Motor cortex stimulation for neuropathic pain

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

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

Neuromodulation for Medically Refractory Neuropathic Pain: Spinal Cord Stimulation, Deep Brain Stimulation, Motor Cortex Stimulation, and Posterior Insula Stimulation

BACKGROUND

The treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) continues to be controversial as well as an economic health issue and a challenge to health care. Neurosurgery can offer different methods of neuromodulation that may improve patients' condition, including deep brain stimulation (DBS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), and posterior insula stimulation (PIS). There is no consensus of opinion as to the final effects of these procedures, which stimulation parameters to select, the correct timing, or how to select the patients who will best benefit from these procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence available regarding these 4 procedures and the management of NP.

METHODS

We conducted a PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library database search from 1990 to 2020. The strategy of the search concentrated on the following keywords: "neuropathic pain," "chronic pain," "deep brain stimulation," "motor cortex stimulation," "spinal cord stimulation," "insula stimulation," and "neuromodulation." Studies that provided data regarding the immediate and long-term effectiveness of the procedure, anatomic stimulation target, percentage of pain control, and cause of the NP were included.

RESULTS

The most frequent causes of NP were phantom limb pain and central poststroke pain in the MCS group; central poststroke pain, phantom limb pain, and spinal cord injury (SCI) in the DBS group; and complex regional pain syndrome and failed back surgery syndrome in the SCS group. Pain improvement varied between 35% and 80% in the MCS group and 50% and 60% in the DBS group. In the SCS group, successful rates varied between 38% and 89%.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights the literature supporting SCS, DBS, MCS, and PIS methods for the treatment of NP. We found consistent evidence supporting MCS, DBS, and SCS as possible treatments for NP; however, we were not able to define which procedure should be indicated for each cause. Furthermore, we did not find enough evidence to justify the routine use of PIS. We conclude that unanswered points need to be discussed in this controversial field and emphasize that new research must be developed to treat patients with NP, to improve their quality of life.

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

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

Repetitive motor cortex stimulation reinforces the pain modulation circuits of peripheral neuropathic pain

Recent evidence indicates that motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is a potentially effective treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. However, the neural mechanisms underlying the attenuated hyperalgesia after MCS are not completely understood. In this study, we investigated the neural mechanism of the effects of MCS using an animal model of neuropathic pain. After 10 daily sessions of MCS, repetitive MCS reduced mechanical allodynia and contributed to neuronal changes in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Interestingly, inhibition of protein kinase M zeta (PKMζ), a regulator of synaptic plasticity, in the ACC blocked the effects of repetitive MCS. Histological and molecular studies showed a significantly increased level of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) expression in the ACC after peripheral neuropathy, and neither MCS treatment nor ZIP administration affected this increase. These results suggest that repetitive MCS can attenuate the mechanical allodynia in neuropathic pain, and that the activation of PKMζ in the ACC may play a role in the modulation of neuropathic pain via MCS.

Role of Neuromodulation and Optogenetic Manipulation in Pain Treatment

Neuromodulation, including invasive and non-invasive stimulation, has been used to treat intractable chronic pain. However, the mechanisms by which neuromodulation produces antinociceptive effect still remain uncertain. Optogenetic manipulation, a recently developed novel approach, has already proven its value to clinicians by providing new insights into mechanisms of current clinical neuromodulation methods as well as pathophysiology of nervous system diseases at the circuit level. Here, we discuss the principles of two neuromodulation methods (deep brain stimulation and motor cortex stimulation) and their applications in pain treatment. More important, we summarize the new information from recent studies regarding optogenetic manipulation in neuroscience research and its potential utility in pain study.

