Effect of single-session repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation applied over the hand versus leg motor area on pain after spinal cord injury

H-Coil Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Relieves Pain and Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression in Patients With Chronic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Sham-Controlled Crossover Study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the analgesic effects of H-coil repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) primarily targeting the hand area of the primary motor cortex (M1) in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain. Given that the H-coil has a wider reach than conventional coils, there is a possibility that targeting the hand motor cortex also may stimulate prefrontal areas. Thus, we also aimed to examine whether rTMS with an M1 target could produce effects on psychologic outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 17 patients were randomly assigned to receive active or sham H-coil rTMS in a counterbalanced order. After a nine-week washout period, they crossed over to either active or sham rTMS, according to a double-blind crossover design. Each treatment period consisted of five daily rTMS sessions and a one- and three-week follow-up visit. The primary outcome was average usual pain intensity. Secondary outcomes included pain unpleasantness, dynamic and static mechanical allodynia, anxiety and depression, sleep, pain catastrophizing, function, and patients' impression of change. Effects of rTMS were investigated using linear mixed model analyses.

RESULTS

We found two significant interactions between treatment and time, indicating that active H-coil rTMS induced significant analgesic effects (t [134] = -2.18; p = .03; d = -0.10) and significant reductions in anxiety and depression compared with sham stimulation over the treatment course (t [73] = -2.14; p = .04; d = -0.09). The analgesic effect occurred two weeks after the treatment, and the effect on anxiety and depression occurred three weeks after treatment. No other significant interactions were found for the secondary variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Five days of H-coil rTMS targeting the hand area of M1 induced statistically significant effects on pain intensity. Moreover, rTMS improved symptoms of anxiety and depression, possibly because of the wide and deep reach of the H-coil.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT05488808.

Identifying functional cortical plasticity after spinal tumour resection using navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation

Our aim was to investigate the effectiveness of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) brain mapping to characterise preoperative motor impairment caused by an intradural extramedullary (IDEM) tumour and postoperative cortical functional reorganisation. Preoperative and 1-year follow-up clinical, radiological and nTMS data from a case of thoracic spinal meningioma that underwent surgical resection of the lesion were collected and compared. A 67-year-old patient presented with severe progressive thoracic myelopathy (hypertonic paraparesis, clonus, insensate urinary retention) secondary to an IDEM tumour. Initial nTMS assessment showed bilateral upper limb representation with no positive responses for both lower limbs. He underwent successful surgical resection for his IDEM (meningioma WHO grade 1). At 1-year follow-up, the patient's gait was improved and his bladder function normalised. nTMS documented positive responses for both upper and lower limbs and a decrease in the area (right side: 1.01 vs 0.39cm2; left side: 1.92 vs 0.81cm2) and volume (right side: 344.2 vs 42.4uVcm2; left side: 467.1 vs 119uVcm2) of cortical activation for both upper limbs, suggesting a functional reorganisation of the motor areas after tumour resection. nTMS motor mapping and derived metrics can characterise preoperative motor deficit and cortical plasticity during follow-up after IDEM resection.

Model-based analysis of the acute effects of transcutaneous magnetic spinal cord stimulation on micturition after spinal cord injury in humans

AIM

After spinal cord injuries (SCIs), patients may develop either detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia (DSD) or urinary incontinence, depending on the level of the spinal injury. DSD and incontinence reflect the loss of coordinated neural control among the detrusor muscle, which increases bladder pressure to facilitate urination, and urethral sphincters and pelvic floor muscles, which control the bladder outlet to restrict or permit bladder emptying. Transcutaneous magnetic stimulation (TMS) applied to the spinal cord after SCI reduced DSD and incontinence. We defined, within a mathematical model, the minimum neuronal elements necessary to replicate neurogenic dysfunction of the bladder after a SCI and incorporated into this model the minimum additional neurophysiological features sufficient to replicate the improvements in bladder function associated with lumbar TMS of the spine in patients with SCI.

METHODS

We created a computational model of the neural circuit of micturition based on Hodgkin-Huxley equations that replicated normal bladder function. We added interneurons and increased network complexity to reproduce dysfunctional micturition after SCI, and we increased the density and complexity of interactions of both inhibitory and excitatory lumbar spinal interneurons responsive to TMS to provide a more diverse set of spinal responses to intrinsic and extrinsic activation of spinal interneurons that remains after SCI.

RESULTS

The model reproduced the re-emergence of a spinal voiding reflex after SCI. When we investigated the effect of monophasic and biphasic TMS at two frequencies applied at or below T10, the model replicated the improved coordination between detrusor and external urethral sphincter activity that has been observed clinically: low-frequency TMS (1 Hz) within the model normalized control of voiding after SCI, whereas high-frequency TMS (30 Hz) enhanced urine storage.

CONCLUSION

Neuroplasticity and increased complexity of interactions among lumbar interneurons, beyond what is necessary to simulate normal bladder function, must be present in order to replicate the effects of SCI on control of micturition, and both neuronal and network modifications of lumbar interneurons are essential to understand the mechanisms whereby TMS reduced bladder dysfunction after SCI.

A 5-day course of rTMS before pain onset ameliorates future pain and increases sensorimotor peak alpha frequency

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has shown promise as an intervention for pain. An unexplored research question is whether the delivery of rTMS prior to pain onset might protect against a future episode of prolonged pain. The present study aimed to determine i) whether 5 consecutive days of rTMS delivered prior to experimentally-induced prolonged jaw pain could reduce future pain intensity and ii) whether any effects of rTMS on pain were mediated by changes in corticomotor excitability (CME) and/or sensorimotor peak alpha frequency (PAF). On each day from Day 0-4, forty healthy individuals received a single session of active (n = 21) or sham (n = 19) rTMS over the left primary motor cortex. PAF and CME were assessed on Day 0 (before rTMS) and Day 4 (after rTMS). Prolonged pain was induced via intramuscular injection of nerve growth factor (NGF) in the right masseter muscle after the final rTMS session. From Days 5-25, participants completed twice-daily electronic dairies including pain on chewing and yawning (primary outcomes), as well as pain during other activities (e.g. talking), functional limitation in jaw function and muscle soreness (secondary outcomes). Compared to sham, individuals who received active rTMS subsequently experienced lower pain on chewing and yawning. Although active rTMS increased PAF, the effects of rTMS on pain were not mediated by changes in PAF or CME. This study is the first to show that rTMS delivered prior to pain onset can protect against future pain and associated functional impairment. Thus, rTMS may hold promise as a prophylactic intervention for persistent pain.

One session of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation induces mild and transient analgesic effects among female individuals with painful temporomandibular disorders

OBJECTIVE

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) are characterised by chronic pain and dysfunction in the jaw joint and masticatory muscles. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has emerged as a potential non-invasive treatment for chronic pain; however, its effectiveness in individuals with TMD has not been thoroughly investigated. This study aimed to evaluate the immediate and sustained (over seven consecutive days) effects of a single session of active rTMS compared to sham stimulation on pain intensity and pain unpleasantness in individuals with TMD.

METHODS

A randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled trial enrolled 41 female participants with chronic TMD. Pain intensity and pain unpleasantness were assessed immediately pre- and post-intervention, as well as twice daily for 21 days using electronic diaries. Secondary outcomes included pain interference, sleep quality, positive and negative affect and pain catastrophizing. Adverse effects were monitored. Repeated measures ANOVA and multilevel modelling regression analyses were employed for data analysis.

