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

Management of Central Post-Stroke Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Central post stroke pain (CPSP) is a neuropathic pain condition prevalent in 8% to 35% of stroke patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide insight in the effectiveness of available pharmacological, physical, psychological, and neuromodulation intervention in reducing pain in CPSP patients (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022371835). Secondary outcomes included mood, sleep, global impression of change, and physical responses. Data extraction included participant demographics, stroke aetiology, pain characteristics, pain reduction scores, and secondary outcome metrics. Forty two original studies were included with a total of 1451 participants. No studies providing psychological therapy to CPSP patients were identified. Twelve studies met requirements for a random-effects meta-analyses that found: pharmacological therapy to have a small effect on mean pain score (SMD = -0.36, 96.0% Confidence Interval [-0.68, -0.03], physical interventions did not show a significant effect (SMD = -0.55, [-1.28, 0.18]), and neuromodulation treatments had a moderate effect (SMD -0.64, [-1.08, -0.19]). Fourteen studies were included in proportional meta-analysis with pharmacological studies having a moderate effect (58.3% mean pain reduction, [-36.51, -80.15]), and neuromodulation studies a small effect (31.1% mean pain reduction, [-43.45, -18.76]). Sixteen studies were included in the narrative review, findings from which largely supported meta-analyses results. Duloxetine, Amitriptyline and repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) had the most robust evidence for their effectiveness in alleviating CPSP induced pain. Further multi-centre placebo-controlled research is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of physical therapies, such as acupuncture and virtual reality, and invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation treatments. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a top-down and bottom-up overview of evidence for the effectiveness of different pharmacological, physical, and neuromodulation treatments of CPSP. This review could provide clinicians with a comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness and tolerability of different treatment types.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Long-Term Results of Cortical Motor Stimulation for Neuropathic Peripheral and Central Pain: Real-World Evidence From Two Independent Centers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cortical motor stimulation (CMS) is used to modulate neuropathic pain. The literature supports its use; however, short follow-up studies might overestimate its real effect. This study brings real-world evidence from two independent centers about CMS methodology and its long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with chronic refractory neuropathic pain were implanted with CMS. The International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd Edition was used to classify craniofacial pain and the Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions Scale score to explore its neuropathic nature. Demographics and clinical and surgical data were collected. Pain intensity at 6, 12, and 24 months and last follow-up was registered. Numeric rating scale reduction of ≥50% was considered a good response. The Clinical Global Impression of Change scale was used to report patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Twelve males (38.7%) and 19 females (61.3%) with a mean age of 55.8 years (±11.9) were analyzed. Nineteen (61.5%) were diagnosed from painful trigeminal neuropathy (PTN), and seven (22.5%) from central poststroke pain. The mean follow-up was 51 months (±23). At 6 months, 42% (13/31) of the patients were responders, all of them being PTN (13/19; 68.4%). At last follow-up, only 35% (11/31) remained responders (11/19 PTN; 58%). At last follow-up, the global Numeric rating scale reduction was 34% ( P = .0001). The Clinical Global Impression of Change scale punctuated 2.39 (±0.94) after 3 months from the surgery and 2.95 (±1.32) at last follow-up ( P = .0079). Signs of suspicious placebo effect were appreciated in around 40% of the nonresponders.

CONCLUSION

CMS might show long-term efficacy for neuropathic pain syndromes, with the effect on PTN being more robust in the long term. Multicentric clinical trials are needed to confirm the efficacy of this therapy for this and other conditions.

Systemic and Peripheral Mechanisms of Cortical Stimulation-Induced Analgesia and Refractoriness in a Rat Model of Neuropathic Pain

Epidural motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is an effective treatment for refractory neuropathic pain; however, some individuals are unresponsive. In this study, we correlated the effectiveness of MCS and refractoriness with the expression of cytokines, neurotrophins, and nociceptive mediators in the dorsal root ganglion (DRG), sciatic nerve, and plasma of rats with sciatic neuropathy. MCS inhibited hyperalgesia and allodynia in two-thirds of the animals (responsive group), and one-third did not respond (refractory group). Chronic constriction injury (CCI) increased IL-1β in the nerve and DRG, inhibited IL-4, IL-10, and IL-17A in the nerve, decreased β-endorphin, and enhanced substance P in the plasma, compared to the control. Responsive animals showed decreased NGF and increased IL-6 in the nerve, accompanied by restoration of local IL-10 and IL-17A and systemic β-endorphin. Refractory animals showed increased TNF-α and decreased IFNγ in the nerve, along with decreased TNF-α and IL-17A in the DRG, maintaining low levels of systemic β-endorphin. Our findings suggest that the effectiveness of MCS depends on local control of inflammatory and neurotrophic changes, accompanied by recovery of the opioidergic system observed in neuropathic conditions. So, understanding the refractoriness to MCS may guide an improvement in the efficacy of the technique, thus benefiting patients with persistent neuropathic pain.

Neurosurgical Treatment of Pain

The aim of this review is to draw attention to neurosurgical approaches for treating chronic and opioid-resistant pain. In a first chapter, an up-to-date overview of the main pathophysiological mechanisms of pain has been carried out, with special emphasis on the details in which the surgical treatment is based. In a second part, the principal indications and results of different surgical approaches are reviewed. Cordotomy, Myelotomy, DREZ lesions, Trigeminal Nucleotomy, Mesencephalotomy, and Cingulotomy are revisited. Ablative procedures have a limited role in the management of chronic non-cancer pain, but they continues to help patients with refractory cancer-related pain. Another ablation lesion has been named and excluded, due to lack of current relevance. Peripheral Nerve, Spine Cord, and the principal possibilities of Deep Brain and Motor Cortex Stimulation are also revisited. Regarding electrical neuromodulation, patient selection remains a challenge.

