Transcranial direct current stimulation for spinal cord injury-associated neuropathic pain

Comparative Neurological and Behavioral Assessment of Central and Peripheral Stimulation Technologies for Induced Pain and Cognitive Tasks

Pain is a multifaceted, multisystem disorder that adversely affects neuro-psychological processes. This study compares the effectiveness of central stimulation (transcranial direct current stimulation-tDCS over F3/F4) and peripheral stimulation (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation-TENS over the median nerve) in pain inhibition during a cognitive task in healthy volunteers and to observe potential neuro-cognitive improvements. Eighty healthy participants underwent a comprehensive experimental protocol, including cognitive assessments, the Cold Pressor Test (CPT) for pain induction, and tDCS/TENS administration. EEG recordings were conducted pre- and post-intervention across all conditions. The protocol for this study was categorized into four groups: G1 (control), G2 (TENS), G3 (anodal-tDCS), and G4 (cathodal-tDCS). Paired t-tests (p < 0.05) were conducted to compare Pre-Stage, Post-Stage, and neuromodulation conditions, with t-values providing insights into effect magnitudes. The result showed a reduction in pain intensity with TENS (p = 0.002, t-value = -5.34) and cathodal-tDCS (p = 0.023, t-value = -5.08) and increased pain tolerance with TENS (p = 0.009, t-value = 4.98) and cathodal-tDCS (p = 0.001, t-value = 5.78). Anodal-tDCS (p = 0.041, t-value = 4.86) improved cognitive performance. The EEG analysis revealed distinct neural oscillatory patterns across the groups. Specifically, G2 and G4 showed delta-power reductions, while G3 observed an increase. Moreover, G2 exhibited increased theta-power in the occipital region during CPT and Post-Stages. In the alpha-band, G2, G3, and G4 had reductions Post-Stage, while G1 and G3 increased. Additionally, beta-power increased in the frontal region for G2 and G3, contrasting with a reduction in G4. Furthermore, gamma-power globally increased during CPT1, with G1, G2, and G3 showing reductions Post-Stage, while G4 displayed a global decrease. The findings confirm the efficacy of TENS and tDCS as possible non-drug therapeutic alternatives for cognition with alleviation from pain.

Non-invasive brain stimulation improves pain in patients with central post-stroke pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) significantly interferes with the quality of life and psychological well-being of stroke patients. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has attracted significant attention as an emerging method for treating patients with CPSP.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical efficacy of noninvasive brain stimulation on pain, and psychological status of patients with central post-stroke pain using meta-analysis.

METHODS

A computerized search of multiple databases was performed for identification of randomized controlled trials involving NIBS-led treatment of CPSP patients. Two researchers worked independently on literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Research was conducted from inception of the database until October 2023. RevMan 5.0 and Stata 15.0 software were used to conduct statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen papers with 807 patients were finally included. The results showed that NIBS reduced patients' pain intensity [SMD = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.54, -0.24), p < 0.01] and was more effective in short-term CPSP patients. However, the included studies did not show a significant impact on psychological status, particularly depression. Subgroup analysis suggested that the M1 stimulation point was more effective than other stimulation points [SMD = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.65, -0.25), p < 0.001]. Other stimulation modalities also demonstrated favorable outcomes when compared to rTMS [SMD = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.09, -0.25), p < 0.01].

CONCLUSION

NIBS has a positive impact on pain relief in patients with CPSP, but does not enhance patients' psychological well-being in terms of anxiety or depression. Furthermore, large-sample, high-quality, and multi-center RCTs are needed to explore the benefits of different stimulation durations and parameters in patients with CPSP. The current study has been registered with Prospero under the registration number CRD42023468419.

The combined effect of neuro-modulation and neuro-stimulation on pain in patients with cervical radiculopathy - a double-blinded, two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Cervical radiculopathy is one of those disabling conditions which results in central and peripheral pain and thus affects the quality of life. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) and exercises produce analgesic effect but their long-term effect has not been available to date. Transcranial Direct Current stimulation (tDCS) is known to produce promising effects on central pain by targeting cortical activity.

PURPOSE

To determine the combined effect of tDCS and TENS with exercises on pain and quality of life in patients with cervical radiculopathy.

