Checklist on the Quality of the Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation (rPMS) Methods in Research: An International Delphi Study

Smart Response Biomaterials for Pain Management

The intricate nature of pain classification and mechanism constantly affects the recovery of diseases and the well-being of patients. Key medical challenges persist in devising effective pain management strategies. Therefore, a comprehensive review of relevant methods and research advancements in pain management is conducted. This overview covers the main categorization of pain and its developmental mechanism, followed by a review of pertinent research and techniques for managing pain. These techniques include commonly prescribed medications, invasive procedures, and noninvasive physical therapy methods used in rehabilitation medicine. Additionally, for the first time, a systematic summary of the utilization of responsive biomaterials in pain management is provided, encompassing their response to physical stimuli such as ultrasound, magnetic fields, electric fields, light, and temperature, as well as changes in the physiological environment like reactive oxygen species (ROS) and pH. Even though the application of responsive biomaterials in pain management remains limited and at a fundamental level, recent years have seen the examination and debate of relevant research findings. These profound discussions aim to provide trends and directions for future research in pain management.

Brain and muscles magnetic stimulation in a drug-free case of Parkinson's disease: Motor improvements concomitant to neuroplasticty

Noninvasive stimulation of the nervous system is of growing interest in Parkinson's disease (PD) to slow-down motor decline and decrease medication and its side-effects. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) used in PD to modulate the excitability of the primary motor cortex (M1) provided controversial results, in part because of interactions with medication. This warrants to administer rTMS in drug-free patients. Repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS of muscles) has not yet been tested in PD. Its influence on M1 plasticity (as tested by TMS, transcranial magnetic stimulation) and sensorimotor disorders in other health conditions makes it worth be explored in PD. Thus, rTMS and rPMS were tested in a drug-free woman (52 years old, PD-diagnosed 10 years ago) in four different rTMS + rPMS combinations (one week apart): sham-sham, real-real, real-sham, sham-real. rTMS was applied over M1 contralateral to the most impaired bodyside, and rPMS on muscles of the legs, trunk, and arms, bilaterally. M1 plasticity (TMS measures) and motor symptoms and function (clinical outcomes) were measured at different timepoints. The real-real session induced the largest motor improvements, with possible summation of effects between sessions, and maintenance at follow-up (80 days later). This was paralleled by changes of M1 facilitation and inhibition. This sheds a new light on the link between TMS measures of M1 plasticity and motor changes in PD and informs on the remaining potential for neuroplasticity and functional improvement after 10 years of PD with no antiparkinsonian drug. De novo patients with PD (drug-free) should be motivated to participate in future randomized clinical trials to further test the slow-down or delay of motor decline under noninvasive neurostimulation regimens, whatever the stage of the disease.

Spinal magnetic stimulation to treat chronic back pain: a feasibility study in veterans

Aim: Chronic low back pain represents a significant societal problem leading to increased healthcare costs and quality of life. This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of non-invasive spinal electromagnetic simulation (SEMS) to treat nonspecific chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods: A single-site prospective study was conducted to evaluate SEMS in reducing pain and improving disability. A total of 17 patients received SEMS two to three sessions a week. The Numeric Rating Scale and the Modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire were used to assess pain and disability. Results: Participants receiving SEMS exhibited statistically significant reductions in pain and disability. Conclusion: Current results suggest that non-invasive SEMS can be an effective treatment in reducing pain and improving disability associated with CLBP.

Sensory Stimulation of the Triceps Surae Muscle Complex Modulates Spinal Reflex Responses-A Comparison between Tapotement Massage and Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation (rPMS)

BACKGROUND

The reduction of muscular hypertonia is important in the treatment of various diseases or rehabilitation. This study aims to test the efficacy of a 5 Hz mechanical muscle stimulation (tapotement massage) in comparison to a 5 Hz repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) on the neuromuscular reflex response.

METHODS

In a randomized control trial, 15 healthy volunteers were administered with either 5 Hz rPMS, tapotement massage, or rPMS sham stimulation. The posterior tibial nerve was stimulated with rPMS and sham stimulation. The Achilles tendon was exposed to a mechanically applied high-amplitude 5 Hz repetitive tendon tapotement massage (rTTM). The tendon reflex (TR) was measured for the spinal response of the soleus muscle.

RESULTS

After rPMS, there was a reduction of the TR response (-9.8%, p ≤ 0.034) with no significant changes after sham stimulation. Likewise, TR decreased significantly (-17.4%, p ≤ 0.002) after Achilles tendon tapotement intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the hypothesis that both afferent 5 Hz sensory stimulations contributed to a modulation within the spinal and/or supraspinal circuits, which resulted in a reduction of the spinal reflex excitability. The effects could be beneficial for patients with muscle hypertonia and could improve the functional results of rehabilitation programs.