Neural network of bipolar disorder: Toward integration of neuroimaging and neurocircuit-based treatment strategies

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a complex psychiatric disorder characterized by dysfunctions in three domains including emotional processing, cognitive processing, and psychomotor dimensions. However, the neural underpinnings underlying these clinical profiles are not well understood. Based on the reported data, we hypothesized that (i) the core neuropathology in BD is damage in fronto-limbic network, which is associated with emotional dysfunction; (ii) changes in intrinsic brain network, such as sensorimotor network, salience network, default-mode network, central executive network are associated with impaired cognition function; and (iii) beyond the dopaminergic-driven basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical motor circuit modulated by other neurotransmitter systems, such as serotonin (subcortical-cortical modulation), the sensorimotor network and related motor function modulated by other non-motor networks such as the default-mode network are involved in psychomotor function. In this review, we propose a neurocircuit-based clinical characteristics and taxonomy to guide the treatment of BD. We draw on findings from neuropsychological and neuroimaging studies in BD and link variations in these clinical profiles to underlying neurocircuit dysfunctions. We consider pharmacological, psychotherapy, and neuromodulatory treatments that could target those specific neurocircuit dysfunctions in BD. Finally, it is suggested that the methods of testing the neurocircuit-based taxonomy and important limitations to this approach should be considered in future.

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.

The primary motor cortex electrical and chemical stimulation attenuates the chronic neuropathic pain by activation of the periaqueductal grey matter: The role of NMDA receptors

BACKGROUND

Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is proper as a non-pharmacological therapy for patients with chronic and neuropathic pain (NP).

AIMS

This work aims to investigate if the MCS in the primary motor cortex (M₁) produces analgesia and how the MCS could interfere in the MCS-induced analgesia. Also, to elucidate if the persistent activation of N-methyl-d-aspartic acid receptor (NMDAr) in the periaqueductal grey matter (PAG) can contribute to central sensitisation of the NP.

METHODS

Male Wistar rats were submitted to the von Frey test to evaluate the mechanical allodynia after 21 days of chronic constriction injury (CCI) of the sciatic nerve. The MCS was performed with low-frequency (20 μA, 100 Hz) currents during 15 s by a deep brain stimulation (DBS) device. Moreover, the effect of M₁-treatment with an NMDAr agonist (at 2, 4, and 8 nmol) was investigated in CCI rats. The PAG dorsomedial column (dmPAG) was pretreated with the NMDAr antagonist LY 235959 (at 8 nmol), followed by MCS.

RESULTS

The MCS decreased the mechanical allodynia in rats with chronic NP. The M₁-treatment with an NMDA agonist at 2 and 8 nmol reduced the mechanical allodynia in CCI rats. In addition, dmPAG-pretreatment with LY 235959 at 8 nmol attenuated the mechanical allodynia evoked by MCS.

CONCLUSION

The M₁ cortex glutamatergic system is involved in the modulation of chronic NP. The analgesic effect of MCS may depend on glutamate signaling recruitting NMDAr located on PAG neurons in rodents with chronic NP.

Motor cortex stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain: results of a double-blind randomized study

Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) via surgically implanted electrodes has been used as an off-label treatment for chronic neuropathic pain (cNeP) but its efficacy has not been fully established. We aimed to objectively study the efficacy of MCS and characterize potential predictors of response. In this randomised, double-blind, sham-controlled, single centre trial, we recruited 18 cNeP patients who did not adequately respond to conventional treatment and had a numerical rating pain scale (NRS) score ≥ 6. Patients were initially assigned to receive three months of active ("on") or sham ("off") stimulation in a double-blind cross-over phase. This was followed by a 3-month single-blind phase, and 6 months of open-label follow-up. A meaningful response in our trial was defined as a ≥ 30% or 2-point reduction in NRS scores during active stimulation. Using Bayesian statistics, we found a 41.4% probability of response towards "on" vs. "off" MCS. The probability of improvement during active stimulation (double-blind, single-blind and open label phases) compared to baseline was of 47.2-68.5%. 39% of patients were long-term responders, 71.4% of whom had facial pain, phantom limb pain, or complex regional pain syndrome. In contrast, 72.7% of non-responders had either post-stroke pain or pain associated with brachial plexus avulsion. 39% of patients had a substantial post-operative analgesic effect after electrode insertion in the absence of stimulation. Individuals with diagnoses associated with a good postoperative outcome or those who developed an insertional effect had a near 100% probability of response to MCS. In summary, we found that approximately 40% of patients responded to MCS, particularly those who developed an insertional effect or had specific clinical conditions that seemed to predict an appropriate postoperative response.

Focused Ultrasound (FUS) for Chronic Pain Management: Approved and Potential Applications

Chronic pain is one of the leading causes of disability and disease burden worldwide, accounting for a prevalence between 6.9% and 10% in the general population. Pharmacotherapy alone results ineffective in about 70-60% of patients in terms of a satisfactory degree of pain relief. Focused ultrasound is a promising tool for chronic pain management, being approved for thalamotomy in chronic neuropathic pain and for bone metastases-related pain treatment. FUS is a noninvasive technique for neuromodulation and for tissue ablation that can be applied to several tissues. Transcranial FUS (tFUS) can lead to opposite biological effects, depending on stimulation parameters: from reversible neural activity facilitation or suppression (low-intensity, low-frequency ultrasound, LILFUS) to irreversible tissue ablation (high-intensity focused ultrasounds, HIFU). HIFU is approved for thalamotomy in neuropathic pain at the central nervous system level and for the treatment of facet joint osteoarthritis at the peripheral level. Potential applications include HIFU at the spinal cord level for selected cases of refractory chronic neuropathic pain, knee osteoarthritis, sacroiliac joint disease, intervertebral disc nucleolysis, phantom limb, and ablation of peripheral nerves. FUS at nonablative dosage, LILFUS, has potential reversible and tissue-selective effects. FUS applications at nonablative doses currently are at a research stage. The main potential applications include targeted drug and gene delivery through the Blood-Brain Barrier, assessment of pain thresholds and study of pain, and reversible peripheral nerve conduction block. The aim of the present review is to describe the approved and potential applications of the focused ultrasound technology in the field of chronic pain management.

