-
World Neurosurgery Feb 2021The treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) continues to be controversial as well as an economic health issue and a challenge to health care. Neurosurgery can offer different...
BACKGROUND
The treatment of neuropathic pain (NP) continues to be controversial as well as an economic health issue and a challenge to health care. Neurosurgery can offer different methods of neuromodulation that may improve patients' condition, including deep brain stimulation (DBS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), and posterior insula stimulation (PIS). There is no consensus of opinion as to the final effects of these procedures, which stimulation parameters to select, the correct timing, or how to select the patients who will best benefit from these procedures.
OBJECTIVE
To review the evidence available regarding these 4 procedures and the management of NP.
METHODS
We conducted a PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library database search from 1990 to 2020. The strategy of the search concentrated on the following keywords: "neuropathic pain," "chronic pain," "deep brain stimulation," "motor cortex stimulation," "spinal cord stimulation," "insula stimulation," and "neuromodulation." Studies that provided data regarding the immediate and long-term effectiveness of the procedure, anatomic stimulation target, percentage of pain control, and cause of the NP were included.
RESULTS
The most frequent causes of NP were phantom limb pain and central poststroke pain in the MCS group; central poststroke pain, phantom limb pain, and spinal cord injury (SCI) in the DBS group; and complex regional pain syndrome and failed back surgery syndrome in the SCS group. Pain improvement varied between 35% and 80% in the MCS group and 50% and 60% in the DBS group. In the SCS group, successful rates varied between 38% and 89%.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review highlights the literature supporting SCS, DBS, MCS, and PIS methods for the treatment of NP. We found consistent evidence supporting MCS, DBS, and SCS as possible treatments for NP; however, we were not able to define which procedure should be indicated for each cause. Furthermore, we did not find enough evidence to justify the routine use of PIS. We conclude that unanswered points need to be discussed in this controversial field and emphasize that new research must be developed to treat patients with NP, to improve their quality of life.
Topics: Cerebral Cortex; Clinical Trials as Topic; Deep Brain Stimulation; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Humans; Motor Cortex; Neuralgia; Spinal Cord Stimulation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33217591
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.11.048 -
Physiotherapy Theory and Practice Sep 2022Sensory discrimination training (SDT) is a form of feedback guided sensory training used in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP).
BACKGROUND
Sensory discrimination training (SDT) is a form of feedback guided sensory training used in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP).
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of SDT for CMP.
METHODS
MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Scopus, OT Seeker, PEDro, ETHOS, Web of Science, and Open Grey were searched for appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Included papers were assessed for risk of bias, and evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. The protocol was published on PROSPERO (anonymized).
RESULTS
Ten RCTs met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. There was conflicting evidence from seven RCTs for the efficacy of SDT for chronic low back pain (CLBP). There was very low-quality evidence from two studies supporting the efficacy of SDT for phantom limb pain (PLP). There was very low-quality evidence from one RCT for the efficacy of SDT for Fibromyalgia. No adverse effects of SDT were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
SDT has been delivered in multiple forms in the literature. SDT does not appear to be associated with any adverse effects and shows potential regarding its clinical efficacy. However, there is a lack of high-quality evidence upon which to make any firm clinical recommendations.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Chronic Pain; Fibromyalgia; Low Back Pain; Musculoskeletal Pain
PubMed: 33078667
DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2020.1830455 -
PloS One 2020Phantom limb pain (PLP)-pain felt in the amputated limb-is often accompanied by significant suffering. Estimates of the burden of PLP have provided conflicting data. To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Phantom limb pain (PLP)-pain felt in the amputated limb-is often accompanied by significant suffering. Estimates of the burden of PLP have provided conflicting data. To obtain a robust estimate of the burden of PLP, we gathered and critically appraised the literature on the prevalence and risk factors associated with PLP in people with limb amputations.
METHODS
Articles published between 1980 and July 2019 were identified through a systematic search of the following electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Africa-Wide Information, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Academic Search Premier. Grey literature was searched on databases for preprints. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening of articles, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The meta-analyses were conducted using the random effects model. A statistically significant level for the analyses was set at p<0.05.