RESULT

Active rTMS demonstrated a significant immediate mild reduction in pain intensity and pain unpleasantness compared to sham stimulation. However, these effects were not sustained over the 7-day post-intervention period. No significant differences were observed between interventions for pain interference, sleep quality and negative affect. A minority of participants reported minor and transient side effects, including headaches and fatigue.

CONCLUSION

A single session of active rTMS was safe and led to immediate mild analgesic effects in individuals with TMD compared to sham stimulation. However, no significant differences were observed between interventions over the 7-day post-intervention period. Based on this study, rTMS stimulation appears to be a promising safe approach to be tested in TMD patients with longer stimulation protocols.

Optimal Frequency in Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Management of Chronic Pain: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) has been shown to be effective for pain modulation in a variety of pathological conditions causing neuropathic pain. The purpose of this study is to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized control trials to identify the most optimal frequency required to achieve chronic pain modulation using rTMS.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of rTMS for chronic pain management. A total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria, and a NMA was conducted to identify the most effective rTMS frequency for chronic pain management.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed that high frequency rTMS (20 Hz) was the most effective frequency for chronic pain modulation. Patients treated with 20 Hz had lower pain levels than those treated at 5 Hz (mean difference [MD] = -3.11 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -5.61 - -0.61], P = 0.032) and control (MD = -1.99 [95% CI: -3.11 - -0.88], P = 0.023). Similarly, treatment with 10 Hz had lower pain levels compared to 5 Hz (MD = -2.56 [95% CI: -5.05 - -0.07], P = 0.045) and control (MD = -1.44 [95% CI: -2.52 - -0.36], P = 0.031). 20 Hz and 10 Hz were not statistically different.

CONCLUSIONS

This NMA suggests that high frequency rTMS (20 Hz) is the most optimal frequency for chronic pain modulation. These findings have important clinical implications and can guide healthcare professionals in selecting the most effective frequency for rTMS treatment in patients with chronic pain.

Targeting Lower Limb, Upper Limb, and Face Representation in the Primary Motor Cortex for the Practice of Neuronavigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

OBJECTIVE

The primary motor cortex (M1) is a usual target for therapeutic application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), especially the region of hand motor representation. However, other M1 regions can be considered as potential rTMS targets, such as the region of lower limb or face representation. In this study, we assessed the localization of all these regions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the aim of defining three standardized M1 targets for the practice of neuronavigated rTMS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A pointing task of these targets was performed by three rTMS experts on 44 healthy brain MRI data to assess interrater reliability (including the calculation of intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs] and coefficients of variation [CoVs] and the construction of Bland-Altman plots). In addition, two "standard" brain MRI data were randomly interspersed with the other MRI data to assess intrarater reliability. A barycenter was calculated for each target (with x-y-z coordinates provided in normalized brain coordinate systems), in addition to the geodesic distance between the scalp projection of the barycenters of these different targets.

RESULTS

Intrarater and interrater agreement was good, according to ICCs, CoVs, or Bland-Altman plots, although interrater variability was greater for anteroposterior (y) and craniocaudal (z) coordinates, especially for the face target. The scalp projection of the barycenters between the different cortical targets ranged from 32.4 to 35.5 mm for either the lower-limb-to-upper-limb target distance or the upper-limb-to-face target distance.

CONCLUSIONS

This work clearly delineates three different targets for the application of motor cortex rTMS that correspond to lower limb, upper limb, and face motor representations. These three targets are sufficiently spaced to consider that their stimulation can act on distinct neural networks.

Brain stimulation targets for chronic pain: Insights from meta-analysis, functional connectivity and literature review

Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have demonstrated their potential for chronic pain management, yet their efficacy exhibits variability across studies. Refining stimulation targets and exploring additional targets offer a possible solution to this challenge. This study aimed to identify potential brain surface targets for NIBS in treating chronic pain disorders by integrating literature review, neuroimaging meta-analysis, and functional connectivity analysis on 90 chronic low back pain patients. Our results showed that the primary motor cortex (M1) (C3/C4, 10-20 EEG system) and prefrontal cortex (F3/F4/Fz) were the most used brain stimulation targets for chronic pain treatment according to the literature review. The bilateral precentral gyrus (M1), supplementary motor area, Rolandic operculum, and temporoparietal junction, were all identified as common potential NIBS targets through both a meta-analysis sourced from Neurosynth and functional connectivity analysis. This study presents a comprehensive summary of the current literature and refines the existing NIBS targets through a combination of imaging meta-analysis and functional connectivity analysis for chronic pain conditions. The derived coordinates (with integration of the international electroencephalography (EEG) 10/20 electrode placement system) within the above brain regions may further facilitate the localization of these targets for NIBS application. Our findings may have the potential to expand NIBS target selection beyond current clinical trials and improve chronic pain treatment.

Comparison of intermittent theta burst stimulation and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain: A sham-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain with sham controls, using neuropathic pain-specific evaluation tools.

DESIGN

A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial.

SETTING

Rehabilitation medicine department of a university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-three patients with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups (real iTBS, real rTMS, and sham rTMS). Each patient underwent five sessions of assigned stimulation.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Before and after completion of the five sessions, patients were evaluated using the self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, Numeric Rating Scale, Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory, and Neuropathic Pain Scale.

RESULTS

Real iTBS and real rTMS reduced pain levels after stimulation according to all the evaluation tools, and the changes were significant when compared to the values of the sham rTMS group. No significant differences were found between the real iTBS and real rTMS groups.

CONCLUSION

Both iTBS and rTMS were effective in reducing spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain. When safety, convenience, and compliance are considered, iTBS would have an advantage over rTMS in clinical situations with spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain.Trial Registration: This trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service (registration no. KCT0004976).

Beyond trial-and-error: Individualizing therapeutic transcranial neuromodulation for chronic pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied to the motor cortex provides supplementary relief for some individuals with chronic pain who are refractory to pharmacological treatment. As rTMS slowly enters treatment guidelines for pain relief, its starts to be confronted with challenges long known to pharmacological approaches: efficacy at the group-level does not grant pain relief for a particular patient. In this review, we present and discuss a series of ongoing attempts to overcome this therapeutic challenge in a personalized medicine framework.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

Relevant scientific publications published in main databases such as PubMed and EMBASE from inception until March 2023 were systematically assessed, as well as a wide number of studies dedicated to the exploration of the mechanistic grounds of rTMS analgesic effects in humans, primates and rodents.

RESULTS

The main strategies reported to personalize cortical neuromodulation are: (i) the use of rTMS to predict individual response to implanted motor cortex stimulation; (ii) modifications of motor cortex stimulation patterns; (iii) stimulation of extra-motor targets; (iv) assessment of individual cortical networks and rhythms to personalize treatment; (v) deep sensory phenotyping; (vi) personalization of location, precision and intensity of motor rTMS. All approaches except (i) have so far low or moderate levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although current evidence for most strategies under study remains at best moderate, the multiple mechanisms set up by cortical stimulation are an advantage over single-target 'clean' drugs, as they can influence multiple pathophysiologic paths and offer multiple possibilities of individualization.

SIGNIFICANCE

Non-invasive neuromodulation is on the verge of personalised medicine. Strategies ranging from integration of detailed clinical phenotyping into treatment design to advanced patient neurophysiological characterisation are being actively explored and creating a framework for actual individualisation of care.