Deep Brain Stimulation and Motor Cortex Stimulation for Chronic Pain

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) and Motor Cortex stimulation (MCS) have been used for control of chronic pain. Chronic pain of any origin is complex and difficult to treat. Stimulation of various areas in brain-like sensory thalamus, medial nuclei of thalamus including centro-lateral nucleus of thalamus (CL), periaqueductal gray, periventricular gray, nucleus accumbence and motor cortex provides partial relief in properly selected patients. This article reviews the pain pathways, theories of pain, targets for DBS and rationale of DBS and MCS. It also discusses the patient selection, technical details of each target.

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.

Neuromodulation for chronic pain

Neuromodulation is an expanding area of pain medicine that incorporates an array of non-invasive, minimally invasive, and surgical electrical therapies. In this Series paper, we focus on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies discussed within the framework of other invasive, minimally invasive, and non-invasive neuromodulation therapies. These therapies include deep brain and motor cortex stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and the non-invasive treatments of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. SCS methods with electrical variables that differ from traditional SCS have been approved. Although methods devoid of paraesthesias (eg, high frequency) should theoretically allow for placebo-controlled trials, few have been done. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that SCS is superior to reoperation or conventional medical management for failed back surgery syndrome, and conflicting evidence as to the superiority of traditional SCS over sham stimulation or between different SCS modalities. Peripheral nerve stimulation technologies have also undergone rapid development and become less invasive, including many that are placed percutaneously. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that peripheral nerve stimulation is effective for neuropathic pain in an extremity, low quality evidence that it is effective for back pain with or without leg pain, and conflicting evidence that it can prevent migraines. In the USA and many areas in Europe, deep brain and motor cortex stimulation are not approved for chronic pain, but are used off-label for refractory cases. Overall, there is mixed evidence supporting brain stimulation, with most sham-controlled trials yielding negative findings. Regarding non-invasive modalities, there is moderate quality evidence that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation does not provide meaningful benefit for chronic pain in general, but conflicting evidence regarding pain relief for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcranial direct current stimulation, there is low-quality evidence supporting its benefit for chronic pain, but conflicting evidence regarding a small treatment effect for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, there is low-quality evidence that it is superior to sham or no treatment for neuropathic pain, but conflicting evidence for non-neuropathic pain. Future research should focus on better evaluating the short-term and long-term effectiveness of all neuromodulation modalities and whether they decrease health-care use, and on refining selection criteria and treatment variables.

Invasive cortical stimulation

The field of neuromodulation, at its essence, aims to apply electrical stimulation to the brain to ameliorate various pathology. Many methods of applying this stimulation exist, including invasive and non-invasive means. In the realm of invasive stimulation, stimulation of the cortex remains one of the earliest techniques investigated, yet one of the most underutilized today. Evidence for the efficacy of direct invasive cortical stimulation continues to mount, especially in recent years. In this chapter we will review the evidence for the use of invasive cortical stimulation as it applies to neuropathic pain, epilepsy, psychiatric disease, movement disorders, tinnitus, and post-stroke recovery, as well explore some potential mechanisms and future directions of the technique.

Burst Motor Cortex Stimulation Evokes Sustained Suppression of Thalamic Stroke Pain: A Narrative Review and Single-Case Overview

Chronic refractory central post-stroke pain (CPSP), one of the most disabling consequences of cerebral stroke, occurs in up to 10% of patients with CPSP. Because a considerable proportion of these patients with chronic pain remain resistant to pharmacological and behavioral therapies, adjunctive invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation therapies are needed. We performed a review of human studies applying burst and conventional motor cortex stimulation (burstMCS and cMCS, respectively) for chronic pain states, on the basis of data sources identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID, and SCOPUS, as well as manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Our aim was to review and discuss clinical data on the indications of burstMCS for various chronic pain states originating from central stroke (excluding trigeminal facial pain). In addition, we assessed the efficacy and safety of burst versus cMCS for central post-stroke pain with an extended follow-up of 5 years in a 60-year-old man. According to our review, uncontrolled observational human cohort studies and one RCT using cMCS waveforms have revealed a meaningful clinical response; however, these studies lacked placebo groups and extended observation periods. In our case report, we found that 3 months of adjunctive cMCS reduced pain levels [visual analog scale (VAS) pre: 9/10 versus VAS post 7/10], whereas the pain decreased further under burstMCS (VAS pre: 7/10 versus VAS post: 2/10); the study involved a follow-up of 5 years and the following parameters: burst rate 40 Hz (500 Hz), 1–1.75 mA, 1 ms, bipolar configuration. To date, only limited evidence exists for the efficacy and safety of burst motor cortex stimulation for the treatment of refractory chronic pain. BurstMCS resulted in significantly decreased post-stroke pain observed after 5 years of cMCS. The available literature suggests similar efficacy as that of conventional (tonic) motor cortex stimulation, although the results are preliminary. Mechanistically, the precise mechanism of action is not fully understood. However, burstMCS may interact with the nociceptive thalamic-cingulate and descending spinal pain networks. To determine the potential utility of this treatment, large-scale sham-controlled trials comparing cMCS and burstMCS are highly recommended.