METHOD

Forty four patients (male: female = 26:18) of the age group 18-50 years were recruited and randomly allocated into the experimental group and control group. The experimental group received active anodal tDCS for 20 min with an intensity of 2 mA, while the control group received sham anodal tDCS. TENS over the pain distribution area for 20 min with 5 Hz intensity and 80-150 ms pulse duration followed by neck-specific exercises were given in both groups. This protocol was given 5 days a week for 4 weeks. Pre and post-assessments were obtained through outcome measures that the Numeric Pain Rating Scale and Neck Disability Index for the measurement of pain, functional disability, and quality of life.

RESULT

Paired t-test/Wilcoxon-Signed Rank test, and Index and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the demographic variables within and across the groups, respectively for Neck Disability for Numeric Pain Rating Scale, keeping the P-value < 0.05 as significant. One-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to determine the between-subject factor differences. Post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction for repeated analyses were performed. Results depicted a significant effect for NDI (P = 0.001 for both groups) and NPRS (P = 0.003 for the experimental group and 0.007 for the control group). Significant Interaction effect (time*group) was observed for NDI (F = 42, 5382.77) and NPRS (F = 42, 1844.57) with a P-value of 0.001 for both outcome measures. Clinical significance was observed for both outcome measures having a mean difference in 50.21 and 4.57 for NDI and NPRS, respectively compared with the established MCID of 13.2 and 2.2 scores for respective outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

It was concluded that active tDCS along with TENS and exercise intervention was effective on pain, disability, and quality of life in patients with cervical radiculopathy.

Non-invasive cortical stimulation for drug-resistant pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neuromodulation techniques are being increasingly used to alleviate pain and enhance quality of life. Non-invasive cortical stimulation was originally intended to predict the efficacy of invasive (neurosurgical) techniques, but has now gained a place as an analgesic procedure in its own right.

RECENT FINDINGS

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): Evidence from 14 randomised, placebo-controlled trials (~750 patients) supports a significant analgesic effect of high-frequency motor cortex rTMS in neuropathic pain. Dorsolateral frontal stimulation has not proven efficacious so far. The posterior operculo-insular cortex is an attractive target but evidence remains insufficient. Short-term efficacy can be achieved with NNT (numbers needed to treat) ~2-3, but long-lasting efficacy remains a challenge.Like rTMS, transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) induces activity changes in distributed brain networks and can influence various aspects of pain. Lower cost relative to rTMS, few safety issues and availability of home-based protocols are practical advantages. The limited quality of many published reports lowers the level of evidence, which will remain uncertain until more prospective controlled studies are available.

SUMMARY

Both rTMS and tDCS act preferentially upon abnormal hyperexcitable states of pain, rather than acute or experimental pain. For both techniques, M1 appears to be the best target for chronic pain relief, and repeated sessions over relatively long periods of time may be required to obtain clinically significant benefits. Patients responsive to tDCS may differ from those improved by rTMS.

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

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

Transcranial direct current stimulation regulates phenotypic transformation of microglia to relieve neuropathic pain induced by spinal cord injury

Objective

Neuropathic pain is a common complication after spinal cord injury (SCI). Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been confirmed to be effective in relieving neuropathic pain in patients with SCI. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of tDCS on neuropathic pain induced by SCI and its underlying mechanism.

Materials and methods

The SCI model was induced by a clip-compression injury and tDCS stimulation was performed for two courses (5 days/each). The motor function was evaluated by Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan (BBB) score, and the thermal withdrawal threshold was evaluated by the thermal radiation method. The effects of tDCS on the cerebral cortex, thalamus, midbrain, and medulla were detected by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and immunofluorescence.

Results

The results showed that SCI reduced the thermal withdrawal threshold and increased the concentration of inflammatory cytokines in the cortex, thalamus, midbrain, and medulla, including the tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), and interleukin-6 (IL-6). In addition, the activation of microglia and the proportion of M1 phenotypic polarization increased significantly in the ventral posterolateral (VPL), ventral tegmental (VTA), and periaqueductal gray (PAG) regions after SCI. After tDCS treatment, the thermal withdrawal threshold and motor function of SCI rats were significantly improved compared to the vehicle group. Meanwhile, tDCS effectively reduced the concentration of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the cortex, thalamus, midbrain, and medulla and increased the concentration of anti-inflammatory cytokines interleukin-10 (IL-10) in the thalamus. In addition, tDCS reduced the proportion of the M1 phenotype of microglia in VPL, VTA, and PAG regions and increase the proportion of the M2 phenotype.

