Literature DB >> 24452645

Is Life better after motor cortex stimulation for pain control? Results at long-term and their prediction by preoperative rTMS.

Nathalie André-Obadia1, Patrick Mertens, Taïssia Lelekov-Boissard, Afif Afif, Michel Magnin, Luis Garcia-Larrea.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A positive effect of motor cortex stimulation (MCS) (defined as subjective estimations of pain relief ≥ 30%) has been reported in 55 - 64% of patients. Repetitive magnetic cortical stimulation (rTMS) is considered a predictor of MCS effect. These figures are, however, mostly based on subjective reports of pain intensity, and have not been confirmed in the long-term.
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed long-term pain relief (2 - 9 years) after epidural motor cortex stimulation and its pre-operative prediction by rTMS, using both intensity and Quality of Life (QoL) scales. STUDY
DESIGN: Analysis of the long-term evolution of pain patients treated by epidural motor cortex stimulation, and predictive value of preoperative response to rTMS.
SETTING: University Neurological Hospital Pain Center. PATIENTS: Twenty patients suffering chronic pharmaco-resistant neuropathic pain. INTERVENTION: All patients received first randomized sham vs. active 20 Hz-rTMS, before being submitted to MCS surgery. MEASUREMENT: Postoperative pain relief was evaluated at 6 months and then up to 9 years post-MCS (average 6.1 ± 2.6 y) using (i) pain numerical rating scores (NRS); (ii) a combined assessment (CPA) including NRS, drug intake, and subjective quality of life; and (iii) a short questionnaire (HowRu) exploring discomfort, distress, disability, and dependence.
RESULTS: Pain scores were significantly reduced by active (but not sham) rTMS and by subsequent MCS. Ten out of 20 patients kept a long-term benefit from MCS, both on raw pain scores and on CPA. The CPA results were strictly comparable when obtained by the surgeon or by a third-party on telephonic survey (r = 0.9). CPA scores following rTMS and long-term MCS were significantly associated (Fisher P = 0.02), with 90% positive predictive value and 67% negative predictive value of preoperative rTMS over long-term MCS results. On the HowRu questionnaire, long-term MCS-related improvement concerned "discomfort" (physical pain) and "dependence" (autonomy for daily activities), whereas "disability" (work, home, and leisure activities) and "distress" (anxiety, stress, depression) did not significantly improve. LIMITATIONS: Limited cohort of patients with inhomogeneous pain etiology. Subjectivity of the reported items by the patient after a variable and long delay after surgery. Predictive evaluation based on a single rTMS session compared to chronic MCS.
CONCLUSIONS: Half of the patients still retain a significant benefit after 2 - 9 years of continuous MCS, and this can be reasonably predicted by preoperative rTMS. Adding drug intake and QoL estimates to raw pain scores allows a more realistic assessment of long-term benefits and enhance the rTMS predictive value. The aims of this study and its design were approved by the local ethics committee (University Hospitals St Etienne and Lyon, France).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24452645

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Physician        ISSN: 1533-3159            Impact factor:   4.965


  15 in total

Review 1.  Modulating the pain network--neurostimulation for central poststroke pain.

Authors:  Koichi Hosomi; Ben Seymour; Youichi Saitoh
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurol       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 42.937

Review 2.  Neurostimulation methods in the treatment of chronic pain.

Authors:  X Moisset; M Lanteri-Minet; D Fontaine
Journal:  J Neural Transm (Vienna)       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 3.575

3.  At-Home Cortical Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain: a Feasibility Study with Initial Clinical Results.

Authors:  Luis Garcia-Larrea; Caroline Perchet; Koichi Hagiwara; Nathalie André-Obadia
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 7.620

4.  New Developments in Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in Chronic Pain.

Authors:  Timothy J Meeker; Rithvic Jupudi; Frederik A Lenz; Joel D Greenspan
Journal:  Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep       Date:  2020-05-11

Review 5.  Potential Mechanisms Supporting the Value of Motor Cortex Stimulation to Treat Chronic Pain Syndromes.

Authors:  Marcos F DosSantos; Natália Ferreira; Rebecca L Toback; Antônio C Carvalho; Alexandre F DaSilva
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 4.677

6.  Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents.

Authors:  Anthony T O'Brien; Rivadavio Amorim; R Jarrett Rushmore; Uri Eden; Linda Afifi; Laura Dipietro; Timothy Wagner; Antoni Valero-Cabré
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 3.169

7.  Less Might Be More: Conduction Failure as a Factor Possibly Limiting the Efficacy of Higher Frequencies in rTMS Protocols.

Authors:  Islam Halawa; Amir Goldental; Yuichiro Shirota; Ido Kanter; Walter Paulus
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 4.677

Review 8.  Invasive Motor Cortex Stimulation Influences Intracerebral Structures in Patients With Neuropathic Pain: An Activation Likelihood Estimation Meta-Analysis of Imaging Data.

Authors:  Ruben Volkers; Esmay Giesen; Maudy van der Heiden; Mijke Kerperien; Sibylle Lange; Erkan Kurt; Robert van Dongen; Dennis Schutter; Kris C P Vissers; Dylan Henssen
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2020-02-06

9.  Motor Cortex Stimulation for Pain Relief: Do Corollary Discharges Play a Role?

Authors:  Joaquim P Brasil-Neto
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Long-term effect of motor cortex stimulation in patients suffering from chronic neuropathic pain: An observational study.

Authors:  Dylan J H A Henssen; Erkan Kurt; Anne-Marie van Cappellen van Walsum; Inge Arnts; Jonne Doorduin; Tamas Kozicz; Robert van Dongen; Ronald H M A Bartels
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.