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.

Research progress on the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation in spinal cord injury rehabilitation: a narrative review

Traumatic or non-traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) can lead to severe disability and complications. The incidence of SCI is high, and the rehabilitation cycle is long, which increases the economic burden on patients and the health care system. However, there is no practical method of SCI treatment. Recently, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, has been shown to induce changes in plasticity in specific areas of the brain by regulating the activity of neurons in the stimulation site and its functionally connected networks. TMS is a new potential method for the rehabilitation of SCI and its complications. In addition, TMS can detect the activity of neural circuits in the central nervous system and supplement the physiological evaluation of SCI severity. This review describes the pathophysiology of SCI as well as the basic principles and classification of TMS. We mainly focused on the latest research progress of TMS in the physiological evaluation of SCI as well as the treatment of motor dysfunction, neuropathic pain, spasticity, neurogenic bladder, respiratory dysfunction, and other complications. This review provides new ideas and future directions for SCI assessment and treatment.

Effects of different transcranial magnetic stimulations on neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury

Introduction

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective non-invasive cortical stimulation technique in the treatment of neuropathic pain. As a new rTMS technique, intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) is also effective at relieving pain. We aimed to establish the pain-relieving effectiveness of different modalities on neuropathic pain. The study was conducted in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) and different modalities of rTMS.

Methods

Thirty-seven individuals with SCI were randomly allocated to three groups, in which the "iTBS" group received iTBS, the "rTMS" group received 10 Hz rTMS, and the "iTBS + rTMS" group received iTBS and 10 Hz rTMS successively of the primary motor cortex 5 days a week for 4 weeks, and they all underwent the full procedures. The primary outcome measure was change in the visual analog scale (VAS), and the secondary outcomes were measured using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). All the outcomes were evaluated at 1 day before stimulation (baseline), 1 day after the first week of stimulation (S1), and 1 day after the last stimulation (S2).

Results

The VAS scores showed significant pain improvement after 4 weeks of stimulation (p = 0.0396, p = 0.0396, and p = 0.0309, respectively) but not after 1 week of stimulation. HAM-D scores declined, but the decreases were not significant until 4 weeks later (p = 0.0444, p = 0.0315, and p = 0.0447, respectively). PSQI scores were also significantly decreased after 4 weeks of stimulation (p = 0.0446, p = 0.0244, and p = 0.0088, respectively). Comparing the three modalities, VAS, HAM-D, and PSQI scores at S1 showed no differences, and, at S2, VAS scores showed significant differences (p = 0.0120; multiple comparisons showed significant differences between iTBS and iTBS + rTMS, p = 0.0091), while the HAM-D and PSQI scores showed no differences.

Discussion

The primary and secondary outcomes all showed significant improvement, indicating that the three different modalities were all effective at relieving the pain. However, not all the three stimulations were of same effectiveness after treatment; there were statistical differences in the treatment of neuropathic pain between iTBS as a priming stimulus and as a single procedure.

A Systematic Review of the Interventions for Management of Pain in Patients After Spinal Cord Injury

Chronic pain is a very common problem in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) as it affects 80% of these patients, which negatively affects their quality of life. Despite many advantages that exist in the management of any type of pain (neuropathic, nociceptive, mixed) in these patients, there is no cure, and the analgesic effect of some treatments is inadequate. This study aims to conduct an evidence-based systematic review regarding the various interventions used for the management of pain after SCI. The PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and Cochrane Library databases were searched from 1969 to 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the PEDro scoring system. A total of 57 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Among the different interventions at present, 18 studies examined the role of oral medications, 11 studies examined the role of minimally invasive methods (injection and infusion), 16 studies investigated physiotherapy and alternative treatments, and 12 studies examined the role of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) in the management of pain in patients after SCI. Gabapentin and pregabalin are very effective in managing chronic neuropathic pain after SCI, and pregabalin also seems to reduce anxiety and sleep disturbances in the patients. It is noteworthy that lamotrigine, valproate, and carbamazepine do not have an analgesic effect, but mirogabalin is a novel and promising drug. Antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors) did not reduce the pain of the patients, although some studies showed an efficacy of amitriptyline especially in depressed patients and tramadol should be considered short-term with caution. Also, tDCS and rTMS reduced pain. Moreover, botulinum toxin type A, lidocaine, ketamine, and intrathecal baclofen significantly reduced pain intensity, although the sample of the studies was small. Physiotherapy and alternative treatments seem to relieve pain, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation had the greatest reduction of pain intensity. In conclusion, several pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical methods exist, which can reduce pain in patients after SCI. The type of intervention can be considered by the physician depending on the patients' preference, age, medical history, type of pain, and associated symptoms. However, more studies with greater samples and with better methodological quality should be conducted.

Application of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Neuropathic Pain: A Narrative Review

Neuropathic pain, affecting 6.9-10% of the general population, has a negative impact on patients' quality of life and potentially leads to functional impairment and disability. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)-a safe, indirect and non-invasive technique-has been increasingly applied for treating neuropathic pain. The mechanism underlying rTMS is not yet well understood, and the analgesic effects of rTMS have been inconsistent with respect to different settings/parameters, causing insufficient evidence to determine its efficacy in patients with neuropathic pain. This narrative review aimed to provide an up-to-date overview of rTMS for treating neuropathic pain as well as to summarize the treatment protocols and related adverse effects from existing clinical trials. Current evidence supports the use of 10 Hz HF-rTMS of the primary motor cortex to reduce neuropathic pain, especially in patients with spinal cord injury, diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia. However, the lack of standardized protocols impedes the universal use of rTMS for neuropathic pain. rTMS was hypothesized to achieve analgesic effects by upregulating the pain threshold, inhibiting pain impulse, modulating the brain cortex, altering imbalanced functional connectivity, regulating neurotrophin and increasing endogenous opioid and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Further studies are warranted to explore the differences in the parameters/settings of rTMS for treating neuropathic pain due to different disease types.

Better Fields or Currents? A Head-to-Head Comparison of Transcranial Magnetic (rTMS) Versus Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) for Neuropathic Pain

While high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) is now included in the armamentarium to treat chronic neuropathic pain (NP), direct-current anodal stimulation (a-tDCS) to the same cortical targets may represent a valuable alternative in terms of feasibility and cost. Here we performed a head-to-head, randomized, single-blinded, cross-over comparison of HF-rTMS versus a-tDCS over the motor cortex in 56 patients with drug-resistant NP, who received 5 daily sessions of each procedure, with a washout of at least 4 weeks. Daily scores of pain, sleep, and fatigue were obtained during 5 consecutive weeks, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to a motor task was performed in a subgroup of 31 patients. The percentage of responders, defined by a reduction in pain scores of > 2 SDs from pre-stimulus levels, was similar to both techniques (42.0% vs. 42.3%), while the magnitude of "best pain relief" was significantly skewed towards rTMS. Mean pain ratings in responders decreased by 32.6% (rTMS) and 29.6% (tDCS), with half of them being sensitive to only one technique. Movement-related fMRI showed significant activations in motor and premotor areas, which did not change after 5 days of stimulation, and did not discriminate responders from non-responders. Both HF-rTMS and a-tDCS showed efficacy at 1 month in drug-resistant NP, with magnitude of relief slightly favoring rTMS. Since a significant proportion of patients responded to one procedure only, both modalities should be tested before declaring a patient as unresponsive.

