Positioning of epidural electrode for motor cortex stimulation in general anesthesia based on intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring to treat refractory trigeminal neuropathic pain

BACKGROUND

Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) represents a treatment option for refractory trigeminal neuralgia (TGN). Usually, patients need to be awake during surgery to confirm a correct position of the epidural electrode above the motor cortex, reducing patient's comfort.

METHOD

Epidural cortical mapping (ECM) and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were intraoperatively performed for correct localization of motor cortex under general anesthesia that provided comparable results to test stimulation after letting the patient to be awake during the operation.

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative ECM and MEPs facilitate a confirmation of correct MCS-electrode position above the motor cortex allowing the MCS-procedure to be performed under general anesthesia.

Brain stimulation for chronic pain management: a narrative review of analgesic mechanisms and clinical evidence

Chronic pain constitutes one of the most common chronic complaints that people experience. According to the International Association for the Study of Pain, chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs longer than 3 months. Chronic pain has a significant impact on individuals' well-being and psychosocial health and the economy of healthcare systems as well. Despite the availability of numerous therapeutic modalities, treatment of chronic pain can be challenging. Only about 30% of individuals with non-cancer chronic pain achieve improvement from standard pharmacological treatment. Therefore, numerous therapeutic approaches were proposed as a potential treatment for chronic pain including non-opioid pharmacological agents, nerve blocks, acupuncture, cannabidiol, stem cells, exosomes, and neurostimulation techniques. Although some neurostimulation methods such as spinal cord stimulation were successfully introduced into clinical practice as a therapy for chronic pain, the current evidence for brain stimulation efficacy in the treatment of chronic pain remains unclear. Hence, this narrative literature review aimed to give an up-to-date overview of brain stimulation methods, including deep brain stimulation, motor cortex stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, cranial electrotherapy stimulation, and reduced impedance non-invasive cortical electrostimulation as a potential treatment for chronic pain.

Analgesic Effects of Navigated Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Patients With Acute Central Poststroke Pain

INTRODUCTION

Central poststroke pain (CPSP) develops commonly after stroke, which impairs the quality of life, mood, and social functioning. Current pharmacological approaches for the treatment of CPSP are not satisfactory. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive technique which has been recommended for the treatment of chronic CPSP. However, few studies have evaluated the analgesic effects of rTMS in patients with acute neuropathic pain after stroke.

METHODS

We evaluated the analgesic effects of rTMS applied over the upper extremity area of the motor cortex (M1) in patients with acute CPSP. Forty patients were randomized to receive either rTMS (10 Hz, 2000 stimuli) (n = 20) or a sham intervention (n = 20) for 3 weeks. The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2, Chinese version), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels, and motor-evoked potentials (MEP) were analyzed at baseline, 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, and 3 weeks.

RESULTS

Significant treatment-time interactions were found for pain intensity. Compared with the sham group, the NRS and SF-MPQ-2 scores were significantly lower on the seventh day of treatment in the rTMS group (P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.302) (P = 0.003, Cohen's d = 0.771), and this effect lasted until the third week (P = 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.860) (P = 0.027, Cohen's d = 0.550). The HAM-A and HAM-D scores did not change in the rTMS group when compared with the sham group (P = 0.341, Cohen's d = 0.224) (P = 0.356, Cohen's d = 0.217). The serum BDNF levels were significantly higher in the treated group (P = 0.048, Cohen's d = -0.487), and the resting motor threshold (RMT) decreased by 163.65%.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that rTMS applied over the upper extremity area of the motor cortex can effectively alleviate acute CPSP, possibly by influencing cortical excitability and serum BDNF secretion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered with Clinical Trial Registry of China: Reg. No. ChiCTR-INR-17012880.

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.

Multifocal Noninvasive Magnetic Stimulation of the Primary Motor Cortex in Type 1 Myotonic Dystrophy -A Proof of Concept Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Repeated neuromuscular electrical stimulation in type 1 Myotonic Dystrophy (DM1) has previously been shown to cause an increase in strength and a decrease in hyperexcitability of the tibialis anterior muscle.

OBJECTIVE

In this proof-of-principle study our objective was to test the hypothesis that noninvasive repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex (M1) with a new portable wearable multifocal stimulator causes improvement in muscle function in DM1 patients.

