Kevin Pacheco-Barrios1,2, Xianguo Meng1,3, Felipe Fregni1. 1. Neuromodulation Center and Center for Clinical Research Learning, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Unidad de Investigación para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud, Lima, Peru. 3. Shandong First Medical University & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, College of Sport Medicine and Rehabilitation, Jinan, Shandong Province, P.R. China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of neuromodulation techniques in adults with phantom limb pain (PLP). METHODS: A systematic search was performed, comprising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental (QE) studies that were published from database inception to February 2019 and that measured the effects of neuromodulation in adults with PLP. Hedge's g effect size (ES) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (nine RCTs and five QE noncontrolled studies) were included. The meta-analysis of RCTs showed significant effects for i) excitatory primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation in reducing pain after stimulation (ES = -1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.26 to -0.45); ii) anodal M1 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in lowering pain after stimulation (ES = -1.50, 95% CI = -2.05 to 0.95), and one-week follow-up (ES = -1.04, 95% CI = -1.64 to 0.45). The meta-analysis of noncontrolled QE studies demonstrated a high rate of pain reduction after stimulation with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (rate = 67%, 95% CI = 60% to 73%) and at one-year follow-up with deep brain stimulation (rate = 73%, 95% CI = 63% to 82%). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from RCTs suggests that excitatory M1 stimulation-specifically, anodal M1 tDCS-has a significant short-term effect in reducing pain scale scores in PLP. Various neuromodulation techniques appear to have a significant and positive impact on PLP, but due to the limited amount of data, it is not possible to draw more definite conclusions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of neuromodulation techniques in adults with phantom limb pain (PLP). METHODS: A systematic search was performed, comprising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental (QE) studies that were published from database inception to February 2019 and that measured the effects of neuromodulation in adults with PLP. Hedge's g effect size (ES) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (nine RCTs and five QE noncontrolled studies) were included. The meta-analysis of RCTs showed significant effects for i) excitatory primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation in reducing pain after stimulation (ES = -1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.26 to -0.45); ii) anodal M1 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in lowering pain after stimulation (ES = -1.50, 95% CI = -2.05 to 0.95), and one-week follow-up (ES = -1.04, 95% CI = -1.64 to 0.45). The meta-analysis of noncontrolled QE studies demonstrated a high rate of pain reduction after stimulation with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (rate = 67%, 95% CI = 60% to 73%) and at one-year follow-up with deep brain stimulation (rate = 73%, 95% CI = 63% to 82%). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence from RCTs suggests that excitatory M1 stimulation-specifically, anodal M1 tDCS-has a significant short-term effect in reducing pain scale scores in PLP. Various neuromodulation techniques appear to have a significant and positive impact on PLP, but due to the limited amount of data, it is not possible to draw more definite conclusions.
Authors: Leonardo A Frizon; Erin A Yamamoto; Sean J Nagel; Marian T Simonson; Olivia Hogue; Andre G Machado Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Jean-Pascal Lefaucheur; Andrea Antal; Samar S Ayache; David H Benninger; Jérôme Brunelin; Filippo Cogiamanian; Maria Cotelli; Dirk De Ridder; Roberta Ferrucci; Berthold Langguth; Paola Marangolo; Veit Mylius; Michael A Nitsche; Frank Padberg; Ulrich Palm; Emmanuel Poulet; Alberto Priori; Simone Rossi; Martin Schecklmann; Sven Vanneste; Ulf Ziemann; Luis Garcia-Larrea; Walter Paulus Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2016-10-29 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Richard L Rauck; Steven P Cohen; Christopher A Gilmore; James M North; Leonardo Kapural; Rosemary H Zang; Julie H Grill; Joseph W Boggs Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2013-08-15
Authors: Marcos Fabio DosSantos; Tiffany M Love; Ilkka Kristian Martikainen; Thiago Dias Nascimento; Felipe Fregni; Chelsea Cummiford; Misty Dawn Deboer; Jon-Kar Zubieta; Alexandre F M Dasilva Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2012-11-02 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Kevin Pacheco-Barrios; Paulo Sampaio de Melo; Karen Vasquez-Avila; Alejandra Cardenas-Rojas; Paola Gonzalez-Mego; Anna Marduy; Joao Parente; Ingrid Rebello Sanchez; Pablo Cortez; Meghan Whalen; Luis Castelo-Branco; Felipe Fregni Journal: Princ Pract Clin Res Date: 2021-12-23
Authors: Kevin Pacheco-Barrios; Alejandra Cardenas-Rojas; Paulo S de Melo; Anna Marduy; Paola Gonzalez-Mego; Luis Castelo-Branco; Augusto J Mendes; Karen Vásquez-Ávila; Paulo E P Teixeira; Anna Carolyna Lepesteur Gianlorenco; Felipe Fregni Journal: Princ Pract Clin Res Date: 2021-12-27
Authors: Paulo E P Teixeira; Kevin Pacheco-Barrios; Muhammed Enes Gunduz; Anna Carolyna Gianlorenço; Luis Castelo-Branco; Felipe Fregni Journal: Neurophysiol Clin Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Fernanda de Toledo Gonçalves; Kevin Pacheco-Barrios; Ingrid Rebello-Sanchez; Luis Castelo-Branco; Paulo S de Melo; Joao Parente; Alejandra Cardenas-Rojas; Isabela Firigato; Anne Victorio Pessotto; Marta Imamura; Marcel Simis; Linamara Battistella; Felipe Fregni Journal: Int J Clin Health Psychol Date: 2022-09-20