BACKGROUND: Chronic pain occurs in 83% of Parkinson disease (PD) patients and deep brain stimulation (DBS) has shown to result in pain relief in a subset of patients, though the mechanism is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data in PD patients with chronic pain without DBS, those whose pain was relieved (PR) with DBS and those whose pain was not relieved (PNR) with DBS. METHODS: Functional MRI (fMRI) with blood oxygen level-dependent activation data was obtained in 15 patients in control, PR, and PNR patients. fMRI was obtained in the presence and absence of a mechanical stimuli with DBS ON and DBS OFF. Voxel-wise analysis using pain OFF data was used to determine which regions were altered during pain ON periods. RESULTS: At the time of MRI, pain was scored a 5.4 ± 1.2 out of 10 in the control, 4.25 ± 1.18 in PNR, and 0.8 ± 0.67 in PR cohorts. Group analysis of control and PNR groups showed primary somatosensory (SI) deactivation, whereas PR patients showed thalamic deactivation and SI activation. DBS resulted in more decreased activity in PR than PNR (P < .05) and more activity in anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) in PNR patients (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Patients in the control and PNR groups showed SI deactivation at baseline in contrast to the PR patients who showed SI activation. With DBS ON, the PR cohort had less activity in SI, whereas the PNR had more anterior cingulate cortex activity. We provide pilot data that patients whose pain responds to DBS may have a different fMRI signature than those who do not, and PR and PNR cohorts produced different brain responses when DBS is employed.
BACKGROUND:Chronic pain occurs in 83% of Parkinson disease (PD) patients and deep brain stimulation (DBS) has shown to result in pain relief in a subset of patients, though the mechanism is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data in PDpatients with chronic pain without DBS, those whose pain was relieved (PR) with DBS and those whose pain was not relieved (PNR) with DBS. METHODS: Functional MRI (fMRI) with blood oxygen level-dependent activation data was obtained in 15 patients in control, PR, and PNR patients. fMRI was obtained in the presence and absence of a mechanical stimuli with DBS ON and DBS OFF. Voxel-wise analysis using pain OFF data was used to determine which regions were altered during pain ON periods. RESULTS: At the time of MRI, pain was scored a 5.4 ± 1.2 out of 10 in the control, 4.25 ± 1.18 in PNR, and 0.8 ± 0.67 in PR cohorts. Group analysis of control and PNR groups showed primary somatosensory (SI) deactivation, whereas PR patients showed thalamic deactivation and SI activation. DBS resulted in more decreased activity in PR than PNR (P < .05) and more activity in anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) in PNR patients (P < .05). CONCLUSION:Patients in the control and PNR groups showed SI deactivation at baseline in contrast to the PR patients who showed SI activation. With DBS ON, the PR cohort had less activity in SI, whereas the PNR had more anterior cingulate cortex activity. We provide pilot data that patients whose pain responds to DBS may have a different fMRI signature than those who do not, and PR and PNR cohorts produced different brain responses when DBS is employed.
Authors: Michael S Remple; Courtney H Bradenham; C Chris Kao; P David Charles; Joseph S Neimat; Peter E Konrad Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2011-05-03 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Giovanni Defazio; Alfredo Berardelli; Giovanni Fabbrini; Davide Martino; Emiliana Fincati; Antonio Fiaschi; Giuseppe Moretto; Giovanni Abbruzzese; Roberta Marchese; Ubaldo Bonuccelli; Paolo Del Dotto; Paolo Barone; Elisa De Vivo; Alberto Albanese; Angelo Antonini; Margherita Canesi; Leonardo Lopiano; Maurizio Zibetti; Giuseppe Nappi; Emilia Martignoni; Paolo Lamberti; Michele Tinazzi Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2008-09
Authors: Radu Tanasescu; William J Cottam; Laura Condon; Christopher R Tench; Dorothee P Auer Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2016-05-07 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Alexandre Boutet; Clement T Chow; Keshav Narang; Gavin J B Elias; Clemens Neudorfer; Jürgen Germann; Manish Ranjan; Aaron Loh; Alastair J Martin; Walter Kucharczyk; Christopher J Steele; Ileana Hancu; Ali R Rezai; Andres M Lozano Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Shelby Sabourin; Olga Khazen; Marisa DiMarzio; Michael D Staudt; Lucian Williams; Michael Gillogly; Jennifer Durphy; Era K Hanspal; Octavian R Adam; Julie G Pilitsis Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Charles W Lu; Daniel E Harper; Asra Askari; Matthew S Willsey; Philip P Vu; Andrew D Schrepf; Steven E Harte; Parag G Patil Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: V Mylius; S Perez Lloret; C S Brook; M T Krüger; S Hägele-Link; R Gonzenbach; J Kassubek; S Bohlhalter; J P Lefaucheur; L Timmermann; G Kägi; F Brugger; D Ciampi de Andrade; J C Möller Journal: Nervenarzt Date: 2022-01-28 Impact factor: 1.297