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

Closing the loop in psychiatric deep brain stimulation: physiology, psychometrics, and plasticity

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an invasive approach to precise modulation of psychiatrically relevant circuits. Although it has impressive results in open-label psychiatric trials, DBS has also struggled to scale to and pass through multi-center randomized trials. This contrasts with Parkinson disease, where DBS is an established therapy treating thousands of patients annually. The core difference between these clinical applications is the difficulty of proving target engagement, and of leveraging the wide range of possible settings (parameters) that can be programmed in a given patient's DBS. In Parkinson's, patients' symptoms change rapidly and visibly when the stimulator is tuned to the correct parameters. In psychiatry, those same changes take days to weeks, limiting a clinician's ability to explore parameter space and identify patient-specific optimal settings. I review new approaches to psychiatric target engagement, with an emphasis on major depressive disorder (MDD). Specifically, I argue that better engagement may come by focusing on the root causes of psychiatric illness: dysfunction in specific, measurable cognitive functions and in the connectivity and synchrony of distributed brain circuits. I overview recent progress in both those domains, and how it may relate to other technologies discussed in companion articles in this issue.

In silicodevelopment and validation of Bayesian methods for optimizing deep brain stimulation to enhance cognitive control

Objective.deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ventral internal capsule/striatum (VCVS) is a potentially effective treatment for several mental health disorders when conventional therapeutics fail. Its effectiveness, however, depends on correct programming to engage VCVS sub-circuits. VCVS programming is currently an iterative, time-consuming process, with weeks between setting changes and reliance on noisy, subjective self-reports. An objective measure of circuit engagement might allow individual settings to be tested in seconds to minutes, reducing the time to response and increasing patient and clinician confidence in the chosen settings. Here, we present an approach to measuring and optimizing that circuit engagement.Approach.we leverage prior results showing that effective VCVS DBS engages cognitive control circuitry and improves performance on the multi-source interference task, that this engagement depends primarily on which contact(s) are activated, and that circuit engagement can be tracked through a state space modeling framework. We develop a simulation framework based on those empirical results, then combine this framework with an adaptive optimizer to simulate a principled exploration of electrode contacts and identify the contacts that maximally improve cognitive control. We explore multiple optimization options (algorithms, number of inputs, speed of stimulation parameter changes) and compare them on problems of varying difficulty.Main results.we show that an upper confidence bound algorithm outperforms other optimizers, with roughly 80% probability of convergence to a global optimum when used in a majority-vote ensemble.Significance.we show that the optimization can converge even with lag between stimulation and effect, and that a complete optimization can be done in a clinically feasible timespan (a few hours). Further, the approach requires no specialized recording or imaging hardware, and thus could be a scalable path to expand the use of DBS in psychiatric and other non-motor applications.

Translational aspects of deep brain stimulation for chronic pain

The use of deep brain stimulation (DBS) for the treatment of chronic pain was one of the first applications of this technique in functional neurosurgery. Established brain targets in the clinic include the periaqueductal (PAG)/periventricular gray matter (PVG) and sensory thalamic nuclei. More recently, the anterior cingulum (ACC) and the ventral striatum/anterior limb of the internal capsule (VS/ALIC) have been investigated for the treatment of emotional components of pain. In the clinic, most studies showed a response in 20%-70% of patients. In various applications of DBS, animal models either provided the rationale for the development of clinical trials or were utilized as a tool to study potential mechanisms of stimulation responses. Despite the complex nature of pain and the fact that animal models cannot reliably reflect the subjective nature of this condition, multiple preparations have emerged over the years. Overall, DBS was shown to produce an antinociceptive effect in rodents when delivered to targets known to induce analgesic effects in humans, suggesting a good predictive validity. Compared to the relatively high number of clinical trials in the field, however, the number of animal studies has been somewhat limited. Additional investigation using modern neuroscience techniques could unravel the mechanisms and neurocircuitry involved in the analgesic effects of DBS and help to optimize this therapy.

Moderate and deep procedural sedation-the role of proper monitoring and safe techniques in clinical practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Interventional pain management procedures provide significant improvement to patient quality of life and functionality. In-office procedures are becoming an increasingly more common site of pain management intervention for patients with minimal risk of harm.

