BACKGROUND: Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is being offered to patients suffering from neuropathic pain. Outcome prediction, programming and especially sustaining a long-term treatment effect represent major challenges. We report a retrospective long-term analysis of our patients treated with MCS over a median follow-up of 39.1 months. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the time course of the treatment effect in MCS for neuropathic pain. METHODS: Twenty-three closely followed patients treated with MCS were retrospectively analyzed. Reduction in pain measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) was defined as the primary outcome parameter. VAS pain level and adverse events were documented at the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-month follow-ups. RESULTS: The mean VAS under best medical treatment was 7.8 (SD 1.2, range 5-9) with escalation to 9.3 (SD 0.9, range 6-10) when the patients' medications were missed or delayed. About half of the patients (47.8%) experienced a satisfactory (>50%) reduction in pain during the first month of treatment. The best treatment results were seen at the 3-month follow-up (mean VAS 4.8, SD 1.9, -37.2% compared to baseline). A decline in the treatment effect was generally observed at the subsequent follow-up assessments. Six patients had their devices explanted during the follow-up period due to loss of treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, MCS failed to provide long-term pain control for neuropathic pain. Many aspects of MCS still remain unclear, especially the neural circuits involved and their response to long-term stimulation. Means must be developed to overcome the problems in this promising technique.
BACKGROUND: Motor cortex stimulation (MCS) is being offered to patients suffering from neuropathic pain. Outcome prediction, programming and especially sustaining a long-term treatment effect represent major challenges. We report a retrospective long-term analysis of our patients treated with MCS over a median follow-up of 39.1 months. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the time course of the treatment effect in MCS for neuropathic pain. METHODS: Twenty-three closely followed patients treated with MCS were retrospectively analyzed. Reduction in pain measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) was defined as the primary outcome parameter. VAS pain level and adverse events were documented at the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, 18- and 24-month follow-ups. RESULTS: The mean VAS under best medical treatment was 7.8 (SD 1.2, range 5-9) with escalation to 9.3 (SD 0.9, range 6-10) when the patients' medications were missed or delayed. About half of the patients (47.8%) experienced a satisfactory (>50%) reduction in pain during the first month of treatment. The best treatment results were seen at the 3-month follow-up (mean VAS 4.8, SD 1.9, -37.2% compared to baseline). A decline in the treatment effect was generally observed at the subsequent follow-up assessments. Six patients had their devices explanted during the follow-up period due to loss of treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, MCS failed to provide long-term pain control for neuropathic pain. Many aspects of MCS still remain unclear, especially the neural circuits involved and their response to long-term stimulation. Means must be developed to overcome the problems in this promising technique.
Authors: Dylan J H A Henssen; Erkan Kurt; Tamas Kozicz; Robert van Dongen; Ronald H M A Bartels; Anne-Marie van Cappellen van Walsum Journal: Front Neuroanat Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 3.856
Authors: Dylan Henssen; Erkan Kurt; Anne-Marie Van Cappellen van Walsum; Tamas Kozicz; Robert van Dongen; Ronald Bartels Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 4.379