Effect of Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation on Patients With Low Back Pain: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effects of repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) on pain intensity, functional mobility, and kinesiophobia in individuals with low back pain (LBP).

DATA SOURCES

The PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched from inception until November 25, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible randomized controlled trials contained information on the population (LBP), intervention (rPMS), and outcomes (pain intensity, functional mobility, and kinesiophobia). Participants in the rPMS intervention group were compared with those in sham or other control groups. Two independent researchers searched for, screened, and qualified the articles.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent researchers extracted key information from each eligible study. The authors' names, year of publication, setting, total sample size, rPMS parameters, baseline/mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were extracted using a standardized form, and the methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database score and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 733 studies identified, 6 randomized controlled trials (n = 139) were included for meta-analysis. Compared with sham rPMS or other therapy, rPMS showed significant efficacy in reducing pain intensity (visual analog scale: MD, -1.89; 95% CI, -3.32 to -0.47; P<.05; very low-quality evidence). Significant efficacy was also found in terms of functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index: MD, -8.39; 95% CI, -13.65 to -3.12; P<.001; low-quality evidence). However, there was no statistically significant between-group difference on the Tampa scale of kinesiophobia (MD, -1.81; 95% CI, -7.60 to 3.98; P>.05; very low-quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found very low- to low-quality evidence that rPMS can be used to reduce pain intensity and improve functional disability in individuals with LBP. However, no significant effect of rPMS on kinesiophobia was found.

Advances in biotechnology and clinical therapy in the field of peripheral nerve regeneration based on magnetism

Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) is one of the most common neurological diseases. Recent studies on nerve cells have provided new ideas for the regeneration of peripheral nerves and treatment of physical trauma or degenerative disease-induced loss of sensory and motor neuron functions. Accumulating evidence suggested that magnetic fields might have a significant impact on the growth of nerve cells. Studies have investigated different magnetic field properties (static or pulsed magnetic field) and intensities, various magnetic nanoparticle-encapsulating cytokines based on superparamagnetism, magnetically functionalized nanofibers, and their relevant mechanisms and clinical applications. This review provides an overview of these aspects as well as their future developmental prospects in related fields.

Paired corticomotoneuronal stimulation of the preactivated ankle dorsiflexor: an open-label study of magnetic and electrical painless protocols

Paired corticomotoneuronal stimulation (or electrical PCMS: ePCMS) is the repetitive pairing of an electrical stimulus to a nerve with a transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary motor cortex (TMS-of-M1) to noninvasively influence spinal plasticity. We compared ePCMS with the new painless PCMS protocol pairing a magnetic stimulus to the nerve with TMS-of-M1 (mPCMS) in the preactivated tibial anterior muscle (TA). Sixteen healthy adults participated in two sessions (mPCMS, ePCMS), each with 180 pairs of [low-intensity TMS-of-M1 + nerve stimulation] at 0.2 Hz. TA motor-evoked potentials (MEP) to single-pulse TMS at pre-PCMS, immediately and 30 min after PCMS, were cluster-analyzed to discriminate responders and non-responders. Paired-pulse TMS-of-M1 and F-waves were also tested and BDNF polymorphism influence was explored. Both PCMS protocols significantly increased MEP amplitudes (n = 9 responders each), but the time-course differed with mPCMS inducing larger MEP increase over time. The number of BDNF-methionine carriers tended to be larger than Val66Val in mPCMS and the reverse in ePCMS, thus warranting further investigations. The MEP changes of the preactivated TA likely occurred at the pre-motoneuronal level and larger mPCMS after-effects over time may be related to the afferents recruited. mPCMS seems relevant to be tested in future studies as a painless noninvasive approach to induce sustained pre-motoneuronal plasticity in spinal cord injury.