METHODS

We performed repetitive stimulation of M1, localized by magnetic resonance imaging, with a newly developed Transcranial Rotating Permanent Magnet Stimulator (TRPMS). Using a randomized within-patient placebo-controlled double-blind TRPMS protocol, we performed unilateral active stimulation along with contralateral sham stimulation every weekday for two weeks in 6 adults. Methods for evaluation of muscle function involved electromyography (EMG), hand dynamometry and clinical assessment using the Medical Research Council scale.

RESULTS

All participants tolerated the treatment well. While there were no significant changes clinically, EMG showed significant improvement in nerve stimulus-evoked compound muscle action potential amplitude of the first dorsal interosseous muscle and a similar but non-significant trend in the trapezius muscle, after a short exercise test, with active but not sham stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that two-week repeated multifocal cortical stimulation with a new wearable transcranial magnetic stimulator can be safely conducted in DM1 patients to investigate potential improvement of muscle strength and activity. The results obtained, if confirmed and extended by future safety and efficacy trials with larger patient samples, could offer a potential supportive TRPMS treatment in DM1.

What Are the Results and the Prognostic Factors of Motor Cortex Stimulation in Patients with Facial Pain? A Systematic Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Facial pain (FP) is a type of neuropathic pain which recognizes both central and peripheral causes. It can be difficult to treat because it can often become resistant to pharmacological treatments. Motor Cortex Stimulation (MCS) has been used in selected cases, but the correct indications of MCS in FP have not been fully established. Here we systematically reviewed the literature regarding MCS in FP analysing the results of this technique and studying the possible role of different factors in the prognosis of these patients.

METHODS

A literature search was performed through different databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Embase) according to PRISMA guidelines using the following terms in any possible combination: "facial pain" or "trigeminal" or "anaesthesia dolorosa" and "motor cortex stimulation."

RESULTS

111 articles were reviewed, and 12 studies were included in the present analysis for a total of 108 patients. Overall, at latest follow-up (FU), 70.83% of patients responded to MCS. The preoperative VAS significantly decreased at the latest FU (8.83 ± 1.17 and 4.31 ± 2.05, respectively; p < 0.0001). Younger age (p = 0.0478) and a peripheral FP syndrome (p = 0.0006) positively affected the definitive implantation rate on univariate analysis. Younger age emerged as a factor strongly associated to a higher probability to go to a definitive MCS implant on multivariate analysis (p = 0.0415).

CONCLUSION

Our results evidenced the effectiveness of MCS in treating FP. Moreover, the younger age emerged as a positive prognostic factor for definitive implantation. Further studies with longer FU are needed to better evaluate the long-term results of MCS.

Dual motor cortex and spinal cord neuromodulation improves rehabilitation efficacy and restores skilled locomotor function in a rat cervical contusion injury model

Motor recovery after spinal cord injury is limited due to sparse descending pathway axons caudal to the injury. Rehabilitation is the primary treatment for paralysis in humans with SCI, but only produces modest functional recovery. Here, we determined if dual epidural motor cortex (M1) intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) and cathodal transcutaneous spinal direct stimulation (tsDCS) enhances the efficacy of rehabilitation in improving motor function after cervical SCI. iTBS produces CST axon sprouting and tsDCS enhances M1-evoked spinal activity and muscle contractions after SCI. Rats were trained to perform the horizontal ladder task. Animals received a moderate midline C4 contusion, producing bilateral forelimb impairments. After 2 weeks, animals either received 10 days of iTBS+tsDCS or no stimulation; subsequently, all animals received 6 weeks of daily rehabilitation on the horizontal ladder task. Lesion size was not different in the two animal groups. Rehabilitation alone improved performance by a 22% reduction in skilled locomotion error rate, whereas stimulation+rehabilitation was markedly more effective (52%), and restored error rate to pre-injury levels. Stimulation+rehabilitation significantly increased CST axon length caudal to the injury and the amount of ventral horn label was positively correlated with functional improvement. The stimulation+rehabilitation group had significantly less proprioceptive afferent terminal labelling in the intermediate zone and fewer synapses on motoneurons . Afferent fiber terminal labeling was negatively correlated with motor recovery. Thus, the dual neuromodulation protocol promotes adaptive plasticity in corticospinal and proprioceptive afferents networks after contusion SCI, leading to enhanced rehabilitation efficacy and recovery of skilled locomotion.