Case report: The feasibility of rTMS with intrathecal baclofen pump for the treatment of unresolved neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury

The main objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of 10 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the treatment of unresolved neuropathic pain in an individual with spinal cord injury and an intrathecal baclofen pump. A 62-year-old male presented with drug resistant neuropathic pain as a result of a complete spinal cord lesion at T8 level. Pain was classified into four types: pressure pain in the left foot, burning pain in buttocks, burning pain in sternum, and electrical attacks in the trunk. The treatment period involved 6 weeks of rTMS stimulation performed 5 days per week, a 6-week follow up period with no stimulation, and an 8-week top up session period which began 5-weeks after the end of the follow up period. 2004 pulses were delivered at 10Hz over the right-hand representation of the left primary motor cortex at 80% resting motor threshold during each session. Assessments were based on the numerical rating scale (NRS), neuropathic pain scale (NPS), Hamilton Depression and Anxiety rating scales. Following the treatment period there was a 30, 13, and 29% reduction in sternum, buttocks, and left foot pain respectively, as reported by the NRS. During this time, electrical attacks were abolished following the third week of treatment. These changes corresponded to a 38% decrease in NPS scores and a 65 and 25% reduction in anxiety and depressions scores respectively. The changes in sternum, buttocks, and left foot pain reported on the NRS persisted for 1 week following treatment. Top up sessions delivered 11 weeks after the end of the treatment period were unsuccessful in reducing pain to the level achieved during the treatment period. A 13% reduction in NPS was seen during these 8-weeks. Anxiety and depression scores decreased 78 and 67% respectively. The frequency of electrical attacks was zero during this time. rTMS stimulation delivered throughout this study did not cause any interference with the functioning of the intrathecal baclofen pump. This case study illustrates that rTMS may be effective at reducing drug resistant neuropathic pain with certain pain types exhibiting greater propensity for change.

High-Frequency rTMS Combined with Task-Specific Hand Motor Training Modulates Corticospinal Plasticity in Motor Complete Spinal Cord Injury: A case report

Since its first use in spinal cord injury (SCI) in the early 2000s [1], high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (HF-rTMS) demonstrated a capacity to modulate corticospinal excitability (CSE) and motor performance. Studies focused on individuals with incomplete SCI. Here, we examined the feasibility of a 15-day therapeutic stimulation protocol combining HF-rTMS with task-specific motor training targeting the weaker hand in an individual with early chronic complete SCI. In this case report, we present evidence of progressive increase of CSE at rest and during muscle activation, and decreased cortical inhibition, associated with a trend toward improvement in pinch function of the weaker hand. These promising findings need to be confirmed in a larger population. Clinical Relevance- These preliminary results are promising and demonstrate the importance of a large number of training session repetitions to induce consistent changes relevant to the recovery after a complete SCI.

Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation at Different Stimulus Parameters for Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate the analgesic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the primary motor cortex (M1-rTMS) using different stimulation parameters to explore the optimal stimulus condition for treating neuropathic pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomized, blinded, crossover exploratory study. Four single sessions of M1-rTMS at different parameters were administered in random order. The tested stimulation conditions were as follows: 5-Hz with 500 pulses per session, 10-Hz with 500 pulses per session, 10-Hz with 2000 pulses per session, and sham stimulation. Analgesic effects were assessed by determining the visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity score and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ2) score immediately before and immediately after intervention.

RESULTS

We enrolled 22 adults (age: 59.8 ± 12.1 years) with intractable neuropathic pain. Linear-effects models showed significant effects of the stimulation condition on changes in VAS pain intensity (p = 0.03) and SF-MPQ2 (p = 0.01). Tukey multiple comparison tests revealed that 10-Hz rTMS with 2000 pulses provided better pain relief than sham stimulation, with greater decreases in VAS pain intensity (p = 0.03) and SF-MPQ2 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that high-dose stimulation (specifically, 10-Hz rTMS at 2000 pulses) is more effective than lower-dose stimulation for treating neuropathic pain.

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Central Neuropathic Pain

The research and clinical application of the noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technique in the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) are increasing. In this review article, we outline the effectiveness and limitations of the NIBS approach in treating common central neuropathic pain (CNP). This article summarizes the research progress of NIBS in the treatment of different CNPs and describes the effects and mechanisms of these methods on different CNPs. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) analgesic research has been relatively mature and applied to a variety of CNP treatments. But the optimal stimulation targets, stimulation intensity, and stimulation time of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for each type of CNP are still difficult to identify. The analgesic mechanism of rTMS is similar to that of tDCS, both of which change cortical excitability and synaptic plasticity, regulate the release of related neurotransmitters and affect the structural and functional connections of brain regions associated with pain processing and regulation. Some deficiencies are found in current NIBS relevant studies, such as small sample size, difficulty to avoid placebo effect, and insufficient research on analgesia mechanism. Future research should gradually carry out large-scale, multicenter studies to test the stability and reliability of the analgesic effects of NIBS.

Is transcranial magnetic stimulation as treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury efficient? A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Neuropathic pain is a clinically relevant complication in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI). Pharmacological pain treatment is often insufficient and leads to undesirable side effects. Thus, alternative therapeutic approaches such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are of critical importance. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of rTMS in neuropathic pain secondary to SCI.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycInfo (via OVID) database up April 2021. Only randomized controlled trials were included. Results regarding the pain intensity scores were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The search identified a total of 203 potential articles. Of these, eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the eligibility criteria for qualitative synthesis providing the total data of 141 patients. All studies applied high-frequency rTMS. In seven studies, rTMS was applied over the motor cortex, and in one study over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Five studies reported a significant improvement in baseline pain scores after treatment, and three studies found a significant difference between sham vs. non-sham stimulation at any time. Six RCTs were included in the quantitative synthesis and showed a significant overall reduction of pain intensity in the rTMS groups compared with the sham groups (mean difference - 0.81, 95%CI - 1.45 to - 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that high-frequency rTMS of the primary motor cortex and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex might be promising stimulation targets for neuropathic pain in SCI.

Stimulation Parameters Used During Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Motor Recovery and Corticospinal Excitability Modulation in SCI: A Scoping Review

There is a growing interest in non-invasive stimulation interventions as treatment strategies to improve functional outcomes and recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a neuromodulatory intervention which has the potential to reinforce the residual spinal and supraspinal pathways and induce plasticity. Recent reviews have highlighted the therapeutic potential and the beneficial effects of rTMS on motor function, spasticity, and corticospinal excitability modulation in SCI individuals. For this scoping review, we focus on the stimulation parameters used in 20 rTMS protocols. We extracted the rTMS parameters from 16 published rTMS studies involving SCI individuals and were able to infer preliminary associations between specific parameters and the effects observed. Future investigations will need to consider timing, intervention duration and dosage (in terms of number of sessions and number of pulses) that may depend on the stage, the level, and the severity of the injury. There is a need for more real vs. sham rTMS studies, reporting similar designs with sufficient information for replication, to achieve a significant level of evidence regarding the use of rTMS in SCI.

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.

