were previously closed.