RECENT FINDINGS

Moderate and deep sedation techniques can be used in patients with high anxiety, complex pharmacotherapy, or a low pain threshold. Proper guidance and oversight by an attending anesthesiologist, in addition to appropriate monitoring, are key. Epidural steroid injection complications rates have been cited at 2.4%, with the most common complications noted as persistent pain and flushing.

SUMMARY

Serious complication errors can be avoided with proper supervision and monitoring. The adherence to published societal recommendations and guidelines for indications of when to use moderate to deep sedation techniques, and appropriate supervision and monitoring methods, can avoid errors in interventional pain management procedures.

Centromedian-Parafascicular and Somatosensory Thalamic Deep Brain Stimulation for Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Contemporary Series of 40 Patients

Introduction: The treatment of neuropathic and central pain still remains a major challenge. Thalamic deep brain stimulation (DBS) involving various target structures is a therapeutic option which has received increased re-interest. Beneficial results have been reported in several more recent smaller studies, however, there is a lack of prospective studies on larger series providing long term outcomes. Methods: Forty patients with refractory neuropathic and central pain syndromes underwent stereotactic bifocal implantation of DBS electrodes in the centromedian-parafascicular (CM-Pf) and the ventroposterolateral (VPL) or ventroposteromedial (VPM) nucleus contralateral to the side of pain. Electrodes were externalized for test stimulation for several days. Outcome was assessed with five specific VAS pain scores (maximum, minimum, average pain, pain at presentation, allodynia). Results: The mean age at surgery was 53.5 years, and the mean duration of pain was 8.2 years. During test stimulation significant reductions of all five pain scores was achieved with either CM-Pf or VPL/VPM stimulation. Pacemakers were implanted in 33/40 patients for chronic stimulation for whom a mean follow-up of 62.8 months (range 3-180 months) was available. Of these, 18 patients had a follow-up beyond four years. Hardware related complications requiring secondary surgeries occurred in 11/33 patients. The VAS maximum pain score was improved by ≥50% in 8/18, and by ≥30% in 11/18 on long term follow-up beyond four years, and the VAS average pain score by ≥50% in 10/18, and by ≥30% in 16/18. On a group level, changes in pain scores remained statistically significant over time, however, there was no difference when comparing the efficacy of CM-Pf versus VPL/VPM stimulation. The best results were achieved in patients with facial pain, poststroke/central pain (except thalamic pain), or brachial plexus injury, while patients with thalamic lesions had the least benefit. Conclusion: Thalamic DBS is a useful treatment option in selected patients with severe and medically refractory pain.

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.

Comprehensive Analysis of Pain Syndrome in Patients With Mandibular Fractures Treated With Nucleo CMP Forte

The objective of this study was to perform a comprehensive evaluation of major indices of pain syndrome in patients with mandibular fractures accompanied by damage of inferior alveolar nerve using conventional therapeutic regimen supplemented by the administration of drug product Nucleo CMP Forte. Operative and postoperative treatment of 50 patients with angular fractures of the mandible, accompanied by clinical manifestations of inferior alveolar nerve damage, was performed. The severity of pain syndrome and neuropathy symptoms was evaluated using the LANSS pain scale, DN4 questionnaire, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Neuropathy Total Symptom Scores (NTSS-9). Decrease of pain syndrome was revealed in both groups but with different dynamic pattern. In the treatment group pain syndrome manifestations and neuropathy symptoms decreased quicker than in the comparison group. As LANSS, DN4, VAS and NTSS-9 scales characterize pain syndrome from various perspectives, the results were different but similar tendency was shown. At the beginning of the study LANSS scale indices were nearly identical in both groups, while on the 7th and 14th day they were 1.35 and 2.03 times lower, respectively, in the treatment group compared to the control group. On the first day NTSS-9 scale values did not practically differ in between the studied patients, being somewhat higher in the treatment group. On the 7th and 14th day the values increased 1.24 and 3.82 times, in the treatment group and in the group of comparison, respectively. Thus, the patients in the treatment group showed significantly greater pain relief than those in the comparison group. The analysis of dynamic pattern of complaints as well as the objective findings in angular fractures of the mandible, accompanied by the damage of inferior alveolar nerve, demonstrated that the administration of drug product Nucleo CMP Forte led to a more pronounced improvement of pain syndrome in the course of treatment. Because of the fact that neuropathic pain can develop in orthodontic treatment, as well as when partial and complete removable dentures are used, the administration of drug product Nucleo CMP Forte is warranted in combined therapy of both mandibular fractures followed by the clinical manifestations of inferior alveolar nerve damage, and neuropathic pain management in orthodontics and orthopedic stomatology.