Motor cortex stimulation in chronic neuropathic orofacial pain syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Invasive motor Cortex Stimulation (iMCS) was introduced in the 1990's for the treatment of chronic neuropathic orofacial pain (CNOP), although its effectiveness remains doubtful. However, CNOP is known to be a heterogeneous group of orofacial pain disorders, which can lead to different responses to iMCS. Therefore, this paper investigated (1) whether the effectiveness of iMCS is significantly different among different CNOP disorders and (2) whether other confounding factors can be impacting iMCS results in CNOP. A systematic review and meta-analysis using a linear mixed-model was performed. Twenty-three papers were included, totaling 140 CNOP patients. Heterogeneity of the studies showed to be 55.8%. A visual analogue scale (VAS) measured median pain relief of 66.5% (ranging from 0-100%) was found. Linear mixed-model analysis showed that patients suffering from trigeminal neuralgia responded significantly more favorable to iMCS than patients suffering from dysfunctional pain syndromes (p = 0.030). Also, patients suffering from CNOP caused by (supra)nuclear lesions responded marginally significantly better to iMCS than patients suffering from CNOP due to trigeminal nerve lesions (p = 0.049). No other confounding factors were elucidated. This meta-analysis showed that patients suffering from trigeminal neuralgia and patients suffering from (supra)nuclear lesions causing CNOP responded significantly more favorable than others on iMCS. No other confounding factors were found relevant.

Invasive Motor Cortex Stimulation Influences Intracerebral Structures in Patients With Neuropathic Pain: An Activation Likelihood Estimation Meta-Analysis of Imaging Data

Objective

Invasive motor cortex stimulation (iMCS) has been proposed as a treatment for intractable neuropathic pain syndromes. Although the mechanisms underlying the analgesic effect of iMCS remain largely elusive, several studies found iMCS‐related changes in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) in neuropathic pain patients. The aim of this study was to meta‐analyze the findings of neuroimaging studies on rCBF changes to iMCS.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for retrieval of relevant scientific papers. After initial assessment of relevancy by screening title and abstract by two investigators, independently, predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used for final inclusion of papers. Descriptive results were statistically assessed, whereas coordinates were pooled and meta‐analyzed in accordance with the activation likelihood estimation (ALE) methodology.

Results

Six studies were included in the systematic narrative analysis, suggesting rCBF increases in the cingulate gyrus, thalamus, insula, and putamen after switching the MCS device “ON” as compared to the “OFF” situation. Decreases in rCBF were found in for example the precentral gyrus and different occipital regions. Two studies did not report stereotactic coordinates and were excluded from further analysis. ALE meta‐analysis showed that, after switching the iMCS electrode “ON,” increased rCBF occurred in the (1) anterior cingulate gyrus; (2) putamen; (3) cerebral peduncle; (4) precentral gyrus; (5) superior frontal gyrus; (6) red nucleus; (7) internal part of the globus pallidus; (8) ventral lateral nucleus of the thalamus; (9) medial frontal gyrus; (10) inferior frontal gyrus; and (11) claustrum, as compared to the “OFF” situation. Reductions in rCBF were found in the posterior cingulate gyrus when the iMCS electrode was turned “OFF.”

Conclusions

These findings suggested that iMCS induces changes in principal components of the default mode‐, the salience‐, and sensorimotor network.

Effectiveness of tonic and burst motor cortex stimulation in chronic neuropathic pain

Background: Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is an intracranial, invasive method for treatment of chronic pain. Main indications for MCS are central post stroke pain, neuropathic facial pain, phantom limb pain and brachial plexus or spinal cord injury pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) with burst waveform has been proved to be more effective than tonic mode in chronic pain. Necessity to replace depleted batteries of motor cortex tonic stimulators gave us an opportunity of applying burst stimulation. The objective of the pilot study was to evaluate the effects of burst stimulation applied on motor cortex in patients with chronic pain syndromes as well as comparison to tonic mode. Materials and methods: We have evaluated 6 patients (females N=3, males N=3) belonging to the group of 14 cases (females N=5, males N=9) who had undergone surgical procedure of MCS in years 2005-2017. Selected for the study were 6 patients with thalamic pain N=3, with facial pain N=3 (anaesthesia dolorosa and neuropathic trigeminal neuralgia). The patients were subjected to both modes of stimulation then they chose which one was better in relieving pain: tonic or burst. Pain intensity was assessed with the visual analogue scale (VAS) before the replacement of implanted pulse generator (IPG) and after the stimulation with tonic and burst modes. Results: In the study, 5 out of 6 patients with MCS found burst mode more effective than tonic mode. Baseline VAS score in patients that had at least 3 months depleted battery of tonic IPG was 95 mm. After implantation of a new IPG mean VAS score on tonic stimulation was 72 mm, on burst 53 mm. Conclusions: The most preferred option of MCS in selected group of patients was burst stimulation. This study has shown, that the burst stimulation of cerebral cortex is a promising modality when tonic stimulation is not sufficient in refractory, neuropathic pain.

Added value of multiple versus single sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in predicting motor cortex stimulation efficacy for refractory neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE

Selection criteria for offering patients motor cortex stimulation (MCS) for refractory neuropathic pain are a critical topic of research. A single session of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has been advocated for selecting MCS candidates, but it has a low negative predictive value. Here the authors investigated whether multiple rTMS sessions would more accurately predict MCS efficacy.