Cough-Associated Changes in CSF Flow in Chiari I Malformation Evaluated by Real-Time MRI

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Invasive pressure studies have suggested that CSF flow across the foramen magnum may transiently decrease after coughing in patients with symptomatic Chiari I malformation. The purpose of this exploratory study was to demonstrate this phenomenon noninvasively by assessing CSF flow response to coughing in symptomatic patients with Chiari I malformation by using MR pencil beam imaging and to compare the response with that in healthy participants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight symptomatic patients with Chiari I malformation and 6 healthy participants were studied by using MR pencil beam imaging with a temporal resolution of ∼50 ms. Patients and healthy participants were scanned for 90 seconds (without cardiac gating) to continuously record cardiac cycle-related CSF flow waveforms in real-time during resting, coughing, and postcoughing periods. CSF flow waveform amplitude, CSF stroke volume, and CSF flow rate (CSF Flow Rate = CSF Stroke Volume × Heart Rate) in the resting and immediate postcoughing periods were determined and compared between patients and healthy participants.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in CSF flow waveform amplitude, CSF stroke volume, and the CSF flow rate between patients with Chiari I malformation and healthy participants during rest. However, immediately after coughing, a significant decrease in CSF flow waveform amplitude (P < .001), CSF stroke volume (P = .001), and CSF flow rate (P = .001) was observed in patients with Chiari I malformation but not in the healthy participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time MR imaging noninvasively showed a transient decrease in CSF flow across the foramen magnum after coughing in symptomatic patients with Chiari I malformation, a phenomenon not seen in healthy participants. Our results provide preliminary evidence that the physiology-based imaging method used here has the potential to be an objective clinical test to differentiate symptomatic from asymptomatic patients with Chiari I malformation.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: stimulation of the intracranial and extracranial space and head for chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has identified a need for evaluation and analysis of the practice of neurostimulation of the brain and extracranial nerves of the head to treat chronic pain.

METHODS

The INS board of directors chose an expert panel, the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC), to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature, current research, and clinical experience and to give guidance for the appropriate use of these methods. The literature searches involved key word searches in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar dated 1970-2013, which were graded and evaluated by the authors.

RESULTS

The NACC found that evidence supports extracranial stimulation for facial pain, migraine, and scalp pain but is limited for intracranial neuromodulation. High cervical spinal cord stimulation is an evolving option for facial pain. Intracranial neurostimulation may be an excellent option to treat diseases of the nervous system, such as tremor and Parkinson's disease, and in the future, potentially Alzheimer's disease and traumatic brain injury, but current use of intracranial stimulation for pain should be seen as investigational.

CONCLUSIONS

The NACC concludes that extracranial nerve stimulation should be considered in the algorithmic treatment of migraine and other disorders of the head. We should strive to perfect targets outside the cranium when treating pain, if at all possible.

Deep brain stimulation: indications and evidence

Deep brain stimulation is a minimally invasive targeted neurosurgical intervention that enables structures deep in the brain to be stimulated electrically by an implanted pacemaker. It has become the treatment of choice for Parkinson's disease, refractory to, or complicated by, drug therapy. Its efficacy has been demonstrated robustly by randomized, controlled clinical trials, with multiple novel brain targets having been discovered in the last 20 years. Multifarious clinical indications for deep brain stimulation now exist, including dystonia and tremor in movement disorders; depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and Tourette's syndrome in psychiatry; epilepsy, cluster headache and chronic pain, including pain from stroke, amputation, trigeminal neuralgia and multiple sclerosis. Current research argues for novel indications, including hypertension and orthostatic hypotension. The development, principles, indications and effectiveness of the technique are reviewed here. While deep brain stimulation is a standard and widely accepted treatment for Parkinson's disease after 20 years of experience, in chronic pain it remains restricted to a handful of experienced, specialist centers willing to publish outcomes despite its use for over 50 years. Reasons are reviewed and novel approaches to appraising clinical evidence in functional neurosurgery are suggested.

Motor cortex stimulation for facial chronic neuropathic pain: A review of the literature

Background:

Facial chronic neuropathic pain (FCNP) is a disabling clinical entity, its incidence is increasing within the chronic pain population. There is indication for neuromodulation when conservative treatment fails. Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) has emerged as an alternative in the advanced management of these patients. The aim of this work is to review the worldwide literature on MCS for FCNP.

Methods:

A PubMed search from 1990 to 2012 was conducted using established MeSH words. A total of 126 relevant articles on MCS focused on chronic pain were selected and analysed. Series of cases were divided in (1) series focused on MCS for FCNP, and (2) MCS series of FCNP mixed with other chronic pain entities.