Objective Measures to Characterize the Physiological Effects of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Neuropathic Pain: A Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

The physiological mechanisms behind the therapeutic effects of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) are only partially understood. Our aim was to perform a literature review of studies that used objective measures to characterize mechanisms of action of SCS in neuropathic pain patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the PubMed data base to identify clinical studies that used objective measures to assess the effects of SCS in neuropathic pain. We extracted the study factors (e.g., type of measure, diagnoses, painful area[s], and SCS parameters) and outcomes from the included studies.

RESULTS

We included 67 studies. Of these, 24 studies used neurophysiological measures, 14 studies used functional neuroimaging techniques, three studies used a combination of neurophysiological and functional neuroimaging techniques, 14 studies used quantitative sensory testing, and 12 studies used proteomic, vascular, and/or pedometric measures. Our findings suggest that SCS largely inhibits somatosensory processing and/or spinal nociceptive activity. Our findings also suggest that SCS modulates activity across specific regions of the central nervous system that play a prominent role in the sensory and emotional functions of pain.

CONCLUSIONS

SCS appears to modulate pain via spinal and/or supraspinal mechanisms of action (e.g., pain gating, descending pain inhibition). However, to better understand the mechanisms of action of SCS, we believe that it is necessary to carry out systematic, controlled, and well-powered studies using objective patient measures. To optimize the clinical effectiveness of SCS for neuropathic pain, we also believe that it is necessary to develop and implement patient-specific approaches.

Thalamic Deep Brain Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain: Efficacy at Three Years' Follow-Up

OBJECT

Chronic neuropathic pain is estimated to affect 3-4.5% of the worldwide population, posing a serious burden to society. Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is already established for movement disorders and also used to treat some "off-label" conditions. However, DBS for the treatment of chronic, drug refractory, neuropathic pain, has shown variable outcomes with few studies performed in the last decade. Thus, this procedure has consensus approval in parts of Europe but not the USA. This study prospectively evaluated the efficacy at three years of DBS for neuropathic pain.

METHODS

Sixteen consecutive patients received 36 months post-surgical follow-up in a single-center. Six had phantom limb pain after amputation and ten deafferentation pain after brachial plexus injury, all due to traumas. To evaluate the efficacy of DBS, patient-reported outcome measures were collated before and after surgery, using a visual analog scale (VAS) score, University of Washington Neuropathic Pain Score (UWNPS), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36).

RESULTS

Contralateral, ventroposterolateral sensory thalamic DBS was performed in sixteen patients with chronic neuropathic pain over 29 months. A postoperative trial of externalized DBS failed in one patient with brachial plexus injury. Fifteen patients proceeded to implantation but one patient with phantom limb pain after amputation was lost for follow-up after 12 months. No surgical complications or stimulation side effects were noted. After 36 months, mean pain relief was sustained, and the median (and interquartile range) of the improvement of VAS score was 52.8% (45.4%) (p = 0.00021), UWNPS was 30.7% (49.2%) (p = 0.0590), BPI was 55.0% (32.0%) (p = 0.00737), and SF-36 was 16.3% (30.3%) (p = 0.4754).

CONCLUSIONS

DBS demonstrated efficacy at three years for chronic neuropathic pain after traumatic amputation and brachial plexus injury, with benefits sustained across all pain outcomes measures and slightly greater improvement in phantom limb pain.

Deep brain stimulation of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain

Chronic neuropathic pain is estimated to affect 3%-4.5% of the worldwide population. It is associated with significant loss of productive time, withdrawal from the workforce, development of mood disorders such as depression and anxiety, and disruption of family and social life. Current medical therapeutics often fail to adequately treat chronic neuropathic pain. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) targeting subcortical structures such as the periaqueductal gray, the ventral posterior lateral and medial thalamic nuclei, and the internal capsule has been investigated for the relief of refractory neuropathic pain over the past 3 decades. Recent work has identified the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) as a new potential neuromodulation target given its central role in cognitive and affective processing. In this review, the authors briefly discuss the history of DBS for chronic neuropathic pain in the United States and present evidence supporting dACC DBS for this indication. They review existent literature on dACC DBS and summarize important findings from imaging and neurophysiological studies supporting a central role for the dACC in the processing of chronic neuropathic pain. The available neurophysiological and empirical clinical evidence suggests that dACC DBS is a viable therapeutic option for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain and warrants further investigation.