METHODS

Patients included in this longitudinal study could access MCS after at least four rTMS sessions performed 3-4 weeks apart. The positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values of the four rTMS sessions and the correlation between the analgesic effects of the two treatments were assessed.

RESULTS

Twelve MCS patients underwent an average of 15.9 rTMS sessions prior to surgery; nine of the patients were rTMS responders. Postoperative follow-up was 57.8 ± 15.6 months (mean ± standard deviation). Mean percentage of pain relief (%R) was 21% and 40% after the first and fourth rTMS sessions, respectively. The corresponding mean durations of pain relief were respectively 2.4 and 12.9 days. A cumulative effect of the rTMS sessions was observed on both %R and duration of pain relief (p < 0.01). The %R value obtained with MCS was 35% after 6 months and 43% at the last follow-up. Both the PPV and NPV of rTMS were 100% after the fourth rTMS session (p = 0.0045). A significant correlation was found between %R or duration of pain relief after the fourth rTMS session and %R at the last MCS follow-up (R2 = 0.83, p = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Four rTMS sessions predicted MCS efficacy better than a single session in neuropathic pain patients. Taking into account the cumulative effects of rTMS, the authors found a high-level correlation between the analgesic effects of rTMS and MCS.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Electronic supplementary material

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

Motor cortex and pain control: exploring the descending relay analgesic pathways and spinal nociceptive neurons in healthy conscious rats

Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is an effective therapy for refractory neuropathic pain. MCS increases the nociceptive threshold in healthy rats via endogenous opioids, inhibiting thalamic nuclei and activating the periaqueductal gray. It remains unclear how the motor cortex induces top-down modulation of pain in the absence of persistent pain. Here, we investigated the main nuclei involved in the descending analgesic pathways and the spinal nociceptive neurons in rats that underwent one session of MCS and were evaluated with the paw pressure nociceptive test. The pattern of neuronal activation in the dorsal raphe nucleus (DRN), nucleus raphe magnus (NRM), locus coeruleus (LC), and dorsal horn of the spinal cord (DHSC) was assessed by immunoreactivity (IR) for Egr-1 (a marker of activated neuronal nuclei). IR for serotonin (5HT) in the DRN and NRM, tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) in the LC, and substance P (SP) and enkephalin (ENK) in the DHSC was also evaluated. MCS increased the nociceptive threshold of the animals; this increase was accompanied by activation of the NRM, while DRN activation was unchanged. However, cortical stimulation induced an increase in 5HT-IR in both serotonergic nuclei. MCS did not change the activation pattern or TH-IR in the LC, and it inhibited neuronal activation in the DHSC without altering SP or ENK-IR. Taken together, our results suggest that MCS induces the activation of serotonergic nuclei as well as the inhibition of spinal neurons, and such effects may contribute to the elevation of the nociceptive threshold in healthy rats. These results allow a better understanding of the circuitry involved in the antinociceptive top-down effect induced by MCS under basal conditions, reinforcing the role of primary motor cortex in pain control.

[Motor cortex stimulation in deafferentation facial pain]

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the results of treatment of poorly controlled deafferentation facial pain using motor cortex stimulation and to review the relevant literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 8 patients (3 males and 5 females) with deafferentation facial pain who were implanted with a system of constant motor cortex stimulation at the Illinois University in Chicago in 2004-2016 and Novosibirsk Federal Center of Neurosurgery in 2017. The patients' age ranged from 37 to 81 years (mean age, 57.5 years). Scale-based assessment of the pain severity was performed at admission to hospital, at discharge, and during follow-up. The visual analogue pain scale, Barrow Neurological Institute pain scale (BNIPS), and McLaughlin scale were used.

RESULTS

Immediately after surgery, a significant improvement in the form of pain reduction by 80-100% occurred in 4 patients. The pain intensity at discharge from the hospital decreased by 55%, on average. During the follow-up period, the efficacy of motor cortex stimulation was assessed (McLaughlin scale) as very good by 3 of the 8 patients, as good by 4 patients, and as unsatisfactory by 1 patient.

CONCLUSION

Our findings and recent studies have demonstrated that motor cortex stimulation is one of the treatment options for deafferentation facial pain. Even a slight decrease in the intensity of excruciating and debilitating pain (assessed by patients as a good effect) gives grounds for application of the procedure. Further research is needed to define more precise criteria for selecting patients for this treatment and to increase the efficacy of stimulation.

Non pharmacological treatment for neuropathic pain: Invasive and non-invasive cortical stimulation

The use of medications in chronic neuropathic pain may be limited with regard to efficacy and tolerance. Therefore, non-pharmacological approaches, using electrical stimulation of the cortex has been proposed as an alternative. First, in the early nineties, surgically-implanted epidural motor cortex stimulation (EMCS) was proven to be effective to relieve refractory neuropathic pain. Later, non-invasive stimulation techniques were found to produce similar analgesic effects, at least by means of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) targeting the primary motor cortex (M1). Following "high-frequency" rTMS (e.g., stimulation frequency ranging from 5 to 20Hz) delivered to the precentral gyrus (e.g., M1 region), it is possible to obtain an analgesic effect via the modulation of several remote brain regions involved in nociceptive information processing or control. This pain reduction can last for weeks beyond the time of the stimulation, especially if repeated sessions are performed, probably related to processes of long-term synaptic plasticity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), another form of transcranial stimulation, using low-intensity electrical currents, generally delivered by a pair of large electrodes, has also shown some efficacy to improve patients with chronic pain syndromes. The mechanism of action of tDCS differs from that of EMCS and rTMS, but the cortical target is the same, which is M1. Although the level of evidence of therapeutic efficacy in the context of neuropathic pain is lower for tDCS than for rTMS, interesting perspectives are opened by using at-home tDCS protocols for long-term management. Now, there is a scientific basis for recommending both EMCS and rTMS of M1 to treat refractory chronic neuropathic pain, but their application in clinical practice remains limited due to practical and regulatory issues.