Results:

A total of 118 patients have been trialed for MCS for FCNP, 100 (84.7%) pursued permanent implantation of the system, and 84% of them had good pain control at the end of the study. Male: female ratio was about 1:2 in the whole group of studies; mean age was 58 years (range, 28–83), and mean pain duration was 7 years (range, 0.6–25). Four randomized controlled studies have been reported, all of them not focused on MCS for FCNP. The most common complication was seizure followed by wound infection. Preoperative evaluation, surgical techniques, and final settings varied among the series.

Conclusion:

MCS for FNCP is a safe and efficacious treatment option when previous managements have failed; however, there is still lack of strong evidence (larger randomized controlled multicentre studies) that MCS can be offered in a regular basis to FNCP patients.

Motor Cortex Stimulation Improves Local Cerebral Glucose Metabolism in the Ipsilateral Thalamus in Patients With Poststroke Pain: Case Report

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE:

Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is documented as an effective therapeutic option for patients with poststroke pain. However, its underlying mechanism is still unclear. This study aimed to evaluate local cerebral glucose metabolism before and after MCS in patients with poststroke pain.

CLINICAL PRESENTATION:

Using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, cerebral metabolic rate for glucose (CMRGlu) was measured in 6 patients with poststroke pain before MCS. Their lesions were located in the corona radiata, internal capsule, and thalamus. An epidural electrode was implanted under the monitoring of intraoperative neuronavigation and somatosensory evoked/motor evoked potentials. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography was repeated in 4 patients (67%) who underwent successful MCS. Asymmetry of CMRGlu was semiquantitatively analyzed using an automated region of interest setting method. Before MCS, the ratio of CMRGlu in the ipsilateral to contralateral thalamus was 0.81 ± 0.13 (n = 6), (range, 0.63-0.97). However, there was no significant asymmetry of CMRGlu in other regions. Successful MCS significantly improved the asymmetry of CMRGlu in the ipsilateral thalamus from 0.81 ± 0.14 to 0.89 ± 0.17 (P &lt; .01, n = 4). The therapeutic effect was proportional to the improvement of CMRGlu asymmetry (R = 0.79, P = 0.28; single regression analysis).

CONCLUSION:

Poststroke pain is closely related to the reduced glucose use in the thalamus contralateral to the painful area. Successful MCS significantly improves glucose use in the thalamus ipsilateral to MCS, suggesting that electrical stimulation of the motor cortex may activate the corticothalamic connection from the motor cortex.

High-resolution functional magnetic resonance imaging mapping of noxious heat and tactile activations along the central sulcus in New World monkeys

This study mapped the fine-scale functional representation of tactile and noxious heat stimuli in cortical areas around the central sulcus of anesthetized squirrel monkeys by using high-resolution blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) fMRI at 9.4T. Noxious heat (47.5°C) stimulation of digits evoked multiple spatially distinct and focal BOLD activations. Consistent activations were observed in areas 3a, 3b, 1, and 2, whereas less frequent activation was present in M1. Compared with tactile activations, thermal nociceptive activations covered more area and formed multiple foci within each functional area. In general, noxious heat activations in area 3b did not colocalize with tactile responses. The spatial relationships of heat and tactile activations in areas 3a and 1/2 varied across animals. Subsequent electrophysiological mapping confirmed that the evoked heat and tactile BOLD signals were somatotopically appropriate. The magnitude and temporal profiles of the BOLD signals to noxious heat stimuli differed across cortical areas. Comparatively late-peaking but stronger signals were observed in areas 3b and 2, whereas earlier-peaking but weaker signals were observed in areas 3a, 1, and M1. In sum, this study not only confirmed the involvement of somatosensory areas of 3a, 3b, and 1, but also identified the engagements of area 2 and M1 in the processing of heat nociceptive inputs. Differential BOLD response profiles of the individual cortical areas along the central sulcus suggest that these areas play different roles in the encoding of nociceptive inputs. Thermal nociceptive and tactile inputs may be processed by different clusters of neurons in different areas. To critically bridge animal and human pain studies, human fMRI was related to primate fMRI and electrophysiology of nociceptive processing, examining the functional role of the primary somatosensory cortex in heat nociception and demonstrating that subregion areas 3a, 3b, 1, 2, and M1 are responsive to noxious heat stimuli.