Computational exploration of epidural cortical stimulation using a realistic head model

Motor cortex stimulation, either non-invasively or with implanted electrodes, has been applied worldwide as a treatment for intractable neuropathic pain syndromes. Although computer simulations of non-invasive brain stimulation have been investigated largely to optimize protocols and improve our understanding of underlying mechanisms using a realistic head model, computational studies of invasive cortical stimulation are rare and limited to very simplified cortical models. In this paper, we present an anatomically realistic head model for epidural cortical stimulation that includes the most sophisticated epidural electrodes with an insulating paddle. The head model predicted the stimulus-induced field strengths according to two different stimulation techniques, bipolar and monopolar stimulations. We found that the stimulus-induced field focused on the precentral and postcentral gyri because of the epidural lead's invasiveness. Different stimulation configurations influenced the shape of the field markedly, and complex patterns of inward and outward directions of the radial field were observed in bipolar stimulation compared to those in monopolar stimulation. The spatial distributions of field strength showed that the optimal stimulation varied according to the target areas. In conclusion, we proposed an anatomically realistic head model and a sophisticated epidural lead to simulate epidural cortical stimulation-induced field strengths and identified the importance of such detailed modeling for epidural cortical stimulation because of the current's shunting through the cerebrospinal fluid.

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.

I-waves in motor cortex revisited

I-waves represent high-frequency (~ 600 Hz) repetitive discharge of corticospinal fibers elicited by single-pulse stimulation of motor cortex. First detected and examined in animal preparations, this multiple discharge can also be recorded in humans from the corticospinal tract with epidural spinal electrodes. The exact underpinning neurophysiology of I-waves is still unclear, but there is converging evidence that they originate at the cortical level through synaptic input from specific excitatory interneuronal circuitries onto corticomotoneuronal cells, controlled by GABAAergic interneurons. In contrast, there is at present no supportive evidence for the alternative hypothesis that I-waves are generated by high-frequency oscillations of the membrane potential of corticomotoneuronal cells upon initial strong depolarization. Understanding I-wave physiology is essential for understanding how TMS activates the motor cortex.

Neuronavigation based 10 sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy in chronic migraine: an exploratory study

INTRODUCTION

Chronic migraine is a disease of altered cortical excitability. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation provides a novel non-invasive method to target the nociceptive circuits in the cortex. Motor cortex is one such potential target. In this study, we targeted the left motor cortex using fMRI-guided neuronavigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty right-handed patients were randomized into real and sham rTMS group. Baseline subjective pain assessments were done using visual analog scale (VAS) and questionnaires: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Becks Depression Inventory, and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Objectively, pain was assessed by means of thermal pain thresholds using quantitative sensory testing. For corticomotor excitability parameters, resting motor thresholds and motor-evoked potentials were mapped. For rTMS total, 600 pulses in 10 trains at 10 Hz with an intertrain interval of 60 s were delivered in each session. Ten such sessions were given 5 days per week over 2 consecutive weeks. The duration of each session was 10 min. Real rTMS was administered at 70% of Resting MT. All the tests were repeated post-intervention and after 1 month of follow-up. There are no studies reporting the use of fMRI-based TMS for targeting the motor cortex in CM patients.

RESULTS

We observed a significant reduction in the mean VAS rating, headache frequency, and MIDAS questionnaire in real rTMS group which was maintained after 1 month of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Ten sessions of fMRI-based rTMS over the left motor cortex may provide long-term pain relief in CM, but further studies are warranted to confirm our preliminary findings.

