We analyzed the effects of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the thalamic nucleus ventralis caudalis (VC) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS) in 45 patients with post-stroke pain. Satisfactory pain control was obtained more frequently as the stimulation site was moved to higher levels (7% by SCS, 25% by DBS and 48% by MCS). A painful sensation was sometimes produced by stimulation of the VC as well as the post-central, pre-central and pre-frontal cortices. Such a sensation occurred less frequently as the stimulation site was moved to higher levels (50% at the VC, 39% at the post-central cortex, 6% at the pre-central cortex and 3% at the pre-frontal cortex). These findings imply that abnormal processing of nociceptive information develops at the level of deafferentation and spreads to higher levels to a varying extent. This may be one of the reasons why satisfactory pain control was obtained more frequently as the stimulation site was moved to higher levels.

The effects of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the thalamic nucleus ventralis caudalis (VC) and motor cortex stimulation (MCS) were analyzed in 19 patients with phantom limb pain. All of the patients underwent SCS and, if the SCS failed to reduce the pain, the patients were considered for DBS and/or MCS. Satisfactory pain control for the long-term was achieved in 6 of 19 (32%) by SCS, 6 of 10 (60%) by DBS and 1 (20%) of 5 by MCS. SCS and DBS of the VC sometimes produced a dramatic effect on the pain, leading to a long pain-free interval and infrequent use of stimulation. The effects of both DBS of the VC and MCS were tested in four. One patient of them reported better pain control by MCS than by DBS, whereas two reported the opposite results. There is no evidence at present for an advantage of MCS over SCS and DBS of the VC in controlling phantom limb pain.

No abstract

Consistent with earlier findings, the great benefit of STN stimulation in levodopa-intolerant patients is that STN stimulation can reduce the level of required levodopa medication. This suggests that STN stimulation could be a therapeutic option for patients with less-advanced PD by allowing levodopa medication to be maintained at as low a dose as possible, and to prevent adverse reactions to the continued use of large-dose levodopa.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been applied mainly for the treatment of intractable pain and involuntary movement disorders. Based on the rising numbers of patients undergoing DBS therapy, the possibility of emergent application of cardioversion for the treatment of occasional severe arrhythmia in DBS patients has also increased. However, there has been insufficient discussion about cardioversion in DBS patients. We employed a radiofrequency receiver that transmits to the brain impulses provided by an external generator through an antenna applied to the skin in front of the receiver. We experienced a patient who displayed almost complete cessation of his action tremor with thalamic stimulation. He also developed central dysesthetic pain and showed complete disappearance of his action tremor, even without stimulation, following successful application of cardioversion. It is considered that slight changes in the high-voltage electrical current or high-voltage electrical current spread induced central dysesthetic pain and almost identical effects to thalamotomy. We report for the first time a case of thalamotomy induced by cardioversion in a DBS patient. Clearly, we need to bear in mind that cardioversion has the capability to cause brain lesions in DBS patients with a radiofrequency receiver implanted subcutaneously at the anterior chest wall.