Conclusion

The results suggest that tDCS can effectively relieve SCI-induced neuropathic pain. Its mechanism may be related to regulating the inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines in corresponding brain regions via promoting the phenotypic transformation of microglia.

Narrative review of current neuromodulation modalities for spinal cord injury

Neuromodulation is a developing field of medicine that includes a vast array of minimally invasive and non-invasive therapies including transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), peripheral nerve stimulation, and spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Although the current literature surrounding the use of neuromodulation in managing chronic pain is abundant, there is an insufficient amount of evidence specifically regarding neuromodulation in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI). Given the pain and functional deficits that these patients face, that are not amenable to other forms conservative therapy, the purpose of this narrative review is to examine and assess the use of various neuromodulation modalities to manage pain and restore function in the SCI population. Currently, high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (HF-SCS) and burst spinal cord stimulation (B-SCS) have been shown to have the most promising effect in improving pain intensity and frequency. Additionally, dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) and TMS have been shown to effectively increase motor responses and improve limb strength. Although these modalities carry the potential to enhance overall functionality and improve a patient's degree of disability, there is a lack of long-term, randomized-controlled trials in the current space. Additional research is warranted to further support the clinical use of these emerging modalities to provide improved pain management, increased level of function, and ultimately an overall better quality of life in the SCI population.

Transcranial direct current stimulation in the management of phantom limb pain: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Phantom limb pain (PLP) after amputation is a frequent entity that conditions the life of those who suffer it. Current treatment methods are not sufficiently effective for PLP management. We aim to analyze the clinical application of transcranial direct current (tDCS) in people with amputation suffering from PLP.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The following databases were consulted in September 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Web of Science, PEDro, SCOPUS and SciELO. Randomized controlled trials investigating the use of tDCS in people with amputation undergoing PLP were selected. Demographic data, type and cause of amputation, time since amputation, stimulation parameters, and outcomes were extracted.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Six articles were included in this review (seven studies were considered because one study performed two individual protocols). All included studies evaluated PLP; six evaluated the phantom limb sensations (PLS) and two evaluated the psychiatric disorders. In all included studies the intensity and frequency of PLP was reduced, in three PLS were reduced, and in none study psychiatric symptoms were modified.

CONCLUSIONS

Anodic tDCS over the contralateral M1 to the affected limb, with an intensity of 1-2 mA, for 15-20 minutes seems to significantly reduce PLP in people with amputation. Single-session treatment could modify PLP intensity for hours, and multi-session treatment could modify PLP for months. Limited evidence suggests that PLS and psychiatric disorders should be treated with different PLP electrode placements. Further studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up times are needed to establish the priority of tDCS application in the PLP management.

Non-invasive Brain Stimulation for Central Neuropathic Pain

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

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.

Global Research on Neuropathic Pain Rehabilitation over the Last 20 Years

Background

Neuropathic pain has long been a very popular and productive field of clinical research. Neuropathic pain is difficult to cure radically because of its complicated etiology and uncertain pathogenesis. As pain worsens and persists, pain recovery techniques become more important, and medication alone is insufficient. No summary of bibliometric studies on neuropathic pain rehabilitation is yet available. The purpose of the present study is to analyze in a systematic manner the trends of neuropathic pain rehabilitation research over the period of 2000–2019.

Methods

Studies related to neuropathic pain rehabilitation and published between January 2000 and December 2019 were obtained from the Science Citation Index-Expanded of Web of Science. No restrictions on language, literature type, or species were established. CiteSpace V and Microsoft Excel were used to capture basic information and highlights in the field.

Results

Linear regression analysis showed that the number of publications on neuropathic pain rehabilitation significantly increased over time (P < 0.001). The United States showed absolute strength in terms of number of papers published, influence, and cooperation with other countries. Based on the subject categories of the Web of Science, “Rehabilitation” had the highest number of published papers (446), the highest number of citations (10,954), and the highest number of open-access papers (151); moreover, this category and “Clinical Neurology” had the same H-index (i.e., 52). “Randomized Controlled Trials” revealed the largest cluster in the cocitation map of references. The latest burst keywords included “Exercise” (2014–2019), “Functional Recovery” (2015–2019), and “Questionnaire” (2015–2019).

Conclusion

This study provides valuable information for neuropathic pain rehabilitation researchers seeking fresh viewpoints related to collaborators, cooperative institutions, and popular topics in this field. Some new research trends are also highlighted.