DREZotomy in the treatment of deafferentation pain: review of results and analysis of predictive factors for success

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The treatment of deafferentation pain by spinal DREZotomy is a proven therapeutic option in the literature. In recent years, use of DREZotomy has been relegated to second place due to the emergence of neuromodulation therapies. The objectives of this study are to demonstrate that DREZotomy continues to be an effective and safe treatment and to analyse predictive factors for success.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted of all patients treated in our department with spinal DREZotomy from 1998 to 2018. Bulbar DREZotomy procedures were excluded. A visual analogue scale (VAS) and the reduction of routine medication were used as outcome variables. Demographic, clinical and operative variables were analysed as predictive factors for success.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients (51.9% female) with a mean age of 53.7 years underwent DREZotomy. The main cause of pain was brachial plexus injury (BPI) (55.6%) followed by neoplasms (18.5%). The mean time of pain evolution was 8.4 years with a mean intensity of 8.7 according to the VAS, even though 63% of the patients had previously received neurostimulation therapy. Favourable outcome (≥50% pain reduction in the VAS) was observed in 77.8% of patients during the postoperative period and remained in 59.3% of patients after 22 months average follow-up (mean reduction of 4.9 points). This allowed for a reduction in routine analgesic treatment in 70.4% of them. DREZotomy in BPI-related pain presented a significantly higher success rate (93%) than the other pathologies (41.7%) (p=.001). No association was observed between outcome and age, gender, DREZ technique, duration of pain or previous neurostimulation therapies. There were six neurological complications, four post-operative transient neurological deficits and two permanent deficits.

CONCLUSION

Dorsal root entry zone surgery is effective and safe for treating patients with deafferentation pain, especially after brachial plexus injury. It can be considered an alternative treatment after failed neurostimulation techniques for pain control. However, its indication should be considered as the first therapeutic option after medical therapy failure due to its good long-term results.

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.

Systematic Review and Neural Network Analysis to Define Predictive Variables in Implantable Motor Cortex Stimulation to Treat Chronic Intractable Pain

Implantable motor cortex stimulation (iMCS) has been performed for >25 years to treat various intractable pain syndromes. Its effectiveness is highly variable and, although various studies revealed predictive variables, none of these were found repeatedly. This study uses neural network analysis (NNA) to identify predictive factors of iMCS treatment for intractable pain. A systematic review provided a database of patient data on an individual level of patients who underwent iMCS to treat refractory pain between 1991 and 2017. Responders were defined as patients with a pain relief of >40% as measured by a numerical rating scale (NRS) score. NNA was carried out to predict the outcome of iMCS and to identify predictive factors that impacted the outcome of iMCS. The outcome prediction value of the NNA was expressed as the mean accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. The NNA furthermore provided the mean weight of predictive variables, which shows the impact of the predictive variable on the prediction. The mean weight was converted into the mean relative influence (M), a value that varies between 0 and 100%. A total of 358 patients were included (202 males [56.4%]; mean age, 54.2 ±13.3 years), 201 of whom were responders to iMCS. NNA had a mean accuracy of 66.3% and a sensitivity and specificity of 69.8% and 69.4%, respectively. NNA further identified 6 predictive variables that had a relatively high M: 1) the sex of the patient (M = 19.7%); 2) the origin of the lesion (M = 15.1%); 3) the preoperative numerical rating scale score (M = 9.2%); 4) preoperative use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (M = 7.3%); 5) preoperative intake of opioids (M = 7.1%); and 6) the follow-up period (M = 13.1%). The results from the present study show that these 6 predictive variables influence the outcome of iMCS and that, based on these variables, a fair prediction model can be built to predict outcome after iMCS surgery. PERSPECTIVE: The presented NNA analyzed the functioning of computational models and modeled nonlinear statistical data. Based on this NNA, 6 predictive variables were identified that are suggested to be of importance in the improvement of future iMCS to treat chronic pain.

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.

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.

Motor cortex stimulation does not lead to functional recovery after experimental cortical injury in rats

BACKGROUND

Motor impairments are among the major complications that develop after cortical damage caused by either stroke or traumatic brain injury. Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) can improve motor functions in animal models of stroke by inducing neuroplasticity.

OBJECTIVE

In the current study, the therapeutic effect of chronic MCS was assessed in a rat model of severe cortical damage.

METHODS

A controlled cortical impact (CCI) was applied to the forelimb area of the motor cortex followed by implantation of a flat electrode covering the lesioned area. Forelimb function was assessed using the Montoya staircase test and the cylinder test before and after a period of chronic MCS. Furthermore, the effect of MCS on tissue metabolism and lesion size was measured using [18F]-fluorodesoxyglucose (FDG) μPET scanning.