Effects of repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex versus motor cortex in patients with neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Neuropathic pain is one of the common complications of spinal cord injuries (SCI), which will slow down the recovery process and result in lower quality of life. Previous studies have shown that repeated transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the motor cortex (M1) can reduce the average pain and the most severe pain of neuropathic pain after SCI. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) area is a common target of rTMS. Recently, a few studies found that rTMS of DLPFC may relieve the neuropathic pain of SCI. Compared with the M1 area, the efficacy of rTMS treatment in the DLPFC area in improving neuropathic pain and pain-related symptoms in patients with SCI is still unclear. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the non-inferiority of rTMS in the DLPFC vs M1 in patients with neuropathic pain after SCI, in order to provide more options for rTMS in treating neuropathic pain after SCI.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will recruit 50 subjects with neuropathic pain after SCI. They will be randomly assigned to the DLPFC- rTMS and M1-rTMS groups and be treated with rTMS for 4 weeks. Except for the different stimulation sites, the rTMS treatment programmes of the two groups are the same: 10 Hz, 1250 pulses, 115% intensity threshold, once a day, five times a week for 4 weeks. VAS, simplified McGill Pain Questionnaire, Spinal Cord Injury Pain Date Set, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and Hamilton Anxiety Scale will be evaluated at baseline, second week of treatment, fourth week of treatment and 4 weeks after the end of treatment. And VAS change will be calculated.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University has approved this trial, which is numbered KY2020041. Written informed consent will be provided to all participants after verification of the eligibility criteria. The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2000032362.

Evidence Mapping Based on Systematic Reviews of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on the Motor Cortex for Neuropathic Pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There is vast published literature proposing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) technology on the motor cortex (M1) for the treatment of neuropathic pain (NP). Systematic reviews (SRs) focus on a specific problem and do not provide a comprehensive overview of a research area. This study aimed to summarize and analyze the evidence of rTMS on the M1 for NP treatment through a new synthesis method called evidence mapping.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and The Cochrane Library to identify the studies that summarized the effectiveness of rTMS for NP. The study type was restricted to SRs with or without meta-analysis. All literature published before January 23, 2021, was included. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted the data. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed by using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Data were extracted following a defined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework from primary studies that included SRs. The same PICO was categorized into PICOs according to interventions [frequency, number of sessions (short: 1-5 sessions, medium: 5-10 sessions, and long: >10 sessions)] and compared. The evidence map was presented in tables and a bubble plot.

RESULTS

A total of 38 SRs met the eligibility criteria. After duplicate primary studies were removed, these reviews included 70 primary studies that met the scope of evidence mapping. According to the AMSTAR-2 assessment, the quality of the included SRs was critically low. Of these studies, 34 SRs scored "critically low" in terms of methodological quality, 2 SR scored "low," 1 SR scored "moderate," and 1 SR scored "high."

CONCLUSION

Evidence mapping is a useful methodology to provide a comprehensive and reliable overview of studies on rTMS for NP. Evidence mapping also shows that further investigations are necessary to highlight the optimal stimulation protocols and standardize all parameters to fill the evidence gaps of rTMS. Given that the methodological quality of most included SRs was "critically low," further investigations are advised to improve the methodological quality and the reporting process of SRs.

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain After Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

This study aims to systematically evaluate the effect of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) on neuropathic pain (NP) after spinal cord injury and compare the effects of two different NIBS.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the effect of NIBS on NP after spinal cord injury (SCI) were retrieved from the databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and CBM from inception to September 2021. The quality of the trials was assessed, and the data were extracted according to the Cochrane handbook of systematic review. Statistical analysis was conducted with Stata (version 16) and R software (version 4.0.2).

Results

A total of 17 studies involving 507 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that NIBS could reduce the pain score (SMD = −0.84, 95% CI −1.27 −0.40, P = 0.00) and the pain score during follow-up (SMD = −0.32, 95%CI −0.57 −0.07, P = 0.02), and the depression score of the NIBS group was not statistically significant than that of the control group (SMD = −0.43, 95%CI −0.89–0.02, P = 0.06). The network meta-analysis showed that the best probabilistic ranking of the effects of two different NIBS on the pain score was repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) (P = 0.62) > transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (P = 0.38).

Conclusion

NIBS can relieve NP after SCI. The effect of rTMS on NP is superior to that of tDCS. We suggest that the rTMS parameters are 80–120% resting motion threshold and 5–20 Hz, while the tDCS parameters are 2 mA and 20 min. However, it is necessary to carry out more large-scale, multicenter, double-blind, high-quality RCT to explore the efficacy and mechanism of NIBS for NP after SCI.

The CanPain SCI clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitation management of neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury: 2021 update

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to update the 2016 version of the Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the management of neuropathic pain in people with spinal cord injury (SCI).

SETTING

The guidelines are relevant for inpatient, outpatient and community SCI rehabilitation settings in Canada.

METHODS

The guidelines were updated in accordance with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A Steering Committee and Working Group reviewed the relevant evidence on neuropathic pain management (encompassing screening and diagnosis, treatment and models of care) after SCI. The quality of evidence was scored using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A consensus process was followed to achieve agreement on recommendations and clinical considerations.

RESULTS

The working group identified and reviewed 46 additional relevant articles published since the last version of the guidelines. The panel agreed on 3 new screening and diagnosis recommendations and 8 new treatment recommendations. Two key changes to these treatment recommendations included the introduction of general treatment principles and a new treatment recommendation classification system. No new recommendations to model of care were made.

CONCLUSIONS

The CanPainSCI recommendations for the management of neuropathic pain after SCI should be used to inform practice.

Difference in Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation According to the Site of Pain

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex for neuropathic pain has been shown to be effective, according to systematic reviews and therapeutic guidelines. However, our large, rigorous, investigator-initiated, registration-directed clinical trial failed to show a positive primary outcome, and its subgroup analysis suggested that the analgesic effect varied according to the site of pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in analgesic effects of rTMS for neuropathic pain between different pain sites by reviewing our previous clinical trials. We included three clinical trials in this mini meta-analysis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial at seven hospitals (N = 64), an investigator-initiated registration-directed clinical trial at three hospitals (N = 142), and an exploratory clinical trial examining different stimulation parameters (N = 22). The primary efficacy endpoint (change in pain scale) was extracted for each patient group with pain in the face, upper limb, or lower limb, and a meta-analysis of the efficacy of active rTMS against sham stimulation was performed. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for pain change using a random-effects model. The analgesic effect of rTMS for upper limb pain was favorable (SMD = -0.45, 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.13). In contrast, rTMS did not produce significant pain relief on lower limb pain (SMD = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.33 to 0.41) or face (SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -1.59 to 1.12). In conclusion, these findings suggest that rTMS provides analgesic effects in patients with neuropathic pain in the upper limb, but not in the lower limb or face, under the conditions of previous clinical trials. Owing to the main limitation of small number of studies included, many aspects should be clarified by further research and high-quality studies in these patients.

Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on neuropathic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a chronic pain condition caused by lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a neuroregulatory tool that uses pulsed magnetic fields to modulate the cerebral cortex. This review aimed to ascertain the therapeutic effect of rTMS on NP and potential factors regulating the therapeutic effect of rTMS. Database search included Web of Science, Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Library from inception to July 2021. Eligible studies included randomized controlled studies of the analgesic effects of rTMS in patients with NP. Thirty-eight studies were included. Random effect analysis showed effect sizes of -0.66 (95 % CI, -0.87 to -0.46), indicating that real rTMS was better than sham condition in reducing pain (P < 0.001). This comprehensive review indicated that stimulation frequency, intervention site, and location of lesion were important factors affecting the therapeutic effect. The findings of this study may guide clinical decisions and future research.

