Literature DB >> 20230933

Comparison of "standard" and "navigated" procedures of TMS coil positioning over motor, premotor and prefrontal targets in patients with chronic pain and depression.

R Ahdab1, S S Ayache, P Brugières, C Goujon, J-P Lefaucheur.   

Abstract

Since about 15 years, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is used as a technique to investigate the function of specific cortical regions. Single pulse TMS studies have targeted the dorsolateral premotor cortex (dlPMC) to characterize premotor-motor interactions in movement disorders. Repetitive TMS (rTMS) trials have targeted the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) to treat depression. In almost all previous studies, these targets have been defined according to a "standard" scalp distance to the site of stimulation evoking motor responses of maximal amplitude in the contralateral hand ("hand motor hotspot" corresponding to the primary motor cortex, M1). The "standard" procedure of coil positioning locates the dlPMC and dlPFC as 2-3 and 5cm, respectively, anterior to the "hand motor hotspot". The aim of our study was to compare the locations of M1, dlPMC and dlPFC targets provided by the "standard" procedure of coil positioning and those provided by using a neuronavigation system integrating individual brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Twenty-two patients were enrolled, all being treated for depressive symptoms in the context of chronic pain syndrome. The centers of the dlPMC and dlPFC regions were accurately targeted by the "standard" procedure in 14 and eight patients (64 and 36% of the series), respectively. In the other patients, the "standard" procedure located the dlPMC target on the M1/dlPMC border and the dlPFC target on the dlPMC/dlPFC border. On average, the MRI-guided location of M1, dlPMC, and dlPFC was, respectively, 6.1mm posterior, 31.7mm anterior and 69.0mm anterior to the "hand motor hotspot". The "standard" procedure failed to accurately locate the dlPMC and dlPFC targets by about 1 and 2cm, respectively. A statistical analysis of the MRI coordinates (x, y, z) of the targets revealed that the M1 target was more posterior, the dlPMC target more superficial and the dlPFC target more anterior, lateral, and deeper, using neuronavigation compared to the "standard" procedure. This study confirms that the "standard" procedure of coil positioning is not accurate to target a desired cortical region. Target location can be improved by the use of a navigation system taking individual brain anatomy into account. The present results incline to be cautious on the pathophysiological interpretations of previous results reported in TMS studies based on "standard" targeting, e.g. regarding premotor-motor interactions. Similarly, the inaccuracy of the "standard" procedure of coil positioning could partly explain the between-study variability of the therapeutic effects produced by rTMS in patients with depression. Our results strongly support a more anterior and lateral placement of the TMS coil for dlPFC stimulation in the treatment of depression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20230933     DOI: 10.1016/j.neucli.2010.01.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurophysiol Clin        ISSN: 0987-7053            Impact factor:   3.734


  50 in total

Review 1.  A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation to study the motor system: an international consensus study.

Authors:  Lucy Chipchase; Siobhan Schabrun; Leonardo Cohen; Paul Hodges; Michael Ridding; John Rothwell; Janet Taylor; Ulf Ziemann
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-05-28       Impact factor: 3.708

Review 2.  [Experimental and therapeutic neuromodulation of emotion and social cognition with non-invasive brain stimulation].

Authors:  C Mielacher; D Scheele; R Hurlemann
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.214

3.  Reappraisal of the anatomical landmarks of motor and premotor cortical regions for image-guided brain navigation in TMS practice.

Authors:  Rechdi Ahdab; Samar S Ayache; Wassim H Farhat; Veit Mylius; Sein Schmidt; Pierre Brugières; Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 5.038

Review 4.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of substance addiction.

Authors:  David A Gorelick; Abraham Zangen; Mark S George
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2014-07-28       Impact factor: 5.691

5.  Response variability of different anodal transcranial direct current stimulation intensities across multiple sessions.

Authors:  Claudia Ammann; Martin A Lindquist; Pablo A Celnik
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 8.955

6.  Biophysical determinants of transcranial magnetic stimulation: effects of excitability and depth of targeted area.

Authors:  Mark G Stokes; Anthony T Barker; Martynas Dervinis; Frederick Verbruggen; Leah Maizey; Rachel C Adams; Christopher D Chambers
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-10-31       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 7.  [Transcranial magnetic stimulation and motor cortex stimulation in neuropathic pain].

Authors:  V Mylius; S S Ayache; M Teepker; C Kappus; M Kolodziej; F Rosenow; C Nimsky; W H Oertel; J P Lefaucheur
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 1.107

8.  rTMS of the prefrontal cortex has analgesic effects on neuropathic pain in subjects with spinal cord injury.

Authors:  R Nardone; Y Höller; P B Langthaler; P Lochner; S Golaszewski; K Schwenker; F Brigo; E Trinka
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 2.772

9.  Nonphysiological factors in navigated TMS studies; confounding covariates and valid intracortical estimates.

Authors:  Sein Schmidt; Rouven Bathe-Peters; Robert Fleischmann; Maria Rönnefarth; Michael Scholz; Stephan A Brandt
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2014-08-29       Impact factor: 5.038

10.  Resting-state networks link invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation across diverse psychiatric and neurological diseases.

Authors:  Michael D Fox; Randy L Buckner; Hesheng Liu; M Mallar Chakravarty; Andres M Lozano; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-09-29       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.