RESULTS

CCI caused a considerable lesion at the level of the motor cortex and dorsal striatum together with a long-lasting behavioral phenotype of forelimb impairment. However, MCS applied to the CCI lesion did not lead to any improvement in limb functioning when compared to non-stimulated control rats. Also, MCS neither changed lesion size nor distribution of FDG.

CONCLUSION

The use of MCS as a standalone treatment did not improve motor impairments in a rat model of severe cortical damage using our specific treatment modalities.

Motor Cortex Stimulation Regenerative Effects in Peripheral Nerve Injury: An Experimental Rat Model

BACKGROUND

Immediate microsurgical nerve suture remains the gold standard after peripheral nerve injuries. However, functional recovery is delayed, and it is satisfactory in only 2/3 of cases. Peripheral electrical nerve stimulation proximal to the lesion enhances nerve regeneration and muscle reinnervation. This study aims to evaluate the effects of the motor cortex electrical stimulation on peripheral nerve regeneration after injury.

METHODS

Eighty rats underwent right sciatic nerve section, followed by immediate microsurgical epineural sutures. Rats were divided into 4 groups: Group 1 (control, n = 20): no electrical stimulation; group 2 (n = 20): immediate stimulation of the sciatic nerve just proximal to the lesion; Group 3 (n = 20): motor cortex stimulation (MCS) for 15 minutes after nerve section and suture (MCSa); group 4 (n = 20): MCS performed over the course of two weeks after nerve suture (MCSc). Assessment included electrophysiology and motor functional score at day 0 (baseline value before nerve section), and at weeks 4, 8, and 12. Rats were euthanized for histological study at week 12.

RESULTS

Our results showed that MCS enhances functional recovery, nerve regeneration, and muscle reinnervation starting week 4 compared with the control group (P < 0.05). The MCS induces higher reinnervation rates even compared with peripheral stimulation, with better results in the MCSa group (P < 0.05), especially in terms of functional recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

MCS seems to have a beneficial effect after peripheral nerve injury and repair in terms of nerve regeneration and muscle reinnervation, especially when acute mode is used.

The 50 Most Cited Articles in Invasive Neuromodulation

OBJECTIVE

Bibliometric analysis is a commonly used analytic tool for objective determination of the most influential and peer-recognized articles within a given field. This study is the first bibliometric analysis of the literature in the field of invasive neuromodulation, excluding deep brain stimulation. The objectives of this study are to identify the 50 most cited articles in invasive neuromodulation, provide an overview of the literature to assist in clinical education, and evaluate the effect of impact factor on manuscript recognition.

METHODS

Bibliometric analysis was performed using the Science Citation Index from the Institute for Scientific Information, accessed through the Web of Science. Search terms relevant to the field of invasive neuromodulation were used to identify the 50 most cited journal articles between 1900 and 2016.

RESULTS

The median number of citations was 236 (range, 173-578). The most common topics among the articles were vagus nerve stimulation (n = 24), spinal cord stimulation (n = 9), and motor cortex stimulation (n = 6). Median journal impact factor was 5.57. Most of these articles (n = 19) contained level I, II, or III evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides a brief look into the most cited articles within the field, many of which evaluated innovated procedures and therapies that helped to drive surgical neuromodulation forward. These landmark articles contain vital clinical and educational information that remains relevant to clinicians and students within the field and provide insight into areas of expanding research. Journal impact factor may play a significant role in determining the literary relevance and general awareness of invasive neuromodulation studies.

Surgical Options for Atypical Facial Pain Syndromes

Atypical neuropathic facial pain is a syndrome of intractable and unremitting facial pain that is secondary to nociceptive signaling in the trigeminal system. These syndromes are often recalcitrant to pharmacotherapy and other common interventions, including microvascular decompression and percutaneous procedures. Herein, the authors present two other viable approaches (nucleus caudalis dorsal root entry zone lesioning and motor cortex stimulation), their indications, and finally a possible treatment algorithm to consider when assessing patients with atypical facial pain.