Deep brain stimulation for chronic pain

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neurosurgical intervention popularised in movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease, and also reported to improve symptoms of epilepsy, Tourette's syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorders and cluster headache. Since the 1950s, DBS has been used as a treatment to relieve intractable pain of several aetiologies including post stroke pain, phantom limb pain, facial pain and brachial plexus avulsion. Several patient series have shown benefits in stimulating various brain areas, including the sensory thalamus (ventral posterior lateral and medial), the periaqueductal and periventricular grey, or, more recently, the anterior cingulate cortex. However, this technique remains "off label" in the USA as it does not have Federal Drug Administration approval. Consequently, only a small number of surgeons report DBS for pain using current technology and techniques and few regions approve it. Randomised, blinded and controlled clinical trials that may use novel trial methodologies are desirable to evaluate the efficacy of DBS in patients who are refractory to other therapies. New imaging techniques, including tractography, may help optimise electrode placement and clinical outcome.

Treatment of Chronic Facial Pain Including Cluster Headache by Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Motor Cortex With Maintenance Sessions: A Naturalistic Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term maintenance of analgesia induced by high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the motor cortex contralateral to pain in a naturalistic study of patients with chronic refractory facial pain.

METHODS

55 patients were included (cluster headache, n = 19; trigeminal neuropathic pain, n = 21; atypical facial pain, n = 15). The rTMS protocol consisted of an "induction phase" of one daily rTMS session for five days per week during two consecutive weeks, followed by a "maintenance phase" of two sessions during one week, then one session in weeks 4 and 6, and a monthly session for the next five months. In a subset of patients, navigated targeting was performed and session duration was shortened from 20-min to 10-min (with the same number of 2000 pulses per session). The analgesic effect of rTMS was assessed on a 0-10 visual numerical scale from 15 to 180 days after treatment initiation.

RESULTS

All pain measures significantly decreased from baseline to D15: the intensity of permanent pain (5.2 ± 1.6 to 3.2 ± 1.9) and paroxysmal pain (8.6 ± 1.5 to 4.5 ± 3.4), as well as the daily number of painful attacks (5.6 ± 3.1 to 2.3 ± 3.1). The percentage of responders (defined as pain score decrease ≥30%) was 73% at D15 and dropped to 40% at D180. The analgesic effect was similar regardless of the type of pain and was significantly lower when session duration was shortened, irrespective of the number of pulses.

CONCLUSION

This long-term maintenance rTMS protocol can be a therapeutic option in the clinical management of patients with chronic refractory facial pain, including cluster headache. However, only part of the patients respond to this technique and session duration should not be reduced.

Neuropathic pain and deep brain stimulation

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neurosurgical intervention the efficacy, safety, and utility of which are established in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. For the treatment of chronic, neuropathic pain refractory to medical therapies, many prospective case series have been reported, but few have published findings from patients treated with current standards of neuroimaging and stimulator technology over the last decade . We summarize the history, science, selection, assessment, surgery, programming, and personal clinical experience of DBS of the ventral posterior thalamus, periventricular/periaqueductal gray matter, and latterly rostral anterior cingulate cortex (Cg24) in 113 patients treated at 2 centers (John Radcliffe, Oxford, UK, and Hospital de São João, Porto, Portugal) over 13 years. Several experienced centers continue DBS for chronic pain, with success in selected patients, in particular those with pain after amputation, brachial plexus injury, stroke, and cephalalgias including anesthesia dolorosa. Other successes include pain after multiple sclerosis and spine injury. Somatotopic coverage during awake surgery is important in our technique, with cingulate DBS under general anesthesia considered for whole or hemibody pain, or after unsuccessful DBS of other targets. Findings discussed from neuroimaging modalities, invasive neurophysiological insights from local field potential recording, and autonomic assessments may translate into improved patient selection and enhanced efficacy, encouraging larger clinical trials.

Thalamic deep brain stimulation for neuropathic pain after amputation or brachial plexus avulsion

OBJECT

Fifteen hundred patients have received deep brain stimulation (DBS) to treat neuropathic pain refractory to pharmacotherapy over the last half-century, but few during the last decade. Deep brain stimulation for neuropathic pain has shown variable outcomes and gained consensus approval in Europe but not the US. This study prospectively evaluated the efficacy at 1 year of DBS for phantom limb pain after amputation, and deafferentation pain after brachial plexus avulsion (BPA), in a single-center case series.