RESULTS
The pooling of all studies demonstrated a prevalence estimate of 64% [95% CI: 60.01-68.05] with high heterogeneity [I2 = 95.95% (95% CI: 95.10-96.60)]. The prevalence of PLP was significantly lower in developing countries compared to developed countries [53.98% vs 66.55%; p = 0.03]. Persistent pre-operative pain, proximal site of amputation, stump pain, lower limb amputation and phantom sensations were identified as risk factors for PLP.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis estimates that six of every 10 people with an amputation report PLP-a high and important prevalence of PLP. Healthcare professionals ought to be aware of the high rates of PLP and implement strategies to reduce PLP by addressing known risk factors, specifically those identified by the current study.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Clinical Decision-Making; Humans; Phantom Limb; Prevalence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33052924
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240431 -
Current Pain and Headache Reports Sep 2020The purpose of the present systematic review is to provide a current understanding of the mechanism of action and the evidence available to support clinical...
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
The purpose of the present systematic review is to provide a current understanding of the mechanism of action and the evidence available to support clinical decision-making. The focus is to summarize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized or observational studies of spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain to understand clinical effectiveness and the mechanism of action.
RECENT FINDINGS
Several recent studies have demonstrated the benefit of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic pain. Until recently, the mechanism of action was founded on a central paradigm derived from gate control theory, which is the need to stimulate the dorsal column of the spinal cord to generate paresthesia. The recent development of new therapies that do not rely on paresthesia has left the field without a clear mechanism of action that could serve as a strong foundation to further improve clinical outcomes. Consequently, multiple theories have emerged to explain how electrical pulse applied to the spinal cord could alleviate pain, including activation of specific supraspinal pathways, and segmental modulation of the neurological interaction. Recent systematic reviews also have shown the clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic spinal pain, phantom limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and other chronic painful conditions. Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain is rapidly evolving with technology at its forefront. This comprehensive focused review evaluated 11 RCTs and 7 nonrandomized/observational studies which provided levels of evidence ranging from I to II.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Humans; Low Back Pain; Lower Extremity; Spinal Cord Stimulation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32997170
DOI: 10.1007/s11916-020-00907-2 -
Disability and Rehabilitation Mar 2022The aim of this study is to systematically review and critically assess the methodological quality of literature regarding prevalence, characteristics and factors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The aim of this study is to systematically review and critically assess the methodological quality of literature regarding prevalence, characteristics and factors influencing pain, other than phantom limb pain (PLP) in persons with lower limb amputation (LLA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was performed (PROSPERO CRD42019138018). Literature was searched using PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and PEDro. Studies were included if describing pain other than PLP at least three months after amputation. For residual limb pain (RLP) and back pain, a meta-regression was performed.
RESULTS
Fifty-one studies were included in which predominantly young males with a unilateral traumatic amputation using a prosthesis were investigated. Pooled prevalence of RLP was 0.51 (95% CI 0.40-0.62) with a positive association with presence of back pain ( = 0.044) in the univariate meta-regression. Pooled prevalence of back pain was 0.55 (95% CI 0.45-0.64), with a positive association of time since amputation ( < 0.001) and co-occurrence of RLP ( = 0.050).
CONCLUSIONS
Back pain and RLP are common after LLA. The prevalence of back pain was positively associated with the presence of RLP, and vice versa. Future studies should give more attention to other chronic pain types, to persons with a diabetic or vascular cause of amputation, and to pain-related interference.Implications for RehabilitationBoth back pain and residual limb pain occur in more than 50% of persons with lower limb amputation (LLA), and both pain types are positively associated.Clinicians should be aware that chronic pain is common after LLA and can have a significant impact on the functioning of persons with LLA.Future research on this topic should give more attention to other chronic pain types, to persons with a diabetic or vascular cause of amputation, and to pain-related interference.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Back Pain; Chronic Pain; Humans; Lower Extremity; Male; Phantom Limb
PubMed: 32603198
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2020.1783377 -
Frontiers in Neuroscience 2020The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate motor cortex reorganization in amputees as indexed by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) cortical mapping and...
The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate motor cortex reorganization in amputees as indexed by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) cortical mapping and its relationship with phantom limb pain (PLP). Pubmed database were systematically searched. Three independent researchers screened the relevant articles, and the data of motor output maps, including the number of effective stimulation sites, center of gravity (CoG) shift, and their clinical correlations were extracted. We calculated a pooled CoG shift for motor cortex TMS mapping. The search yielded 468 articles, 11 were included. Three studies performed correlation between the cortical changes and PLP intensity, and only one study compared cortical mapping changes between amputees with pain and without pain. Results showed (i) enlarged excitable area and a shift of CoG of neighboring areas toward the deafferented limb area; (ii) no correlation between motor cortex reorganization and level of pain and (iii) greater cortical reorganization in patients with PLP compared to amputation without pain. Our review supports the evidence for cortical reorganization in the affected hemisphere following an amputation. The motor cortex reorganization could be a potential clinical target for prevention and treatment response of PLP.