Ziconotide intrathecal delivery as treatment for secondary therapeutic failure of motor cortex stimulation after 6 years

INTRODUCTION

Motor cortex stimulation is a well-known treatment modality for refractory neuropathic pain. Nevertheless, some cases of therapeutic failure have been described but alternative therapies for these cases are rarely reported.

CASE REPORT

The patient presented with neuropathic pain in his right arm due to a cervical syrinx which was surgically treated by a shunt in 2003 with no clinical improvement. As alternative therapy, after an evaluation by repetitive magnetic transcranial stimulation with significant benefit, motor cortex stimulation was successfully implanted in 2004. In 2010, a similar pain occurred in the same territory. Local mean pain visual analogical scale (VAS) increased to 82/100. A newer generation stimulation device was then implanted and, within a period of 8months, different stimulation parameter settings were tested, without any pain relief. An intrathecal drug delivery pump was then implanted in 2011, and the upper extremity catheter was located at the cervicothoracic junction. There was no postoperative complication. A bitherapy was initiated at a daily dosage of 0.2mg morphine and 1.3μg ziconotide, not modified since August 2013. At 43months follow-up, mean VAS was 21/100 with improvement of daily life and spare-time activities, anxiety and depression, quality of life (as measured by the SF-36 survey and EQ5D-3L questionnaire).

DISCUSSION

Refractory neuropathic pain treated by motor cortex stimulation may be considered in palliative situations, and secondary therapeutic failure offers only a few perspectives. Intrathecal ziconotide, indicated as a first-line drug in non-cancer pain, could be proposed in such cases.

CONCLUSION

Intrathecal drug delivery including ziconotide in refractory neuropathic pain represents a reasonable option with a good clinical tolerance.

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.

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.

[Neurosurgical treatment of chronic pain]

Neurosurgical treatment of pain used two kind of techniques: 1) Lesional techniques interrupt the transmission of nociceptive neural input by lesionning the nociceptive pathways (drezotomy, cordotomy, tractotomy…). They are indicated to treat morphine-resistant cancer pain and few cases of selected neuropathic pain. 2) Neuromodulation techniques try to decrease pain by reinforcing inhibitory and/or to limit activatory mechanisms. Chronic electrical stimulation of the nervous system (peripheral nerve stimulation, spinal cord stimulation, motor cortex stimulation…) is used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. Intrathecal infusion of analgesics (morphine, ziconotide…), using implantable pumps, allows to increase their efficacy and to reduce their side effects. These techniques can improve, sometimes dramatically, selected patients with severe and chronic pain, refractory to all other treatments. The quality of the analgesic outcome depends on the relevance of the indications.

Motor cortex stimulation for chronic pain

Motor cortex stimulation produces significant relief of symptoms in many forms of refractory chronic pain disorders.

Supraspinal stimulation for treatment of refractory pain

Refractory pain syndromes often have far reaching effects and are quite a challenge for primary care providers and specialists alike to treat. With the help of site-specific neuromodulation and appropriate patient selection these difficult to treat pain syndromes may be managed. In this article, we focus on supraspinal stimulation (SSS) for treatment of intractable pain and discuss off-label uses of deep brain stimulation (DBS) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS) in context to emerging indications in neuromodulation. Consideration for neuromodulatory treatment begins with rigorous patient selection based on exhaustive conservative management, elimination of secondary gains, and a proper psychology evaluation. Trial stimulation prior to DBS is nearly always performed while trial stimulation prior to MCS surgery is symptom dependent. Overall, a review of the literature demonstrates that DBS should be considered for refractory conditions including nociceptive/neuropathic pain, phantom limb pain, and chronic cluster headache (CCH). MCS should be considered primarily for trigeminal neuropathic pain (TNP) and central pain. DBS outcome studies for post-stroke pain as well as MCS studies for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) show more modest results and are also discussed in detail.

Lack of efficacy of motor cortex stimulation for the treatment of neuropathic pain in 14 patients

OBJECTIVES

Motor cortex stimulation has been reported as an effective treatment for medically resistant neuropathic pain. The goal of this study is to review the efficacy of this treatment in a series of 14 patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The records of a consecutive series of 14 patients undergoing MCS for neuropathic pain at Stanford University Hospital and Clinics between 2002 and 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome measure was a visual analogue scale, which patients completed prior to surgery and following each programming session. The motor cortex was localized using 1) MR image guidance, 2) intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials and motor response to stimulation, and 3) postoperative imaging. All patients underwent extensive stimulator programming.