Body representation underlies response of proprioceptive acuity to repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation

Proprioceptive acuity is of great significance in basic research exploring a possible neural mechanism of fine motor control and in neurorehabilitation practice promoting motor function recovery of limb-disabled people. Moreover, body representation relies on the integration of multiple somatic sensations, including proprioception that is mainly generated in muscles and tendons of human joints. This study aimed to examine two hypotheses: First, different extension positions of wrist joint have different proprioceptive acuities, which might indicate different body representations of wrist joint in the brain. Second, repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) applied peripherally to the forearm radial nerve and extensors could change proprioceptive acuity at the wrist joint. Thirty-five healthy participants were recruited then randomly divided into the real stimulation group (n = 15) and the sham stimulation group (n = 20). The participants’ non-dominant side wrist joint position sense was tested at six extension positions within the physiological joint motion range (i.e., 10°, 20°, 30°, 40°, 50°, 60°) both before stimulation and after stimulation. Results showed that proprioceptive bias (arithmetic difference of target position and replicated position) among six extension positions could be divided into lower-extension position (i.e., 10°, 20°, 30°) and higher-extension position (i.e., 40°, 50°, 60°). One session rPMS could influence proprioceptive bias in lower-extension position but not in higher-extension position. However, proprioceptive precision (standard deviation within lower-extension position and higher-extension position) was not influenced. To conclude, proprioceptive bias may vary between different wrist extension positions due to different hand postures being related to changes in body representation, and different functions relating to proprioceptive bias and proprioceptive precision may underlie two aspects of body representation.

Response Predictors of Repetitive Neuromuscular Magnetic Stimulation in the Preventive Treatment of Episodic Migraine

Background

Repetitive neuromuscular magnetic stimulation (rNMS) of the trapezius muscles showed beneficial effects in preventing episodic migraine. However, clinical characteristics that predict a favorable response to rNMS are unknown. The objective of this analysis is to identify such predictors.

Methods

Thirty participants with a diagnosis of episodic migraine (mean age: 24.8 ± 4.0 years, 29 females), who were prospectively enrolled in two non-sham-controlled studies evaluating the effects of rNMS were analyzed. In these studies, the interventional stimulation of the bilateral trapezius muscles was applied in six sessions and distributed over two consecutive weeks. Baseline and follow-up assessments included the continuous documentation of a headache calendar over 30 days before and after the stimulation period, the Migraine Disability Assessment Score (MIDAS) questionnaire (before stimulation and 90 days after stimulation), and measurements of pain pressure thresholds (PPTs) above the trapezius muscles by algometry (before and after each stimulation session). Participants were classified as responders based on a ≥25% reduction in the variable of interest (headache frequency, headache intensity, days with analgesic intake, MIDAS score, left-sided PPTs, right-sided PPTs). Post-hoc univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results

Lower headache frequency (P = 0.016) and intensity at baseline (P = 0.015) and a migraine diagnosis without a concurrent tension-type headache component (P = 0.011) were significantly related to a ≥25% reduction in headache frequency. Higher headache frequency (P = 0.052) and intensity at baseline (P = 0.014) were significantly associated with a ≥25% reduction in monthly days with analgesic intake. Lower right-sided PPTs at baseline were significantly related to a ≥25% increase in right-sided PPTs (P = 0.0.015) and left-sided PPTs (P =0.030). Performance of rNMS with higher stimulation intensities was significantly associated with a ≥25% reduction in headache intensity (P = 0.046).

Conclusions

Clinical headache characteristics at baseline, the level of muscular hyperalgesia, and stimulation intensity may inform about how well an individual patient responds to rNMS. These factors may allow an early identification of patients that would most likely benefit from rNMS.

Repetitive Neuromuscular Magnetic Stimulation for Pediatric Headache Disorders: Muscular Effects and Factors Affecting Level of Response

Repetitive neuromuscular magnetic stimulation (rNMS) for pediatric headache disorders is feasible, safe, and alleviates headache symptoms. This study assesses muscular effects and factors affecting response to rNMS. A retrospective chart review included children with headaches receiving six rNMS sessions targeting the upper trapezius muscles. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were measured before and after rNMS, and at 3-month follow-up (FU). Mean headache frequency, duration, and intensity within the last 3 months were documented. In 20 patients (14.1 ± 2.7 years), PPT significantly increased from pre- to post-treatment (p < 0.001) sustaining until FU. PPT changes significantly differed between primary headache and post-traumatic headache (PTH) (p = 0.019−0.026). Change in headache frequency was significantly higher in patients with than without neck pain (p = 0.032). A total of 60% of patients with neck pain responded to rNMS (≥25%), while 20% of patients without neck pain responded (p = 0.048). 60% of patients receiving rNMS twice a week were responders, while 33% of patients receiving rNMS less or more frequently responded to treatment, respectively. Alleviation of muscular hyperalgesia was demonstrated sustaining for 3 months, which was emphasized in PTH. The rNMS sessions may positively modulate headache symptoms regardless of headache diagnosis. Patients with neck pain profit explicitly well. Two rNMS sessions per week led to the highest reduction in headache frequency.