Motor cortex electric stimulation for the treatment of neuropathic pain

OBJECTIVE: Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is considered to be an effective treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of MCS for treating neuropathic pain. METHOD: 27 patients with chronic neuropathic pain were operated. Electrodes were implanted with the use of an stereotactic frame. Electrophysiological evaluations (motor stimulation and somatosensory evoked potentials) were performed, with guidance by means of three-dimensional reconstruction of magnetic resonance images of the brain. 10 patients (37%) presented central neuropathic pain (post-stroke pain) and 17 others (63%) presented peripheral neuropathic pain (brachial plexus avulsion, phantom limb pain or trigeminal pain). RESULTS: In 15 patients (57.7%) the pain relief was 50% or more; while in ten patients (38.5%), more than 60% of the original pain was relieved. No differences were found in relation to central and peripheral neuropathic pain (p=0.90), pain location (p=0.81), presence of motor deficit (p=0.28) and pain duration (p=0.72). No major complications were observed. CONCLUSION: MCS was efficient for treating patients presenting chronic central or peripheral neuropathic pain.

DYSPHAGIA AND NEUROPATHIC FACIAL PAIN TREATED WITH MOTOR CORTEX STIMULATION

OBJECTIVE

We report on a patient with a neuropathic facial pain syndrome, including elements of trigeminal neuralgia, glossopharyngeal neuralgia, and dysphagia. After failing medical and surgical decompressive treatments, the patient underwent implantation of a motor cortex stimulation (MCS) system.

CLINICAL PRESENTATION

A 54-year-old woman presented with a 14-year history of left-sided facial pain, throat pain, and associated nausea and vomiting. The patient failed several open surgical and percutaneous procedures for her facial pain syndrome. Additionally, several medication trial attempts were unsuccessful. Imaging studies were normal.

INTERVENTION

The patient underwent placement of a right-sided MCS system for treatment of her neuropathic facial pain syndrome. The procedure was tolerated well, and the trial stimulator provided promising results. The permanent MCS generator needed to be reprogrammed at the time of the 5-week follow-up visit to optimize symptom relief. The patient demonstrated dramatic improvements in her neuropathic facial and oral pain, including improvements in swallowing toleration, after the 5-week follow-up examination with subthreshold MCS. A decline in treatment efficacy also occurred 2 years after implantation due to generator depletion. Symptom improvement returned with stimulation after the generator was replaced.

CONCLUSION

A novel implantable MCS system was used to treat this patient's neuropathic facial pain. Durable improvements were noted not only in her facial pain, but also in swallowing toleration. The ultimate role of MCS in the treatment of pain conditions is still not well-defined but might play a part in refractory cases and, as in this case, might improve other functional issues, including dysphagia.

Efficacy and safety of motor cortex stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain: critical review of the literature

OBJECT

The authors systematically reviewed the published literature to evaluate the efficacy of and adverse effects after motor cortex stimulation (MCS) for chronic neuropathic pain.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed database (1991-2006) using the key words "motor cortex," "stimulation," and "pain" yielded 244 articles. Only original nonduplicated articles were selected for further analysis; 14 studies were identified for critical review. All were series of cases and none was controlled. The outcomes in 210 patients were assessed and expressed as the percentage of patients that improved with the procedure. Results A good response to MCS (pain relief > or = 40-50%) was observed in approximately 55% of patients who underwent surgery and in 45% of the 152 patients with a postoperative follow-up > or = 1 year. Visual analog scale scores were provided in 76 patients, revealing an average 57% improvement in the 41 responders. A good response was achieved in 54% of the 117 patients with central pain and 68% of the 44 patients with trigeminal neuropathic pain. Adverse effects were reported in 10 studies, including 157 patients. Infections (5.7%) and hardware-related problems (5.1%) were relatively common complications. Seizures occurred in 19 patients (12%) in the early postoperative period, but no chronic epilepsy was reported. Conclusions The results of the authors' review of the literature suggest that MCS is safe and effective in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. Results must be considered with caution, however, as none of the trials were blinded or controlled. Studies with a better design are mandatory to confirm the efficacy of MCS for chronic neuropathic pain.

Motor cortex stimulation in patients with Parkinson disease: 12-month follow-up in 4 patients

OBJECT

Since the initial 1991 report by Tsubokawa et al., stimulation of the M1 region of cortex has been used to treat chronic pain conditions and a variety of movement disorders.