RESULTS

Five patients exhibited a transient improvement of >50%. Of these, only two patients maintained >50% improvement to their last clinic visit. One of these patients died of unrelated causes, and the other complained of variable response at home. The median time from best to final VAS was 50 days. Average postoperative follow-up was 55.5 weeks. Postoperative imaging demonstrated appropriate lead placement in 12 patients. The other two patients did not undergo postoperative imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort of 14 patients with neuropathic pain, motor cortex stimulation failed to produce acceptable long-term benefit. Possible reasons for this failure are discussed in the context of a small retrospective study.

Invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation for treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury: a review

CONTEXT

Past evidence has shown that invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation may be effective for relieving central pain.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a topical review of the literature on brain neurostimulation techniques in patients with chronic neuropathic pain due to traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) and to assess the current evidence for their therapeutic efficacy.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search was performed using following terms: "Spinal cord injury", "Neuropathic pain", "Brain stimulation", "Deep brain stimulation" (DBS), "Motor cortex stimulation" (MCS), "Transcranial magnetic stimulation" (TMS), "Transcranial direct current stimulation" (tDCS), "Cranial electrotherapy stimulation" (CES).

RESULTS

Invasive neurostimulation therapies, in particular DBS and epidural MCS, have shown promise as treatments for neuropathic and phantom limb pain. However, the long-term efficacy of DBS is low, while MCS has a relatively higher potential with lesser complications that DBS. Among the non-invasive techniques, there is accumulating evidence that repetitive TMS can produce analgesic effects in healthy subjects undergoing laboratory-induced pain and in chronic pain conditions of various etiologies, at least partially and transiently. Another very safe technique of non-invasive brain stimulation - tDCS - applied over the sensory-motor cortex has been reported to decrease pain sensation and increase pain threshold in healthy subjects. CES has also proved to be effective in managing some types of pain, including neuropathic pain in subjects with SCI.

CONCLUSION

A number of studies have begun to use non-invasive neuromodulatory techniques therapeutically to relieve neuropathic pain and phantom phenomena in patients with SCI. However, further studies are warranted to corroborate the early findings and confirm different targets and stimulation paradigms. The utility of these protocols in combination with pharmacological approaches should also be explored.

Motor cortex stimulation suppresses cortical responses to noxious hindpaw stimulation after spinal cord lesion in rats

BACKGROUND

Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is a potentially effective treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. The neural mechanisms underlying the reduction of hyperalgesia and allodynia after MCS are not completely understood.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the neural mechanisms responsible for analgesic effects after MCS. We test the hypothesis that MCS attenuates evoked blood oxygen-level dependent signals in cortical areas involved in nociceptive processing in an animal model of chronic neuropathic pain.

METHODS

We used adult female Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 10) that received unilateral electrolytic lesions of the right spinal cord at the level of C6 (SCL animals). In these animals, we performed magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experiments to study the analgesic effects of MCS. On the day of fMRI experiment, 14 days after spinal cord lesion, the animals were anesthetized and epidural bipolar platinum electrodes were placed above the left primary motor cortex. Two 10-min sessions of fMRI were performed before and after a session of MCS (50 μA, 50 Hz, 300 μs, for 30 min). During each fMRI session, the right hindpaw was electrically stimulated (noxious stimulation: 5 mA, 5 Hz, 3 ms) using a block design of 20 s stimulation off and 20 s stimulation on. A general linear model-based statistical parametric analysis was used to analyze whole brain activation maps. Region of interest (ROI) analysis and paired t-test were used to compare changes in activation before and after MCS in these ROI.

RESULTS

MCS suppressed evoked blood oxygen dependent signals significantly (Family-wise error corrected P < 0.05) and bilaterally in 2 areas heavily implicated in nociceptive processing. These areas consisted of the primary somatosensory cortex and the prefrontal cortex.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that, in animals with SCL, MCS attenuates hypersensitivity by suppressing activity in the primary somatosensory cortex and prefrontal cortex.