Long-term Effect and Predictive Factors of Motor Cortex and Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain

The long-term effects of motor cortex stimulation (MCS) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remain unknown. To identify the long-term effects after MCS or SCS and determine any associated predictive factors for the outcomes. Fifty patients underwent MCS (n = 15) or SCS (n = 35) for chronic neuropathic pain. The degree of pain was assessed preoperatively, at 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery, and during the time of the last follow-up using Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Percentage of pain relief (PPR) was calculated, with “long-term effect” defined as PPR ≥ 30% and the presence of continued pain relief over 12 months. Outcomes were classified into excellent (PPR ≥ 70%) and good (PPR 30–69%) sub-categories. Long-term effects of MCS and SCS were observed in 53.3% and 57.1% of the patients, respectively. There were no predictive factors of long-term effects identified for any of the various preoperative conditions. However, the VAS at 1 month after surgery was significantly associated with the long-term effects in both MCS and SCS. All patients with an excellent outcome at 1 month after the surgery continued to exhibit these effects. In contrast, patients with the good outcome at 1 month exhibited a significant decrease in the effects at 6 months after surgery. The long-term effects of MCS and SCS were approximately 50% during the more than 8.5 and 3.5 years of follow-up, respectively. The VAS at 1 month after surgery may be a postoperative predictor of the long-term effects for both MCS and SCS.

The Current State of Deep Brain Stimulation for Chronic Pain and Its Context in Other Forms of Neuromodulation

Chronic intractable pain is debilitating for those touched, affecting 5% of the population. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has fallen out of favour as the centrally implantable neurostimulation of choice for chronic pain since the 1970–1980s, with some neurosurgeons favouring motor cortex stimulation as the ‘last chance saloon’. This article reviews the available data and professional opinion of the current state of DBS as a treatment for chronic pain, placing it in the context of other neuromodulation therapies. We suggest DBS, with its newer target, namely anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), should not be blacklisted on the basis of a lack of good quality study data, which often fails to capture the merits of the treatment.

Motor Cortex Stimulation for Deafferentation Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Long-term effect of motor cortex stimulation in patients suffering from chronic neuropathic pain: An observational study

Background

Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) was introduced as a last-resort treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. Over the years, MCS has been used for the treatment of various pain syndromes but long-term follow-up is unknown.

Methods

This paper reports the results of MCS from 2005 until 2012 with a 3-year follow-up. Patients who suffered from chronic neuropathic pain treated with MCS were studied. The analgesic effect was determined as successful by decrease in pain-intensity on the visual analog scale (VAS) of at least 40%. The modifications in drug regimens were monitored with use of the medication quantification scale (MQS). Stimulation parameters and complications were also noted. Interference of pain with quality of life (QoL), the Quality of Life Index (QLI), was determined with use of a specific subset of questions from the MPQ-DLV score.

Results

Eighteen patients were included. Mean pre-operative VAS changed from 89.4 ± 11.2 to 53.1 ± 25.0 after three years of follow-up (P < 0.0001). A successful outcome was achieved in seven responders (38.9%). All patients in the responder group suffered from pain caused by a central lesion. With regard to all the patients with central pain lesions (n = 10) and peripheral lesions (n = 8), a significant difference in response to MCS was noticed (P = 0.002). MQS scores and QLI-scores diminished during the follow-up period (P = 0.210 and P = 0.007, respectively).

Conclusion

MCS seems a promising therapeutic option for patients with refractory pain syndromes of central origin.

Cortical neuromodulation for neuropathic pain and Parkinson disease: Where are we?

Cortex neuromodulation is promising approach for treatment of some neurological conditions, especially neuropathic pain and Parkinson's disease. Effects of non-invasive cortical stimulation are short lived; transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) may be useful to assess the suitability for invasive cortical stimulation. Direct cortical stimulation (DCS) is the method able to provide long-lasting effects in treatment of neuropathic pain and some symptoms of Parkinson's disease through the use of totally implantable systems that ensure a chronic stimulation.

Cyclization of Motor Cortex Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain: A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded Trial

OBJECTIVES

Programming guidelines for motor cortex stimulation (MCS) in neuropathic pain requires further investigation. After optimizing voltage as a percentage of motor threshold, we evaluated the effect of cyclizing time of stimulation on pain relief for chronic neuropathic pain.

METHODS

Six patients were enrolled into this trial. In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded manner, patients were programmed to receive stimulation 100, 83.3, 66.7, or 50% of the time in 30-min intervals. Outcomes were assessed after 14 days on each setting with a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and the SF36 quality of life questionnaire.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the different cyclized settings as measured by the VAS, MGPQ, or SF36 in our cohort. There were two distinct subgroups: responders (n = 4) and nonresponders (n = 2) to cyclization. Responders continued to have pain relief when stimulation was reduced to only 50% of the time (15 min ON/15 min off). Interestingly, this group subjectively preferred the 50% stimulation timing compared to 100%. Nonresponders could not tolerate cyclizing because of increased pain.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small cohort, cyclization of MCS settings revealed two distinct subgroups: responders and nonresponders. Responders tolerated stimulation in all settings and 50% stimulation (15 min ON/15 min off) was their subjectively preferred setting. Cyclization in responders will prolong battery life and delay the need for INS replacement and may offer improved pain relief. Building from our previous work, we recommend clinicians consider following the Vancouver MCS programming algorithm presented in this manuscript.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) Safety Guidelines for the Reduction of Severe Neurological Injury

INTRODUCTION

Neurostimulation involves the implantation of devices to stimulate the brain, spinal cord, or peripheral or cranial nerves for the purpose of modulating the neural activity of the targeted structures to achieve specific therapeutic effects. Surgical placement of neurostimulation devices is associated with risks of neurologic injury, as well as possible sequelae from the local or systemic effects of the intervention. The goal of the Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) is to improve the safety of neurostimulation.

