Literature DB >> 23114579

Invasive stimulation therapies for the treatment of refractory pain.

Julien Nizard1, Sylvie Raoul, Jean-Paul Nguyen, Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur.   

Abstract

Invasive neurostimulation therapies may be proposed to patients with neuropathic pain refractory to conventional medical management, in order to improve pain relief, functional capacity, and quality of life. In this review, the respective mechanisms of action and efficacy of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), nerve root stimulation (NRS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), and motor cortex stimulation (MCS) are discussed. PNS appears to be useful in various refractory neuropathic pain indications (as long as there is some preservation of sensation in the painful area), such as intractable chronic headache, pelvic and perineal pain, and low back pain, but evidence for its efficacy is not strongly conclusive, and large-scale randomized controlled studies are necessary to confirm the efficacy in the long term. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been validated for the treatment of selected types of chronic pain syndromes, such as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome, and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome type I. When neuropathic pain is secondary to a brain lesion (especially following stroke) or a trigeminal lesion, stimulation of brain structures is required. Deep brain stimulation (DBS), which can be proposed with targets like the periventricular/periaqueductal gray matter or the sensory thalamus, is increasingly replaced by motor cortex stimulation (MCS), mainly because it is safer, more easily performed, and probably more effective in a wider range of indications (including central post-stroke pain). The respective places of DBS and MCS in some selected indications, such as peripheral neuropathic pain and phantom limb pain, have yet to be clearly delineated. Controlled trials, with the stimulator switched ON or OFF in a double-blind procedure, have demonstrated the efficacy of MCS in the treatment of peripheral and central neuropathic pain, although these trials included a limited number of patients and need to be confirmed by large, controlled, multicenter studies. Despite technical progress in neurosurgical navigation, guided by neuroimaging and intraoperative electrophysiology to optimize electrode positioning, MCS results are still variable, and validated criteria for selecting good candidates for implantation are lacking, except clinical response to preoperative rTMS, which showed correlations with a good response to MCS-induced analgesia. However, the evidence in favor of this technique is sufficient to include it in the range of treatment options for refractory neuropathic pain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23114579

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Discov Med        ISSN: 1539-6509            Impact factor:   2.970


  9 in total

1.  Brain stimulation patterns emulating endogenous thalamocortical input to parvalbumin-expressing interneurons reduce nociception in mice.

Authors:  Yeowool Huh; Dahee Jung; Taeyoon Seo; Sukkyu Sun; Su Hyun Kim; Hyewhon Rhim; Sooyoung Chung; Chong-Hyun Kim; Youngwoo Kwon; Marom Bikson; Yong-An Chung; Jeansok J Kim; Jeiwon Cho
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2018-05-18       Impact factor: 8.955

Review 2.  [Neuropathic pain: pathophysiology, assessment, and therapy].

Authors:  C Sommer
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 1.107

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

Authors:  Li Jiang; Yadong Ji; Pamela J Voulalas; Michael Keaser; Su Xu; Rao P Gullapalli; Joel Greenspan; Radi Masri
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2013-12-27       Impact factor: 8.955

4.  Anodal Transcutaneous Spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS) Selectively Inhibits the Synaptic Efficacy of Nociceptive Transmission at Spinal Cord Level.

Authors:  Cédric Lenoir; Aleksandar Jankovski; André Mouraux
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2018-10-12       Impact factor: 3.590

5.  Selective distant electrostimulation by synchronized bipolar nanosecond pulses.

Authors:  Elena C Gianulis; Maura Casciola; Carol Zhou; Enbo Yang; Shu Xiao; Andrei G Pakhomov
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-09-11       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 6.  Role of Neuromodulation and Optogenetic Manipulation in Pain Treatment.

Authors:  Sufang Liu; Changsheng Li; Ying Xing; Yanqing Wang; Feng Tao
Journal:  Curr Neuropharmacol       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 7.363

Review 7.  Effects of alternating current stimulation on the healthy and diseased brain.

Authors:  Aini Ismafairus Abd Hamid; Carolin Gall; Oliver Speck; Andrea Antal; Bernhard A Sabel
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-27       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  Can a single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation targeted to the motor cortex interrupt pain processing?

Authors:  Lee-Bareket Kisler; Ilan Gurion; Yelena Granovsky; Alon Sinai; Elliot Sprecher; Simone Shamay-Tsoory; Irit Weissman-Fogel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-04-09       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Pulsed Radiofrequency of the Trigeminal Ganglion for Treating Postherpetic Neuralgia of the Ophthalmic Branch.

Authors:  Dong-Yang Liu; Jin-Sheng Chen; Ze-Zang Fang; Shao-Yan Liu; Li Wan
Journal:  Pain Res Manag       Date:  2021-05-30       Impact factor: 3.037

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.