METHODS

A Medline search of the literature published between 1991 and the beginning of 2007 revealed 459 cases in which motor cortex stimulation (MCS) was used. Of these, 72 were related to a movement disorder. More recently, up to 16 patients specifically with Parkinson disease were treated with MCS, and a variety of results were reported. In this report the authors describe 4 patients who were treated with extradural MCS.

RESULTS

Although there were benefits seen within the first 6 months in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III scores (decreased by 60%), tremor was only modestly managed with MCS in this group, and most benefits seen initially were lost by the end of 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there have been some positive findings using MCS for Parkinson disease, a larger study may be needed to better determine if it should be pursued as an alternative surgical treatment to DBS.

Motor cortex stimulation for pain and movement disorders

Since initial reports in the early 1990s, stimulation of the M1 region of the cortex (MCS) has been used to treat chronic refractory pain conditions and a variety of movement disorders. A Medline search of literature between 1991 and 2007 revealed 512 cases using MCS. Although most of these relate to the treatment of pain (422), 84 of them involve movement disorders. More recently, several studies have specifically looked at treating Parkinson's disease (PD) with MCS. We report here several of our own cases using MCS to treat poststroke and non-poststroke pain syndromes and movement disorders (n = 8), PD (n = 4), ET (n = 2), and cortico-basal degeneration (n = 1). We also cover the essential history of this procedure and our current research using computational modeling to understand further the underlying mechanisms of MCS.

Deep brain stimulation for neuropathic pain

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) for pain was one of the earliest indications for the therapy. This study reports the outcome of DBS of the sensory thalamus and the periventricular and peri-aqueductal grey area (PVG/PAG) complex for different intractable neuropathic pain syndromes. Forty-seven patients (30 males and 17 females) were selected for surgery; they were suffering from any of the following types of pain: post-stroke neuropathic pain, phantom limb pain, post-herpetic neuralgia, anaesthesia dolorosa, brachial plexus injury and neuropathic pain secondary to neural damage from a variety of causes. Of the 47 patients selected for trial stimulation, 38 patients proceeded to permanent implantation. Patients suffering from post-stroke pain were the most likely to fail trial stimulation (33%), in contrast to individuals with phantom limb/post-brachial plexus injury pain and anaesthesia dolorosa, all of whom underwent permanent implantation. PVG stimulation alone was optimal in 17 patients (53%), whilst a combination of PVG and thalamic stimulation produced the greatest degree of analgesia in 11 patients (34%). Thalamic stimulation alone was optimal in 4 patients (13%). DBS of the PVG alone was associated with the highest degree of pain alleviation, with a mean improvement of 59% (p <0.001) and a > or =50% improvement in 66% of patients. Post-stroke pain responds in 70% of patients. We conclude that the outcomes of surgery appear to vary according to aetiology, but it would appear that the effects are best for phantom limb syndromes, head pain and anaesthesia dolorosa.

A 12-month prospective study of gasserian ganglion stimulation for trigeminal neuropathic pain

AIMS

Trigeminal neuropathic pain is a broad diagnostic category that includes pain of several etiologies and excludes trigeminal neuralgia. The authors report a prospective series of percutaneous gasserian ganglion stimulation for trigeminal neuropathic pain.

METHODS

Patients who experienced >50% reduction in pain from a 7- to 10-day trial period underwent permanent implantation and were prospectively followed.

RESULTS

Eight of 10 trialed patients received a permanent implant. At the 12-month follow-up, 2 patients had been explanted and 1 was lost to follow-up. Three (all working at that the time) continued to experience >50% improvement in pain.

DISCUSSION

The results in this series were variable but 3 patients showed long-term improvements. Patients who continued to work responded better to treatment.

Motor cortex stimulation and neuropathic facial pain

✓Trigeminal neuropathic pain is a syndrome of severe, constant facial pain related to disease of or injury to the trigeminal nerve or ganglion. Causes of this type of pain can include injury from sinus or dental surgery, skull and/or facial trauma, or intentional destruction for therapeutic reasons (deafferentation) as well as intrinsic pathological conditions in any part of the trigeminal system. Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is a relatively new technique that has shown some promise in the treatment of trigeminal neuropathic pain. This technique has the potential to revolutionize the treatment of chronic pain. The authors present a review of the literature, focusing on surgical technique, device programming, safety, and efficacy, and suggest some initial guidelines for standardization of these aspects. It is important to evaluate MCS critically in a prospective, controlled fashion.