Immediate effect of neurofeedback training on the pain matrix and cortical areas involved in processing neuropsychological functions

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the impact of neurofeedback training on the deeper cortical structures that comprise the "pain matrix" and are involved in processing neuropsychological functions.

METHODS

Five paraplegic patients with central neuropathic pain received up to 40 sessions of neurofeedback training. They were asked to simultaneously modulate the relative power of the theta, alpha and beta bands, provided as a feedback from the sensorimotor cortex. The source localization technique was applied on EEG data recorded with 16 electrodes placed over the whole head.

RESULTS

Neurofeedback training from the sensorimotor cortex induced effects on the pain matrix and in the areas involved in processing neuropsychological functions such as memory, executive functions and emotional regulations. Alpha and beta band activity was most increased in insular, cingulate and frontal cortex regions, and other areas corresponding to executive and emotional function processing. Theta band decreases were noted in the frontal, cingulate and motor cortices. In group analysis, theta and beta band activity was significantly reduced.

CONCLUSION

The single channel electroencephalogram-based neurofeedback training produced effects on similar areas that are targeted in 19 channels standardized low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography and expensive time-delayed functional magnetic resonance imaging feedback studies.

Exploratory study of optimal parameters of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for neuropathic pain in the lower extremities

Introduction

Pain relief from repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) is particularly poor in patients with leg pain. The optimal parameters for relieving leg pain remain poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to explore the optimal stimulation parameters of M1-rTMS for patients with leg pain.

Methods

Eleven patients with neuropathic pain in the leg randomly underwent 6 conditions of M1-rTMS with different stimulation intensities, sites, and coil directions, including sham stimulation. The 5 active conditions were as follows: 90% or 110% of the resting motor threshold (RMT) on the M1 hand with an anteroposterior coil direction, 90% or 110% RMT on the M1 foot in the anteroposterior direction, and 90% RMT on the M1 foot in the mediolateral direction. Each condition was administered for 3 days. Pain intensity was evaluated using the Visual Analogue Scale and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 at baseline and up to 7 days after each intervention.

Results

Visual Analogue Scale scores were significantly reduced after the following active rTMS conditions: 90% RMT on the M1 hand, 90% RMT on the M1 foot with any coil direction, and 110% RMT on the M1 foot. The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 results were similar to those obtained using the Visual Analogue Scale. The analgesic effect of rTMS with stimulus intensity above the RMT was not superior to that below the RMT.

Conclusion

We suggest that the optimal stimulation parameters of rTMS for patients with neuropathic pain in the leg may target the M1 foot or M1 hand with an intensity below the RMT.

Maladaptive reorganization following SCI: The role of body representation and multisensory integration

In this review we focus on maladaptive brain reorganization after spinal cord injury (SCI), including the development of neuropathic pain, and its relationship with impairments in body representation and multisensory integration. We will discuss the implications of altered sensorimotor interactions after SCI with and without neuropathic pain and possible deficits in multisensory integration and body representation. Within this framework we will examine published research findings focused on the use of bodily illusions to manipulate multisensory body representation to induce analgesic effects in heterogeneous chronic pain populations and in SCI-related neuropathic pain. We propose that the development and intensification of neuropathic pain after SCI is partly dependent on brain reorganization associated with dysfunctional multisensory integration processes and distorted body representation. We conclude this review by suggesting future research avenues that may lead to a better understanding of the complex mechanisms underlying the sense of the body after SCI, with a focus on cortical changes.

Neuromodulatory effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on neural plasticity and motor functions in rats with an incomplete spinal cord injury: A preliminary study

We investigated the effects of intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) on locomotor function, motor plasticity, and axonal regeneration in an animal model of incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI). Aneurysm clips with different compression forces were applied extradurally around the spinal cord at T10. Motor plasticity was evaluated by examining the motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Long-term iTBS treatment was given at the post-SCI 5th week and continued for 2 weeks (5 consecutive days/week). Time-course changes in locomotor function and the axonal regeneration level were measured by the Basso Beattie Bresnahan (BBB) scale, and growth-associated protein (GAP)-43 expression was detected in brain and spinal cord tissues. iTBS-induced potentiation was reduced at post-1-week SCI lesion and had recovered by 4 weeks post-SCI lesion, except in the severe group. Multiple sessions of iTBS treatment enhanced the motor plasticity in all SCI rats. The locomotor function revealed no significant changes between pre- and post-iTBS treatment in SCI rats. The GAP-43 expression level in the spinal cord increased following 2 weeks of iTBS treatment compared to the sham-treatment group. This preclinical model may provide a translational platform to further investigate therapeutic mechanisms of transcranial magnetic stimulation and enhance the possibility of the potential use of TMS with the iTBS scheme for treating SCIs.

Therapeutic repetitive Transcranial Magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for neurological dysfunction in Degenerative cervical Myelopathy: An unexplored opportunity? Findings from a systematic review

Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (DCM) is one of the commonest causes of non-traumatic Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) leading to significant neurological impairments and reduced health-related quality of life. Guidelines recommend surgical intervention to halt disease progression in moderate-to-severe cases, and whilst many do experience neurological recovery, this is incomplete leading to lifelong disability. A James Lind Alliance (JLA) research priority setting partnership for DCM highlighted novel therapies and rehabilitation as top 10 research priority in DCM. Neurological recovery following decompressive surgery in DCM has been attributed neuroplasticity, and therapies influencing neuroplasticity are of interest. Electrical neuromodulation interventions such as repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS), are being increasingly explored in related fields such as spinal cord injury to improve recovery and symptoms. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the role and efficacy of rTMS as a therapeutic tool in managing neurological dysfunction in DCM. We searched the databases of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHIL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). No studies were identified that had investigated the therapeutic use of rTMS in DCM. A significant number of studies had explored TMS based neurophysiological assessments indicating its role as a screening and prognostication tool in DCM. Post-operative rehabilitation interventions including TMS and non-operative management of DCM is a field which requires further investigation, as required in the AO Spine JLA DCM research priorities. rTMS is a safe neuromodulatory intervention and may have a role in enhancing recovery in DCM. Further research in these fields are required.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Treating Chronic Neuropathic Pain: a Systematic Review

Given pharmacological interventions' limited efficacy and abundance of its adverse effects, the repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is considered a viable non-invasive option for managing chronic neuropathic pain of different origins with promising outcomes. PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The provision of a systematic review of current literature on rTMS for managing chronic neuropathic pain of different origins, and assess its efficacy and outcomes, highlighting the need for standard protocols for utilizing rTMS. RECENT FINDINGS: Variable stimulation modalities were trialed targeting the M1, DLPFC, and somatosensory cortices S1 and S2. The M1 yielded the best results in 11 of the studies. Frequency of stimulation was variable; however, optimal outcome was with higher frequencies ranging 10-20 Hz rather than low-frequency 1 Hz. Repetitive TMS can produce significant relief from chronic neuropathic pain. The lack of standard methods for rTMS, stimulatory parameters, and target stimulation site precludes concluding the optimal modality for stimulation. The practical algorithm by Lefaucheur and Nguyen (Neurophysiol Clin. 49(4):301-7, 2019) can guide setting standardized algorithms for rTMS. Defining optimal stimulation sites, frequencies, and pulses to maximize patient's pain relief and minimize required rTMS sessions requires further research.