METHODS

Patient-reported outcome measures were collated before and after surgery, using a visual analog scale (VAS) score, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and University of Washington Neuropathic Pain Score (UWNPS).

RESULTS

Twelve patients were treated over 29 months, receiving contralateral, ventroposterolateral sensory thalamic DBS. Five patients were amputees and 7 had BPAs, all from traumas. A postoperative trial of externalized DBS failed in 1 patient with BPA. Eleven patients proceeded to implantation and gained improvement in pain scores at 12 months. No surgical complications or stimulation side effects were noted. In the amputation group, after 12 months the mean VAS score improved by 90.0% ± 10.0% (p = 0.001), SF-36 by 57.5% ± 97.9% (p = 0.127), UWNPS by 80.4% ± 12.7% (p < 0.001), and BPI by 79.9% ± 14.7% (p < 0.001). In the BPA group, after 12 months the mean VAS score improved by 52.7% ± 30.2% (p < 0.001), SF-36 by 15.6% ± 30.5% (p = 1.000), UWNPS by 26.2% ± 40.8% (p = 0.399), and BPI by 38.4% ± 41.7% (p = 0.018). Mean DBS parameters were 2.5 V, 213 microseconds, and 25 Hz.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep brain stimulation demonstrated efficacy at 1 year for chronic neuropathic pain after traumatic amputation and BPA. Clinical trials that retain patients in long-term follow-up are desirable to confirm findings from prospectively assessed case series.

Interventional management of neuropathic pain: NeuPSIG recommendations

Neuropathic pain (NP) is often refractory to pharmacologic and noninterventional treatment. On behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group, the authors evaluated systematic reviews, clinical trials, and existing guidelines for the interventional management of NP. Evidence is summarized and presented for neural blockade, spinal cord stimulation (SCS), intrathecal medication, and neurosurgical interventions in patients with the following peripheral and central NP conditions: herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN); painful diabetic and other peripheral neuropathies; spinal cord injury NP; central poststroke pain; radiculopathy and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS); complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS); and trigeminal neuralgia and neuropathy. Due to the paucity of high-quality clinical trials, no strong recommendations can be made. Four weak recommendations based on the amount and consistency of evidence, including degree of efficacy and safety, are: 1) epidural injections for herpes zoster; 2) steroid injections for radiculopathy; 3) SCS for FBSS; and 4) SCS for CRPS type 1. Based on the available data, we recommend not to use sympathetic blocks for PHN nor radiofrequency lesions for radiculopathy. No other conclusive recommendations can be made due to the poor quality of available data. Whenever possible, these interventions should either be part of randomized clinical trials or documented in pain registries. Priorities for future research include randomized clinical trials, long-term studies, and head-to-head comparisons among different interventional and noninterventional treatments.

Central neuromodulation for refractory pain

Chronic neuropathic pain affects 8.2% of adults, extrapolated to roughly 18 million people every year in the United States. Patients who have pain that cannot be controlled with pharmacologic management or less invasive techniques can be considered for deep brain stimulation or motor cortex stimulation. These techniques are not currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for chronic pain and are, thus, considered off-label use of medical devices for this patient population. Conclusive effectiveness studies are still needed to demonstrate the best targets as well as the reliability of the results with these approaches.

Advanced neuroimaging techniques for central neuromodulation

Deep brain stimulation an effective treatment of many neurologic conditions such as Parkinson disease, essential tremor, dystonia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Structural and functional neuroimaging studies provide the opportunity to visualize the dysfunctional nodes and networks underlying neurologic and psychiatric disease, and to thereby realize new targets for neuromodulation as well as personalize current therapy. This article reviews contemporary advances in neuroimaging in the basic sciences and how they can be applied to redirect and propel functional neurosurgery toward a goal of functional localization of targets with individualized maps and identification of novel targets for other neuropsychiatric diseases.