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

Object

Neurostimulation to treat chronic pain includes approved and investigational therapies directed at the spinal cord, thalamus, periaqueductal or periventricular gray matter, motor cortex, and peripheral nerves. Persistent pain after surgery and work-related or neural injuries are common indications for such treatments. In light of the risks, efforts, costs, and expectations associated with neurostimulation therapies, a careful reexamination of the methods used to gather evidence for this treatment’s long-term efficacy is in order.

Methods

The authors combed English-language publications to determine the nature of the evidence supporting the efficacy of neurostimulation therapies for chronic noncancer pain. To formulate recommendations for the design of future studies, the results of their analysis were compared with established guidelines for the evaluation of medical evidence.

Evidence supporting the efficacy of neurostimulation has been collected predominantly from retrospective series or from prospective studies whose design or methods of analysis make them subject to limited interpretation. To date, there has been no successful clinical study focused on establishing the efficacy of neurostimulation for pain and incorporating sufficient numbers of participants, matched control groups, sham stimulation, randomization, prospectively defined end points, and methods for controlling experimental bias. Currently available data provide little support for the common practices of psychological or pharmacological screening or trial stimulation to predict and/or improve long-term results.

Conclusions

These findings do not diminish the value of previous investigations or positive patient experiences and do not mean that the treatments are ineffective; rather, they reveal that new data are required to answer the questions raised in and by previous study data. Future analyses of emerging neurostimulation modalities for pain should, whenever feasible, require unambiguous diagnoses as an entry criterion and should involve the use of randomization, parallel control groups that receive sham stimulation, and blinding of patients, investigators, and device programmers. Given the chronicity of patient symptoms and stimulation therapies, efficacy should be studied for 1 year or longer after device implantation. Meticulous study methods are especially important to evaluate new therapies like motor cortex and occipital nerve stimulation.

Deep brain stimulation for pain relief: a meta-analysis

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been used to treat intractable pain for over 50 years. Variations in targets and surgical technique complicate the interpretation of many studies. To better understand its efficacy, we performed a meta-analysis of DBS for pain relief. MEDLINE (1966 to February 2003) and EMBASE (1980 to January 2003) databases were searched using key words deep brain stimulation, sensory thalamus, periventricular gray and pain. Inclusion criteria were based on patient characteristics and protocol clarity. Six studies (between 1977-1997) fitting the criteria were identified. Stimulation sites included the periventricular/periaqueductal grey matter (PVG/PAG), internal capsule (IC), and sensory thalamus (ST). The long-term pain alleviation rate was highest with DBS of the PVG/PAG (79%), or the PVG/PAG plus sensory thalamus/internal capsule (87%). Stimulation of the sensory thalamus alone was less effective (58% long-term success) (p < 0.05). DBS was more effective for nociceptive than deafferentation pain (63% vs 47% long-term success; p < 0.01). Long-term success was attained in over 80% of patients with intractable low back pain (failed back surgery) following successful trial stimulation. Trial stimulation was successful in approximately 50% of those with post-stroke pain, and 58% of patients permanently implanted achieved ongoing pain relief. Higher rates of success were seen with phantom limb pain and neuropathies. We conclude that DBS is frequently effective when used in well-selected patients. Neuroimaging and neuromodulation technology advances complicate the application of these results to modern practice. Ongoing investigations should shed further light on this complex clinical conundrum.

Volumetric Image Guidance for Motor Cortex Stimulation: Integration of Three-dimensional Cortical Anatomy and Functional Imaging

OBJECTIVE:

Epidural electrical stimulation of the motor cortex is a promising treatment option in patients with intractable pain. Varying rates of success in long-term pain relief have been attributed to inaccurate positioning of the electrode array, partly because the sulcal landmarks are not directly visualized. We describe an integrated protocol for precise electrode placement, combining functional image guidance and intraoperative electrical stimulation in the awake patient.