METHODS

The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) is dedicated to improving neurostimulation efficacy and patient safety. Over the past two decades the INS has established a process to use best evidence to improve care. This article updates work published by the NACC in 2014. NACC authors were chosen based on nomination to the INS executive board and were selected based on publications, academic acumen, international impact, and diversity. In areas in which evidence was lacking, the NACC used expert opinion to reach consensus.

RESULTS

The INS has developed recommendations that when properly utilized should improve patient safety and reduce the risk of injury and associated complications with implantable devices.

CONCLUSIONS

On behalf of INS, the NACC has published recommendations intended to reduce the risk of neurological injuries and complications while implanting stimulators.

Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents

Background: Central post stroke pain (CPSP) is a highly refractory syndrome that can occur after stroke. Primary motor cortex (M1) brain stimulation using epidural brain stimulation (EBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been explored as potential therapies for CPSP. These techniques have demonstrated variable clinical efficacy. It is hypothesized that changes in the stimulating currents that are caused by stroke-induced changes in brain tissue conductivity limit the efficacy of these techniques. Methods: We generated MRI-guided finite element models of the current density distributions in the human head and brain with and without chronic focal cortical infarctions during EBS, TMS, and tDCS. We studied the change in the stimulating current density distributions' magnitude, orientation, and maxima locations between the different models. Results: Changes in electrical properties at stroke boundaries altered the distribution of stimulation currents in magnitude, location, and orientation. Current density magnitude alterations were larger for the non-invasive techniques (i.e., tDCS and TMS) than for EBS. Nonetheless, the lesion also altered currents during EBS. The spatial shift of peak current density, relative to the size of the stimulation source, was largest for EBS. Conclusion: In order to maximize therapeutic efficiency, neurostimulation trials need to account for the impact of anatomically disrupted neural tissues on the location, orientation, and magnitude of exogenously applied currents. The relative current-neuronal structure should be considered when planning stimulation treatment, especially across techniques (e.g., using TMS to predict EBS response). We postulate that the effects of altered tissue properties in stroke regions may impact stimulation induced analgesic effects and/or lead to highly variable outcomes during brain stimulation treatments in CPSP.

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.

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

BACKGROUND:

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

OBJECTIVE:

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

METHODS:

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

RESULTS:

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

CONCLUSION:

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

Deep brain stimulation versus motor cortex stimulation for neuropathic pain: A minireview of the literature and proposal for future research

The treatment of neuropathic pain remains a public health concern. A growing cohort of patients is plagued by medically refractory, unrelenting severe neuropathic pain that ruins their quality of life and productivity. For this group, neurosurgery can offer two different kinds of neuromodulation that may help: deep brain simulation (DBS) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS). Unfortunately, there is no consensus on how to perform these procedures, which stimulation parameters to select, how to measure success, and which patients may benefit. This brief review highlights the literature supporting each technique and attempts to provide some comparisons and contrasts between DBS and MCS for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Finally, we highlight the current unanswered questions in the field and suggest future research strategies that may advance the care of our patients with neuropathic pain.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain: guidelines for pain treatment research

Recognizing that electrically stimulating the motor cortex could relieve chronic pain sparked development of noninvasive technologies. In transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), electromagnetic coils held against the scalp influence underlying cortical firing. Multiday repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can induce long-lasting, potentially therapeutic brain plasticity. Nearby ferromagnetic or electronic implants are contraindications. Adverse effects are minimal, primarily headaches. Single provoked seizures are very rare. Transcranial magnetic stimulation devices are marketed for depression and migraine in the United States and for various indications elsewhere. Although multiple studies report that high-frequency rTMS of the motor cortex reduces neuropathic pain, their quality has been insufficient to support Food and Drug Administration application. Harvard's Radcliffe Institute therefore sponsored a workshop to solicit advice from experts in TMS, pain research, and clinical trials. They recommended that researchers standardize and document all TMS parameters and improve strategies for sham and double blinding. Subjects should have common well-characterized pain conditions amenable to motor cortex rTMS and studies should be adequately powered. They recommended standardized assessment tools (eg, NIH's PROMIS) plus validated condition-specific instruments and consensus-recommended metrics (eg, IMMPACT). Outcomes should include pain intensity and qualities, patient and clinician impression of change, and proportions achieving 30% and 50% pain relief. Secondary outcomes could include function, mood, sleep, and/or quality of life. Minimum required elements include sample sources, sizes, and demographics, recruitment methods, inclusion and exclusion criteria, baseline and posttreatment means and SD, adverse effects, safety concerns, discontinuations, and medication-usage records. Outcomes should be monitored for at least 3 months after initiation with prespecified statistical analyses. Multigroup collaborations or registry studies may be needed for pivotal trials.