A history of deep brain stimulation: Technological innovation and the role of clinical assessment tools

Deep brain stimulation involves using a pacemaker-like device to deliver constant electrical stimulation to problematic areas within the brain. It has been used to treat over 40,000 people with Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor worldwide and is currently undergoing clinical trials as a treatment for depression and obsessive–compulsive disorder. This article will provide an historical account of deep brain stimulation in order to illustrate the plurality of interests involved in the development and stabilization of deep brain stimulation technology. Using Latour’s notion of immutable mobiles, this article will illustrate the importance of clinical assessment tools in shaping technological development in the era of medical device regulation. Given that such tools can serve commercial and professional interests, this article suggests that it is necessary to scrutinise their application in research contexts to ensure that they capture clinical changes that are meaningful for patients and their families. This is particularly important in relation to potentially ethically problematic therapies such as deep brain stimulation for psychiatric disorders.

Long-term outcomes of deep brain stimulation for neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) to treat neuropathic pain refractory to pharmacotherapy has reported variable outcomes and has gained United Kingdom but not USA regulatory approval.

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively assess long-term efficacy of DBS for chronic neuropathic pain in a single-center case series.

METHODS

Patient reported outcome measures were collated before and after surgery, using a visual analog score, short-form 36-question quality-of-life survey, McGill pain questionnaire, and EuroQol-5D questionnaires (EQ-5D and health state).

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-seven patients were referred over 12 years, of whom 85 received DBS for various etiologies: 9 amputees, 7 brachial plexus injuries, 31 after stroke, 13 with spinal pathology, 15 with head and face pain, and 10 miscellaneous. Mean age at surgery was 52 years, and mean follow-up was 19.6 months. Contralateral DBS targeted the periventricular gray area (n = 33), the ventral posterior nuclei of the thalamus (n = 15), or both targets (n = 37). Almost 70% (69.4%) of patients retained implants 6 months after surgery. Thirty-nine of 59 (66%) of those implanted gained benefit and efficacy varied by etiology, improving outcomes in 89% after amputation and 70% after stroke. In this cohort, >30% improvements sustained in visual analog score, McGill pain questionnaire, short-form 36-question quality-of-life survey, and EuroQol-5D questionnaire were observed in 15 patients with >42 months of follow-up, with several outcome measures improving from those assessed at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

DBS for pain has long-term efficacy for select etiologies. Clinical trials retaining patients in long-term follow-up are desirable to confirm findings from prospectively assessed case series.

Deep brain stimulation of the ventral striatum/anterior limb of the internal capsule in thalamic pain syndrome: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic neuropathic pain in thalamic pain syndrome remains intractable. Its poor response is ascribed to destruction of the integrated neuromatrix in experience of pain. Deep brain stimulation is a promising technique to modulate activity of implicated structures. However, traditional approaches targeting sensori-motor substrates have failed to affect disability. The offending lesion in thalamic pain syndrome that almost invariably destroys sensory pain pathways may render these classical approaches ineffective. Instead, we hypothesize that targeting structures representing emotion and affective behavior-ventral striatum/anterior limb of the internal capsule, may alleviate disability.

METHODS/DESIGN

We present the design of our phase I randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled, crossover trial that examines safety, feasibility and efficacy of our proposed approach. In our ongoing trial, we intend to enroll ten patients with thalamic pain syndrome. Following implantation, patients are randomized to receive active deep brain stimulation to the ventral striatum/anterior limb of the internal capsule or sham for 3 months, after which they are crossed over. The primary endpoint is Pain Disability Index. Other outcomes include visual analog scale, depression and anxiety inventories, quality of life, and functional neuroimaging.

DISCUSSION

Designing trials of deep brain stimulation for pain is challenging owing to the ethical-scientific dilemma of introducing a control arm, complicated blinding, heterogeneous etiologies, patient expectations, and inadequate assessment of disability. The quality of evidence in the field is classified as level III (poor) because it mainly includes a multitude of uncontrolled case series reporting variable outcomes, with little regard for the placebo effect related to implantation. Without valid data on efficacy, use of deep brain stimulation for pain remains "off label". We present our trial design to discuss feasibility of conducting sham-controlled phase I studies that may represent significant refinement for the field. Double-blinding would reduce influence of patient expectations and therapeutic confusion amongst investigators. With a cross-over approach, the dilemma regarding including a control group can be mitigated. Use of homogeneous etiology, measurement of disability, depression and quality of life, besides pain perception, all represent strategies to evaluate efficacy rigorously. Functional imaging would serve to define mechanisms underlying observed effects and may help optimize future targeting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01072656.