METHODS:

Volumetric rendering of a three-dimensional (3-D) magnetic resonance data set was used to visualize the cortical surface and to superimpose functional magnetic resonance imaging data in six patients with refractory chronic pain. The intraoperative positioning of the quadripolar electrode array was monitored by functional 3-D image guidance. Continuous electrophysiological monitoring and clinical assessment of the motor effects complemented the procedure.

RESULTS:

Volumetrically rendered 3-D images were advantageous for the location of the burr hole over the perirolandic area by revealing individual cortical morphological features (e.g., the hand knob) and function at the same time. The exact position of the electrodes was verified reliably by cortical stimulation. No complications were observed throughout the procedures.

CONCLUSION:

The combination of 3-D functional neuronavigation, intraoperative electrical stimulation, and continuous motor output monitoring in awake patients provides optimal information for the identification of the appropriate somatotopic area of motor cortex. This combined imaging and stimulation approach for electrode positioning offers a safe and minimal invasive strategy for the treatment of intractable chronic pain in selected patients.

Modelling motor cortex stimulation for chronic pain control: Electrical potential field, activating functions and responses of simple nerve fibre models

This computer modelling study on motor cortex stimulation (MCS) introduced a motor cortex model, developed to calculate the imposed electrical potential field characteristics and the initial response of simple fibre models to stimulation of the precentral gyrus by an epidural electrode, as applied in the treatment of chronic, intractable pain. The model consisted of two parts: a three-dimensional volume conductor based on tissue conductivities and human anatomical data, in which the stimulation-induced potential field was computed, and myelinated nerve fibre models allowing the calculation of their response to this field. A simple afferent fibre branch and three simple efferent fibres leaving the cortex at different positions in the precentral gyrus were implemented. It was shown that the thickness of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) layer between the dura mater and the cortex below the stimulating electrode substantially affected the distribution of the electrical potential field in the precentral gyrus and thus the threshold stimulus for motor responses and the therapeutic stimulation amplitude. When the CSF thickness was increased from 0 to 2.5 mm, the load impedance decreased by 28%, and the stimulation amplitude increased by 6.6 V for each millimetre of CSF. Owing to the large anode-cathode distance (10 mm centre-to-centre) in MCS, the cathodal fields in mono- and bipolar stimulation were almost identical. Calculation of activating functions and fibre responses showed that only nerve fibres with a directional component parallel to the electrode surface were excitable by a cathode, whereas fibres perpendicular to the electrode surface were excitable under an anode.

Thalamic field potentials in chronic central pain treated by periventricular gray stimulation -- a series of eight cases

Chronic deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the periventricular gray (PVG) has been used for the treatment of chronic central pain for decades. In recent years motor cortex stimulation (MCS) has largely supplanted DBS in the surgical management of intractable neuropathic pain of central origin. However, MCS provides satisfactory pain relief in about 50-75% of cases, a range comparable to that reported for DBS (none of the reports are in placebo-controlled studies and hence the further need for caution in evaluating and comparing these results). Our experience also suggests that there is still a role for DBS in the control of central pain. Here we present a series of eight consecutive cases of intractable chronic pain of central origin treated with PVG DBS with an average follow-up of 9 months. In each case, two electrodes were implanted in the PVG and the ventroposterolateral thalamic nucleus, respectively, under guidance of corneal topography/magnetic resonance imaging image fusion. The PVG was stimulated in the frequency range of 2-100 Hz in alert patients while pain was assessed using the McGill-Melzack visual analogue scale. In addition, local field potentials (FPs) were recorded from the sensory thalamus during PVG stimulation. Maximum pain relief was obtained with 5-35 Hz stimulation while 50-100 Hz made the pain worse. This suggests that pain suppression was frequency dependent. Interestingly, we detected low frequency thalamic FPs at 0.2-0.4 Hz closely associated with the pain. During 5-35 Hz PVG stimulation the amplitude of this potential was significantly reduced and this was associated with marked pain relief. At the higher frequencies (50-100 Hz), however, there was no reduction in the FPs and no pain suppression. We have found an interesting and consistent correlation between thalamic electrical activity and chronic pain. This low frequency potential may provide an objective index for quantifying chronic pain, and may hold further clues to the mechanism of action of PVG stimulation. It may be possible to use the presence of these slow FPs and the effect of trial PVG DBS on both the clinical status and the FPs to predict the probable success of future pain control in individual patients.