Brain Stimulation Therapy for Central Post-Stroke Pain from a Perspective of Interhemispheric Neural Network Remodeling

Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is a debilitating, severe disorder affecting patient quality of life. Since CPSP is refractory to medication, various treatment modalities have been tried with marginal results. Following the first report of epidural motor cortex (M1) stimulation (MCS) for CPSP, many researchers have investigated the mechanisms of electrical stimulation of the M1. CPSP is currently considered to be a maladapted network reorganization problem following stroke, and recent studies have revealed that the activities of the impaired hemisphere after stroke may be inhibited by the contralesional hemisphere. Even though this interhemispheric inhibition (IHI) theory was originally proposed to explain the motor recovery process in stroke patients, we considered that IHI may also contribute to the CPSP mechanism. Based on the IHI theory and the fact that electrical stimulation of the M1 suppresses CPSP, we hypothesized that the inhibitory signals from the contralesional hemisphere may suppress the activities of the M1 in the ipsilesional hemisphere, and therefore pain suppression mechanisms may be malfunctioning in CPSP patients. In this context, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) was considered to be a reasonable procedure to address the interhemispheric imbalance, as the bilateral M1 can be simultaneously stimulated using an anode (excitatory) and cathode (inhibitory). In this article, we review the potential mechanisms and propose a new model of CPSP. We also report two cases where CPSP was addressed with tDCS, discuss the potential roles of tDCS in the treatment of CPSP, and make recommendations for future studies.

Potential Mechanisms Supporting the Value of Motor Cortex Stimulation to Treat Chronic Pain Syndromes

Throughout the first years of the twenty-first century, neurotechnologies such as motor cortex stimulation (MCS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have attracted scientific attention and been considered as potential tools to centrally modulate chronic pain, especially for those conditions more difficult to manage and refractory to all types of available pharmacological therapies. Interestingly, although the role of the motor cortex in pain has not been fully clarified, it is one of the cortical areas most commonly targeted by invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation technologies. Recent studies have provided significant advances concerning the establishment of the clinical effectiveness of primary MCS to treat different chronic pain syndromes. Concurrently, the neuromechanisms related to each method of primary motor cortex (M1) modulation have been unveiled. In this respect, the most consistent scientific evidence originates from MCS studies, which indicate the activation of top-down controls driven by M1 stimulation. This concept has also been applied to explain M1-TMS mechanisms. Nevertheless, activation of remote areas in the brain, including cortical and subcortical structures, has been reported with both invasive and non-invasive methods and the participation of major neurotransmitters (e.g., glutamate, GABA, and serotonin) as well as the release of endogenous opioids has been demonstrated. In this critical review, the putative mechanisms underlying the use of MCS to provide relief from chronic migraine and other types of chronic pain are discussed. Emphasis is placed on the most recent scientific evidence obtained from chronic pain research studies involving MCS and non-invasive neuromodulation methods (e.g., tDCS and TMS), which are analyzed comparatively.

Motor Cortex Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Cross-over Trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic motor cortex stimulation (MCS) has been used to treat medically refractory neuropathic pain over the past 20 years. We investigated this procedure using a prospective multicentre randomized blinded crossover trial.

METHODS

Twelve subjects with three different neuropathic pain syndromes had placement of MCS systems after which they were randomized to receive low ("subtherapeutic") or high ("therapeutic") stimulation for 12 weeks, followed by a crossover to the other treatment group for 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the pain visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcome measures included McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Beck Depression Inventory-II, medication log, work status, global impression of change, and SF-36 quality of life scale.

RESULTS

The trial was halted early due to lack of efficacy. One subject withdrew early due to protocol violation and five subjects withdrew early due to transient adverse events. Six subjects with upper extremity pain completed the study. There was no significant change in VAS with low or high stimulation and no significant improvement in any of the outcome measures from low to high stimulation. SF-36 role physical and mental health scores were worse with high compared to low stimulation (p=0.024, p=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

We failed to show that MCS is an effective treatment for refractory upper extremity neuropathic pain and suggest that previous studies may have been skewed by placebo effects, or ours by nocebo. We suggest that a healthy degree of skepticism is warranted when considering this invasive therapy for upper extremity pain syndromes.

High-Definition and Non-invasive Brain Modulation of Pain and Motor Dysfunction in Chronic TMD

BACKGROUND

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) have a high prevalence and in many patients pain and masticatory dysfunction persist despite a range of treatments. Non-invasive brain neuromodulatory methods, namely transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), can provide relatively long-lasting pain relief in chronic pain patients.

OBJECTIVE

To define the neuromodulatory effect of five daily 2x2 motor cortex high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) sessions on clinical pain and motor measures in chronic TMD patients. It is predicted that M1 HD-tDCS will selectively modulate clinical measures, by showing greater analgesic after-effects compared to placebo, and active treatment will increase pain free jaw movement more than placebo.

METHODS

Twenty-four females with chronic myofascial TMD pain underwent five daily, 20-min sessions of active or sham 2 milliamps (mA) HD-tDCS. Measurable outcomes included pain-free mouth opening, visual analog scale (VAS), sectional sensory-discriminative pain measures tracked by a mobile application, short form of the McGill Pain Questionnaire, and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. Follow-up occurred at one-week and four-weeks post-treatment.

RESULTS

There were significant improvements for clinical pain and motor measurements in the active HD-tDCS group compared to the placebo group for: responders with pain relief above 50% in the VAS at four-week follow-up (P = 0.04); pain-free mouth opening at one-week follow-up (P < 0.01); and sectional pain area, intensity and their sum measures contralateral to putative M1 stimulation during the treatment week (P < 0.01). No changes in emotional values were shown between groups.

CONCLUSION

Putative M1 stimulation by HD-tDCS selectively improved meaningful clinical sensory-discriminative pain and motor measures during stimulation, and up to four-weeks post-treatment in chronic myofascial TMD pain patients.