Multi-target neurostimulation for adequate long-term relief of neuropathic and nociceptive chronic pain components

Successful treatment of chronic pain for patients with failed back surgery syndrome can be extremely complicated. These patients require careful and individualized clinical assessment, as they often present with mixed pain syndromes that involve both neuropathic and nociceptive components. The distinct types of pain involved in such cases may require combined treatments from individual interventions that are analgesically independent and specific for each type of pain involved. Neuromodulation by electric stimulation at appropriately chosen targets and combinations may be an important option to consider for such patients. We present a case of combined debilitating axial nociceptive spinal pain and bilateral neuropathic leg pain in a patient after 14 failed back operations. A combination of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and deep brain stimulation in the periventricular gray (PVG) have successfully provided the patient with complete relief of both components of his chronic pain condition, after all other pain management options had been exhausted. By alternating activation of each implanted stimulator separately and in conjunction, we were able to demonstrate a clinically independent analgesic character for each stimulation system, each specific to a particular type of pain. The SCS provided complete relief of the neuropathic pain component, without affecting the nociceptive component at all. The PVG stimulation provided complete relief of the nociceptive component, without affecting the neuropathic component at all. In combination, there was complete relief of the total chronic pain condition. There appeared to be no overlapping or synergistic effect between the two neuromodulation systems in the patient. The patient has had prolonged complete relief from his chronic pain condition with the combined neuromodulation intervention over 22 years of follow-up.

Deep brain stimulation for pain

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a neurosurgical intervention whose efficacy, safety, and utility have been shown in the treatment of movement disorders. For the treatment of chronic pain refractory to medical therapies, many prospective case series have been reported, but few have published findings from patients treated during the past decade using current standards of neuroimaging and stimulator technology. We summarize the history, science, selection, assessment, surgery, and personal clinical experience of DBS of the ventral posterior thalamus, periventricular/periaqueductal gray matter, and, latterly, the rostral anterior cingulate cortex (Cg24) in 100 patients treated now at two centers (John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK, and Hospital de São João, Porto, Portugal) over 12 years. Several experienced centers continue DBS for chronic pain with success in selected patients, in particular those with pain after amputation, brachial plexus injury, stroke, and cephalalgias including anesthesia dolorosa. Other successes include pain after multiple sclerosis and spine injury. Somatotopic coverage during awake surgery is important in our technique, with cingulate DBS considered for whole-body pain or after unsuccessful DBS of other targets. Findings discussed from neuroimaging modalities, invasive neurophysiological insights from local field potential recording, and autonomic assessments may translate into improved patient selection and enhanced efficacy, encouraging larger clinical trials.

Brain stimulation in the treatment of chronic neuropathic and non-cancerous pain

Chronic neuropathic pain is one of the most prevalent and debilitating disorders. Conventional medical management, however, remains frustrating for both patients and clinicians owing to poor specificity of pharmacotherapy, delayed onset of analgesia and extensive side effects. Neuromodulation presents as a promising alternative, or at least an adjunct, as it is more specific in inducing analgesia without associated risks of pharmacotherapy. Here, we discuss common clinical and investigational methods of neuromodulation. Compared to clinical spinal cord stimulation (SCS), investigational techniques of cerebral neuromodulation, both invasive (deep brain stimulation [DBS] and motor cortical stimulation [MCS]) and noninvasive (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS] and transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS]), may be more advantageous. By adaptively targeting the multidimensional experience of pain, subtended by integrative pain circuitry in the brain, including somatosensory and thalamocortical, limbic and cognitive, cerebral methods may modulate the sensory-discriminative, affective-emotional and evaluative-cognitive spheres of the pain neuromatrix. Despite promise, the current state of results alludes to the possibility that cerebral neuromodulation has thus far not been effective in producing analgesia as intended in patients with chronic pain disorders. These techniques, thus, remain investigational and off-label. We discuss issues implicated in inadequate efficacy, variability of responsiveness, and poor retention of benefit, while recommending design and conceptual refinements for future trials of cerebral neuromodulation in management of chronic neuropathic pain.

PERSPECTIVE

This critical review focuses on factors contributing to poor therapeutic utility of invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation in the treatment of chronic neuropathic and pain of noncancerous origin. Through key clinical trial design and conceptual refinements, retention and consistency of response may be improved, potentially facilitating the widespread clinical applicability of such approaches.