Analgesic Effect of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain Patients: A Systematic Review

Introduction

The objective of this review is to systematically summarize the consensus on best practices for different NP conditions of the two most commonly utilized noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technologies, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).

Methods

PubMed was searched according to the predetermined keywords and criteria. Only English language studies and studies published up to January 31, 2020 were taken into consideration. Meta-analyses, reviews, and systematic reviews were excluded first, and those related to animal studies or involving healthy volunteers were also excluded. Finally, 29 studies covering 826 NP patients were reviewed.

Results

The results from the 24 enrolled studies and 736 NP patients indicate that rTMS successfully relieved the pain symptoms of 715 (97.1%) NP patients. Also, five studies involving 95 NP patients (81.4%) also showed that tDCS successfully relieved NP. In the included studied, the M1 region plays a key role in the analgesic treatment of NIBS. The motor evoked potentials (MEPs), the 10–20 electroencephalography system (EEG 10/20 system), and neuro-navigation methods are used in clinical practice to locate therapeutic targets. Based on the results of the review, the stimulation parameters of rTMS that best induce an analgesic effect are a stimulation frequency of 10–20 Hz, a stimulation intensity of 80–120% of RMT, 1000–2000 pulses, and 5–10 sessions, and the most effective parameters of tDCS are a current intensity of 2 mA, a session duration of 20–30 min, and 5–10 sessions.

Conclusions

Our systematically reviewed the evidence for positive and negative responses to rTMS and tDCS for NP patient care and underscores the analgesic efficacy of NIBS in patients with NP. The treatment of NP should allow the design of optimal treatments for individual patients.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex in management of chronic neuropathic pain: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) with frequencies 5-20 Hz is an expanding non-invasive treatment for chronic neuropathic pain (NP). Outcome data, however, show considerable inhomogeneity with concern to the levels of effect due to the great diversity of treated conditions. The aim of this review was to survey the literature regarding the efficacy and safety of M1 rTMS, and the accuracy to predict a positive response to epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS) which is supposed to give a more longstanding pain relief.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted up to June 2019 in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. We used the PICO Model to define two specific clinical questions: (1) Does rTMS of M1 relieve NP better than sham treatment? (2) Can the response to rTMS be used to predict the effect of epidural MCS? After article selection, data extraction, and study quality assessment, the certainty of evidence of treatment effect was defined using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Data on 5-20 Hz (high-frequency) rTMS vs. sham was extracted from 24 blinded randomised controlled trials which were of varying quality, investigated highly heterogeneous pain conditions, and used excessively variable stimulation parameters. The difference in pain relief between active and sham stimulation was statistically significant in 9 of 11 studies using single-session rTMS, and in 9 of 13 studies using multiple sessions. Baseline data could be extracted from 6 single and 12 multiple session trials with a weighted mean pain reduction induced by active rTMS, compared to baseline, of -19% for single sessions, -32% for multiple sessions with follow-up <30 days, and -24% for multiple sessions with follow-up ≥30 days after the last stimulation session. For single sessions the weighted mean difference in pain reduction between active rTMS and sham was 15 percentage points, for multiple sessions the difference was 22 percentage points for follow-ups <30 days, and 15 percentage points for follow-ups ≥30 days. Four studies reported data that could be used to evaluate the accuracy of rTMS to predict response to MCS, showing a specificity of 60-100%, and a positive predictive value of 75-100%. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

rTMS targeting M1 can result in significant reduction of chronic NP which, however, is transient and shows a great heterogeneity between studies; very low certainty of evidence for single sessions and low for multiple sessions. Multiple sessions of rTMS can maintain a more longstanding effect. rTMS seems to be a fairly good predictor of a positive response to epidural MCS and may be used to select patients for implantation of permanent epidural electrodes. More studies are needed to manifest the use of rTMS for this purpose. Pain relief outcomes in a longer perspective, and outcome variables other than pain reduction need to be addressed more consistently in future studies to consolidate the applicability of rTMS in routine clinical practice.

Effect of non-invasive brain stimulation on neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, some studies indicated that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) could relieve neuropathic pain (NP) following a spinal cord injury (SCI), whereas some studies showed no pain relief effect. In addition, some studies showed the analgesic effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on NP post SCI, whereas other studies showed no effect.

METHODS

We systematically searched on the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Medline, Google Scholar for studies exploring the analgesic effect of rTMS or tDCS on NP post SCI until November 2019. Meta-analysis was conducted to summarize results of these studies.

RESULTS

The present quantitative meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in the effect of treatment on NP following SCI between rTMS and sham rTMS over the motor cortex at about 1 week after the end of the rTMS period (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.27 to 6.04). However, the study indicated that rTMS showed significantly better pain relief of treatment compared with sham rTMS between 2 and 6 weeks after the end of the rTMS period (SMD = 3.81, 95%CI: 0.80-7.52). However, no sufficient evidence could be provided to make a meta-analysis for the analgesic effect of tDCS on NP following SCI over the primary motor area (M1).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the present meta-analysis suggested that rTMS did not show early analgesic effect on NP after SCI, but showed better middle-term analgesic effect, compared with sham rTMS. More large scale, blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were needed to explore the analgesic effect of rTMS and tDCS on NP following SCI.

Electrophysiological Outcome Measures in Spinal Cord Injury Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

Background: Electrophysiological measures are being increasingly utilized due to their ability to provide objective measurements with minimal bias and to detect subtle changes with quantitative data on neural function. Heterogeneous reporting of trial outcomes limits effective interstudy comparison and optimization of treatment. Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to describe the reporting of electrophysiological outcome measures in spinal cord injury (SCI) clinical trials in order to inform a subsequent consensus study. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE databases was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Adult human SCI clinical trials published in English between January 1, 2008 and September 15, 2018 with at least one electrophysiological outcome measure were eligible. Findings were reviewed by all authors to create a synthesis narrative describing each outcome measure. Results: Sixty-four SCI clinical trials were included in this review. Identified electrophysiological outcomes included electromyography activity (44%), motor evoked potentials (33%), somatosensory evoked potentials (33%), H-reflex (20%), reflex electromyography activity (11%), nerve conduction studies (9%), silent period (3%), contact heat evoked potentials (2%), and sympathetic skin response (2%). Heterogeneity was present in regard to both methods of measurement and reporting of electrophysiological outcome measures. Conclusion: This review demonstrates need for the development of a standardized reporting set for electrophysiological outcome measures. Limitations of this review include exclusion of non-English publications, studies more than 10 years old, and an inability to assess methodological quality of primary studies due to a lack of guidelines on reporting of systematic reviews of outcome measures.

Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Pain Management: A Systematic Narrative Review

Recently, clinicians have been using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating various pain conditions. This systematic narrative review aimed to examine the use and efficacy of rTMS for controlling various pain conditions. A PubMed search was conducted for articles that were published until June 7, 2019 and used rTMS for pain alleviation. The key search phrase for identifying potentially relevant articles was (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation AND pain). The following inclusion criteria were applied for article selection: (1) patients with pain, (2) rTMS was applied for pain management, and (3) follow-up evaluations were performed after rTMS stimulation to assess the reduction in pain. Review articles were excluded. Overall, 1,030 potentially relevant articles were identified. After reading the titles and abstracts and assessing eligibility based on the full-text articles, 106 publications were finally included in our analysis. Overall, our findings suggested that rTMS is beneficial for treating neuropathic pain of various origins, such as central pain, pain from peripheral nerve disorders, fibromyalgia, and migraine. Although data on the use of rTMS for orofacial pain, including trigeminal neuralgia, phantom pain, low back pain, myofascial pain syndrome, pelvic pain, and complex regional pain syndrome, were promising, there was insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of rTMS for treating these conditions. Therefore, further studies are needed to validate the effects of rTMS on pain relief in these conditions. Overall, this review will help guide clinicians in making informed decisions regarding whether rTMS is an appropriate option for managing various pain conditions.

Analgesic Effects of Directed Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Acute Neuropathic Pain After Spinal Cord Injury

Objectives

Central neuropathic pain (CNP) often appears following spinal cord injury (SCI), but current treatments are not always successful. In this study, we evaluated the analgesic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) applied over the hand area of the motor cortex in patients with acute CNP after SCI.

Methods

A total of 48 patients with complete or incomplete SCI and acute CNP participated in this study and were randomized to receive either rTMS (10 Hz, 1,500 stimuli; N = 24) or a sham intervention (N = 24) for three weeks. The numeric rating scale (NRS) and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (Chinese Edition; SF-MPQ-2-CN) were analyzed to assess the degree of pain. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and nerve growth factor (NGF) were collected to explore expression influenced by rTMS. Motor-evoked potential (MEP) latency and maximal amplitude were measured to determine neurophysiological changes. The assessments were carried out at baseline (T0), three days (T1), one week (T2), two weeks (T3), and three weeks (T4) after onset of treatment.

Results

The analysis showed significant treatment–time interactions for the quality and intensity of pain, as measured by NRS (P &lt; 0.001, η2 = 0.441) and SF-MPQ-2 (P &lt; 0.001, η2 = 0.590). Compared with the sham group, the NRS and SF-MPQ2-CN scores were significantly lower on the third day (P &lt; 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.135; P = 0.006, Cohen’s d = 0.616) and after one week (P &lt; 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.846; P = 0.012, Cohen’s d = 0.557) of treatment. In addition, the serum levels of BDNF and NGF were significantly higher in the treated group after three weeks (P = 0.015, Cohen’s d = 0.539; P = 0.009, Cohen’s d = 0.580), and the MEP amplitude increased by 109.59% (P = 0.033, Cohen’s d = 0.464).

Conclusions

These findings indicate that 10 Hz rTMS over the hand area of the motor cortex could alleviate acute CNP in the early phase of SCI and could enhance MEP parameters and modulate BDNF and NGF secretion.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Enhances Recovery in Central Cord Syndrome Patients

Objective

To investigate the effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on neurological and functional recovery in patients with central cord syndrome (CCS) involving the upper extremities between the treated and non-treated sides of the treated group and whether the outcomes are comparable to that of the untreated control group.

Methods

Nineteen CCS patients were treated with high-frequency (20 Hz) rTMS over the motor cortex for 5 days. The stimulation side was randomly selected, and all the subjects received conventional occupational therapy during the rTMS-treatment period. Twenty CCS patients who did not receive rTMS were considered as controls. Clinical assessments, including those by the International Standard for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury, the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test, and the O'Connor Finger Dexterity Test were performed initially and followed up for 1 month after rTMS treatment or 5 weeks after initial assessments.

Results

The motor scores for upper extremities were increased and the number of improved cases was greater for the treated side in rTMS-treated patients than for the non-treated side in rTMS-treated patients or controls. The improved cases for writing time and score measured on the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test were also significantly greater in number on the rTMS-treated side compared with the non-treated side and controls. There were no adverse effects during rTMS therapy or the follow-up period.

Conclusion

The results of the application of high-frequency rTMS treatment to CCS patients suggest that rTMS can enhance the motor recovery and functional fine motor task performance of the upper extremities in such individuals.

Non-invasive brain stimulation in chronic orofacial pain: a systematic review

Background

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) are non-invasive brain stimulation techniques that are being explored as therapeutic alternatives for the management of various chronic pain conditions.

Objective

The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy of TMS and tDCS in reducing clinical pain intensity in chronic orofacial pain (OFP) disorders. The secondary objectives are to describe adverse effects, duration of relief, and TMS/tDCS methodologies used in chronic OFP disorders.

Methods

A search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were 1) population: adults diagnosed with chronic OFP including neuropathic and non-neuropathic disorders; 2) intervention: active TMS or tDCS stimulation regardless of the used protocol; 3) comparison: sham TMS or tDCS stimulation; and 4) outcome: primary outcome was patient reported pain intensity. Secondary outcomes were duration of pain relief, adverse effects, and methodological parameters. Risk of bias and quality of study reporting were also assessed.

Results

A total of 556 individual citations were identified by the search strategy, with 14 articles meeting selection criteria (TMS=11; tDCS=3). Data were obtained for a total of 228 patients. Included OFP disorders were trigeminal neuralgia, trigeminal neuropathy, burning mouth syndrome, atypical facial pain, and temporomandibular disorders. Significant pain reductions were obtained in both techniques. More number of sessions yielded to more durable effects. Overall, high risk of bias and poor study quality were found.

Conclusion

TMS and tDCS appear to be safe and promising alternatives to reduce pain intensity in different chronic OFP disorders. Additional research effort is needed to reduce bias, improve quality, and characterize optimal brain stimulation parameters to promote their efficacy.

Less Might Be More: Conduction Failure as a Factor Possibly Limiting the Efficacy of Higher Frequencies in rTMS Protocols

Introduction: rTMS has been proven effective in the treatment of neuropsychiatric conditions, with class A (definite efficacy) evidence for treatment of depression and pain (Lefaucheur et al., 2014). The efficacy in stimulation protocols is, however, quite heterogeneous. Saturation of neuronal firing by HFrTMS without allowing time for recovery may lead to neuronal response failures (NRFs) that compromise the efficacy of stimulation with higher frequencies.

Objectives: To examine the efficacy of different rTMS temporal stimulation patterns focusing on a possible upper stimulation limit related to response failures. Protocol patterns were derived from published clinical studies on therapeutic rTMS for depression and pain. They were compared with conduction failures in cell cultures.

Methodology: From 57 papers using protocols rated class A for depression and pain (Lefaucheur et al., 2014) we extracted Inter-train interval (ITI), average frequency, total duration and total number of pulses and plotted them against the percent improvement on the outcome scale. Specifically, we compared 10 Hz trains with ITIs of 8 s (protocol A) and 26 s (protocol B) in vitro on cultured cortical neurons.

Results: In the in vitro experiments, protocol A with 8-s ITIs resulted in more frequent response failures, while practically no response failures occurred with protocol B (26-s intervals). The HFrTMS protocol analysis exhibited no significant effect of ITIs on protocol efficiency.

Discussion: In the neuronal culture, longer ITIs appeared to allow the neuronal response to recover. In the available human dataset on both depression and chronic pain, data concerning shorter ITIs is does not allow a significant conclusion.

Significance: NRF may interfere with the efficacy of rTMS stimulation protocols when the average stimulation frequency is too high, proposing ITIs as a variable in rTMS protocol efficacy. Clinical trials are necessary to examine effect of shorter ITIs on the clinical outcome in a controlled setting.