PubMed: 32372907
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00314 -
Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.) Oct 2020To evaluate the effects of neuromodulation techniques in adults with phantom limb pain (PLP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Motor Cortex; Pain Measurement; Phantom Limb; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
PubMed: 32176286
DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnaa039 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2020Recently, clinicians have been using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating various pain conditions. This systematic narrative review aimed to... (Review)
Review
Recently, clinicians have been using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating various pain conditions. This systematic narrative review aimed to examine the use and efficacy of rTMS for controlling various pain conditions. A PubMed search was conducted for articles that were published until June 7, 2019 and used rTMS for pain alleviation. The key search phrase for identifying potentially relevant articles was (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation AND pain). The following inclusion criteria were applied for article selection: (1) patients with pain, (2) rTMS was applied for pain management, and (3) follow-up evaluations were performed after rTMS stimulation to assess the reduction in pain. Review articles were excluded. Overall, 1,030 potentially relevant articles were identified. After reading the titles and abstracts and assessing eligibility based on the full-text articles, 106 publications were finally included in our analysis. Overall, our findings suggested that rTMS is beneficial for treating neuropathic pain of various origins, such as central pain, pain from peripheral nerve disorders, fibromyalgia, and migraine. Although data on the use of rTMS for orofacial pain, including trigeminal neuralgia, phantom pain, low back pain, myofascial pain syndrome, pelvic pain, and complex regional pain syndrome, were promising, there was insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of rTMS for treating these conditions. Therefore, further studies are needed to validate the effects of rTMS on pain relief in these conditions. Overall, this review will help guide clinicians in making informed decisions regarding whether rTMS is an appropriate option for managing various pain conditions.
PubMed: 32132973
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00114 -
Advances in Therapy Mar 2020Repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) is a safe and well-tolerated intervention. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is used for the treatment of depression and for...
INTRODUCTION
Repetitive magnetic stimulation (rMS) is a safe and well-tolerated intervention. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is used for the treatment of depression and for the treatment and prevention of migraine. Over the last few years, several reports and randomised controlled studies of the use of rMS for the treatment of pain have been published. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the available literature regarding the use of rMS in the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain.
METHODS
After a systematic Medline search we identified 12 papers eligible to be included in this review.
RESULTS
The majority of the studies were on patients with phantom limb pain, followed by radiculopathy, plexopathy, post-traumatic pain and peripheral neuropathy. The treatment protocols vary significantly from study to study and, therefore, pooling the results together is currently difficult. However, rMS has a definite immediate effect in pain relief which, in the majority of studies, is maintained for a few weeks.
CONCLUSION
rMS seems to be a promising intervention in the treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain. Further research is in the field is needed. Use of neuronavigation might increase the precision of stimulation and subsequently its effectiveness.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Magnetic Field Therapy; Male; Neuralgia; Pain Management
PubMed: 31989485
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01231-2 -
EFORT Open Reviews Sep 2019The majority of included studies (8 out of 11, = 54) supported the concept of considering amputation for selected, unresponsive cases of complex regional pain syndrome... (Review)
Review
The majority of included studies (8 out of 11, = 54) supported the concept of considering amputation for selected, unresponsive cases of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) as a justifiable alternative to an unsuccessful multimodality nonoperative option.Of patients who underwent amputation, 66% experienced improvement in quality of life (QOL) and 37% were able to use a prosthesis, 16% had an obvious decline in QOL and for 12% of patients, no clear details were given, although it was suggested by authors that these patients also encountered deterioration after amputation.Complications of phantom limb pain, recurrence of CRPS and stump pain were predominant risks and were noticed in 65%, 45% and 30% of cases after amputation, respectively and two-thirds of patients were satisfied.Amputation can be considered by clinicians and patients as an option to improve QOL and to relieve agonizing, excruciating pain of severe, resistant CRPS at a specialized centre after multidisclipinary involvement but it must be acknowledged that evidence is limited, and the there are risks of aggravating or recurrence of CRPS, phantom pain and unpredictable consequences of rehabilitation.Amputation, if considered for resistant CRPS, should be carried out at specialist centres and after MDT involvement before and after surgery. It should only be considered if requested by patients with poor quality of life who have failed to improve after multiple treatment modalities.Further high quality and comprehensive research is needed to understand the severe form of CRPS which behaves differently form less severe stages. Cite this article: 2019;4:533-540. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190008.
PubMed: 31598331
DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190008