Studies of properties of "Pain Networks" as predictors of targets of stimulation for treatment of pain

Two decades of functional imaging studies have demonstrated pain-related activations of primary somatic sensory cortex (S1), parasylvian cortical structures (PS), and medial frontal cortical structures (MF), which are often described as modules in a "pain network." The directionality and temporal dynamics of interactions between and within the cortical and thalamic modules are uncertain. We now describe our studies of these interactions based upon recordings of local field potentials (LFPs) carried out in an epilepsy monitoring unit over the one week period between the implantation and removal of cortical electrodes during the surgical treatment of epilepsy. These recordings have unprecedented clarity and resolution for the study of LFPs related to the experimental pain induced by cutaneous application of a Thulium YAG laser. We also used attention and distraction as behavioral probes to study the psychophysics and neuroscience of the cortical "pain network." In these studies, electrical activation of cortex was measured by event-related desynchronization (ERD), over SI, PS, and MF modules, and was more widespread and intense while attending to painful stimuli than while being distracted from them. This difference was particularly prominent over PS. In addition, greater perceived intensity of painful stimuli was associated with more widespread and intense ERD. Connectivity of these modules was then examined for dynamic causal interactions within and between modules by using the Granger causality (GRC). Prior to the laser stimuli, a task involving attention to the painful stimulus consistently increased the number of event-related causality (ERC) pairs both within the SI cortex, and from SI upon PS (SI > PS). After the laser stimulus, attention to a painful stimulus increased the number of ERC pairs from SI > PS, and SI > MF, and within the SI module. LFP at some electrode sites (critical sites) exerted ERC influences upon signals at multiple widespread electrodes, both in other cortical modules and within the module where the critical site was located. In summary, critical sites and SI modules may bind the cortical modules together into a "pain network," and disruption of that network by stimulation might be used to treat pain. These results in humans may be uniquely useful to design and optimize anatomically based pain therapies, such as stimulation of the S1 or critical sites through transcutaneous magnetic fields or implanted electrodes.

Destructive procedures for the treatment of nonmalignant pain: a structured literature review

OBJECT

Nonmalignant pain has been treated in the past century with ablative, or more appropriately, destructive procedures. Although individual outcomes for these procedures have previously been described in the literature, to the authors' knowledge this is the first comprehensive and systematic review on this topic.

METHODS

A US National Library of Medicine PubMed search was conducted for the following ablative procedures: cingulotomy, cordotomy, DREZ (also input as dorsal root entry zone), ganglionectomy, mesencephalotomy, myelotomy, neurotomy, rhizotomy, sympathectomy, thalamotomy, and tractotomy. Articles related to pain resulting from malignancy and those not in peer-reviewed journals were excluded. In reviewing pertinent articles, focus was placed on patient number, outcome, and follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 146 articles was included in the review. The large majority of studies (131) constituted Class III evidence. Eleven Class I and 4 Class II studies were found, of which nearly all (13 of 15) evaluated radiofrequency rhizotomies for different pain origins, including lumbar facet syndrome, cervical facet pain, and Type I or typical trigeminal neuralgia. Overall, support for ablative procedures for nonmalignant pain is derived almost entirely from Class III evidence; despite a long history of use in neurosurgery, the evidence supporting destructive procedures for benign pain conditions remains limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Newly designed prospective standardized studies are required to define surgical indications and outcomes for these procedures, to provide more systematic review, and to advance the field.

Surgery for movement disorders

Movement disorders, such as Parkinson's disease, tremor, and dystonia, are among the most common neurological conditions and affect millions of patients. Although medications are the mainstay of therapy for movement disorders, neurosurgery has played an important role in their management for the past 50 years. Surgery is now a viable and safe option for patients with medically intractable Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, and dystonia. In this article, we provide a review of the history, neurocircuitry, indication, technical aspects, outcomes, complications, and emerging neurosurgical approaches for the treatment of movement disorders.

Evidence-based medicine and neuromodulation

Evidence-based medicine is gaining increasing penetrance in the United States. Neuromodulation providers need to know how to use this resource and how to get what we do appropriately evaluated and included in structured reviews and meta-analyses. Randomized clinical trials are not the only form of evidence for patient care activities; other, equally valid strategies are available and should be used for interventions that may preclude blinding and randomization. Those who determine payment are going to use evidence-based medicine to make decisions that may not be in the best interests of our patients or our profession.