Long-term motor cortex stimulation for phantom limb pain

Paired Acute Invasive/Non-invasive Stimulation (PAINS) study: A phase I/II randomized, sham-controlled crossover trial in chronic neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation, an invasive method of neuromodulation, and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), a non-invasive method of altering cortical excitability, have both proven effective in relieving chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE

We employed a randomized, sham-controlled crossover study design to investigate whether single-session tDCS would have an additive therapeutic effect alongside DRG stimulation (DRGS) in the treatment of chronic pain.

METHODS

Sixteen neuropathic pain patients who were previously implanted with DRG stimulators were recruited. Baseline pain scores were established with DRGS-OFF. Pain scores were then recorded with DRGS-ON, after paired sham tDCS stimulation, and after paired active anodal tDCS (a-tDCS) stimulation. For active tDCS, patients were randomized to 'MEG (magnetoencephalography) localized' tDCS or contralateral motor cortex (M1) tDCS for 30 min. EEG recordings and evaluations of tDCS adverse effects were also collected.

RESULTS

All participants reported the interventions to be tolerable with no significant adverse effects during the session. Paired DRGS/active tDCS resulted in a significant reduction in pain scores compared to paired DRGS-ON/sham tDCS or DRGS alone. There was no difference in the additive effect of M1 vs. MEG-localized tDCS. Significant augmentation of beta activity was observed between DRGS-OFF and DRGS-ON conditions, as well as between paired DRGS-ON/sham tDCS and paired DRGS-ON/active tDCS.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that a single session of tDCS alongside DRGS is safe and can significantly reduce pain acutely in neuropathic pain patients. Paired invasive/non-invasive neuromodulation is a promising new treatment strategy for pain management and should be evaluated further to assess long-term benefits.

Pre-motor versus motor cerebral cortex neuromodulation for chronic neuropathic pain

Electrical stimulation of the cerebral cortex (ESCC) has been used to treat intractable neuropathic pain for nearly two decades, however, no standardized approach for this technique has been developed. In order to optimize targeting and validate the effect of ESCC before placing the permanent grid, we introduced initial assessment with trial stimulation, using a temporary grid of subdural electrodes. In this retrospective study we evaluate the role of electrode location on cerebral cortex in control of neuropathic pain and the role of trial stimulation in target-optimization for ESCC. Location of the temporary grid electrodes and location of permanent electrodes were evaluated in correlation with the long-term efficacy of ESCC. The results of this study demonstrate that the long-term effect of subdural pre-motor cortex stimulation is at least the same or higher compare to effect of subdural motor or combined pre-motor and motor cortex stimulation. These results also demonstrate that the initial trial stimulation helps to optimize permanent electrode positions in relation to the optimal functional target that is critical in cases when brain shift is expected. Proposed methodology and novel results open a new direction for development of neuromodulation techniques to control chronic neuropathic pain.

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.

Noninvasive neuromodulation techniques for the management of phantom limb pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Neuromodulation techniques work by modulating pain perception by inducing changes in polarity of the neuronal membrane and thereby cortical excitability. The aim of this review is to evaluate the efficiency and safety of noninvasive neuromodulation techniques for phantom limb pain (PLP). A systematic literature search in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify studies investigating the effects of noninvasive neuromodulation for PLP. The included journal articles were assessed with Furlan et al.'s method for examining the risk of bias to assess methodologic quality, and evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. The literature search identified 239 studies. Of these 239, four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included for data extraction. Two of the studies focused on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) whereas two other concentrated on transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). The present review showed that there is conflicting evidence to support the use of tDCS in short term and moderate evidence to support the use of rTMS in immediate and short term. It is important to recognize that this evidence comes from a very small sample size. No serious adverse effects were reported. Further information from randomized controlled trials with larger sample size investigating immediate and short-term and long-term effects are needed to clarify the best effective stimulation parameters and number of sessions of tDCS and rTMS for PLP.

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.

Cortical neurostimulation for neuropathic pain: state of the art and perspectives

The treatment of neuropathic pain by neuromodulation is an objective for more than 40 years in modern clinical practice. With respect to spinal cord and deep brain structures, the cerebral cortex is the most recently evaluated target of invasive neuromodulation therapy for pain. In the early 90s, the first successes of invasive epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS) were published. A few years later was developed repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a noninvasive stimulation technique. Then, electrical transcranial stimulation returned valid and is currently in full development, with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Regarding transcranial approaches, the main studied and validated target was still the motor cortex, but other cortical targets are under investigation. The mechanisms of action of these techniques share similarities, especially between EMCS and rTMS, but they also have differences that could justify specific indications and applications. It is therefore important to know the principles and to assess the merit of these techniques on the basis of a rigorous assessment of the results, to avoid fad. Various types of chronic neuropathic pain syndromes can be significantly relieved by EMCS or repeated daily sessions of high-frequency (5-20 Hz) rTMS or anodal tDCS over weeks, at least when pain is lateralized and stimulation is applied to the motor cortex contralateral to pain side. However, cortical stimulation therapy remains to be optimized, especially by improving EMCS electrode design, rTMS targeting, or tDCS montage, to reduce the rate of nonresponders, who do not experience clinically relevant effects of these techniques.