Effects of tDCS-induced Motor Cortex Modulation on Pain in HTLV-1

Souto, Giórgio; Borges, Igor C.; Goes, Bruno Teixeira; Mendonca, Mariana E.; Gonçalves, Roberta G.; Garcia, Lucas B.; Sá, Katia Nunes; Coutinho, Mário Sérgio Soares de Azeredo; Galvão-Castro, Bernardo; Fregni, Felipe; Baptista, Abrahão Fontes

doi:10.1097/ajp.0000000000000037

Cited by 30 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, Mori et al (2010) [14] demonstrated that tDCS with the anode electrode over the M1 contralateral to the painful somatic area and cathode electrode over the SO contralateral to the stimulated motor cortex in adults with multiple sclerosis produced significant pain improvement as measured by a visual analog scale and SF-MPQ-2. In contrast, some studies found that M1-SO applied tDCS does not improve clinical pain outcomes [53]. Five sessions could be underdosing and may have limited treatment effects [54].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation over primary motor cortex (anode) and contralateral supraorbital area (cathode) on clinical pain severity and mobility performance in persons with knee osteoarthritis: An experimenter- and participant-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot clinical study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Previous studies indicate that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with anode over motor cortex (M1) and cathode over contralateral supraorbital region (SO) may be effective in reducing pain, but these studies are limited in number and have not focused on older adults with osteoarthritis (OA). Objective To evaluate the preliminary efficacy and safety of M1-SO applied tDCS on clinical pain severity and mobility performance in adults with knee OA pain. Methods Forty 50- to 70-year-old community-dwelling participants with knee OA were randomly assigned to receive five daily sessions of 2 mA tDCS for 20 min (n = 20) or sham tDCS (n = 20). We measured clinical pain severity via Numeric Rating Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. In addition, we measured mobility performance using the 6-Minute Walk Test and the Short Physical Performance Battery. Moreover, we obtained a sensation/safety questionnaire and measured cognition changes using the PROMIS-Applied Cognition-Abilities-Short Form 8a. Results Active tDCS over M1-SO significantly reduced Numeric Rating Scale of pain compared to sham tDCS after completion of the five daily sessions, and remained up to three weeks. No other measures were significantly different from sham. Participants tolerated tDCS over M1-SO well without serious adverse effects or cognition changes. Conclusion Although not consistent in all pain measurements, our findings demonstrate promising clinical efficacy for reduction in pain perception for older adults with knee OA. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02512393.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation over primary motor cortex (anode) and contralateral supraorbital area (cathode) on clinical pain severity and mobility performance in persons with knee osteoarthritis: An experimenter- and participant-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot clinical study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Not surprisingly, the direction of electrode polarization is critical in terms of the after-effects. Through stimulation of the motor cortex, tDCS can be used for: chronic pain (Deer et al 2014;Souto et al 2014;Hodaj et al 2016), pain after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (Borckardt et al 2011), trigeminal pain including refractory orofacial pain (Antal et al 2010;Hansen et al 2011;DosSantos et al 2012;Hagenacker et al 2014;Fricova et al 2016;Kreuzer et al 2017), fibromyalgia (Valle et al 2010;Cummiford et al 2016;Castillo-Saavedra et al 2018), major depression (Vigod et al 2014;Tortella et al 2015;Brunoni et al 2016;Liu et al 2017), bipolar disorder (Bersani et al 2015;Pereira-Junior et al 2015;Tortella et al 2015), schizophrenia (Agarwal et al 2013;Palm et al 2016;Gögler et al 2017), Alzheimer's disease (Nardone et al 2012;Bystad et al 2016;Narita and Yokoi 2017), modulation of associative learning (Branscheidt et al 2017), Parkinson's disease (Benninger et al 2010;Hendy et al 2016;Schabrun et al 2016), pain after stroke (Schjetnan et al 2013;Chhatbar et al 2016;Russo et al 2017) and tinnitus (Garin et al 2011;…”

Section: Nibs: Transcranial Electrical Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This problem does not occur when tACS is used in the "ripple" frequency range (Moliadze et al 2010). Ripples Kringelbach et al 2007;Pereira et al 2007Pereira et al , 2013Holslag 2018;Johnson et al 2008 Strong Holtzheimer and McDonald 2014;McNamara et al 2001;George and Belmaker 2007;Prikryl et al 2013;Fregni et al 2005;Ferreri et al 2003;Li et al 2013;Politi et al 2008;Shen et al 2016Shen et al , 2017 Non-invasive Low spatial targeting compared to DBS, higher cost compared to other non-invasive methods rTMS pain Rokyta and Fricová 2012;Fricová et al 2013;Kohútová et al 2017;Robertson et al 2010;Thomas et al 2007, Shupak et al 2006Thomas et al 2001 Non-invasive, low cost Less pronounced effect compared to rTMS tDCS chronic pain, trigeminal pain including refractory orofacial pain, fibromyalgia, major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's disease associative learning, Parkinson's disease, pain after stroke, tinnitus Souto et al 2014;Hodaj et al 2016;Borckardt et al 2011;Antal et al 2010;Hansen et al 2011;DosSantos et al 2012;Hagenacker et al 2014;Kreuzer et al 2017;Fricova et al 2016;Castillo-Saavedra et al 2018;Valle et al 2010;Tortella et al 2015;…”

Section: Nibs: Transcranial Electrical Stimulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain stimulation methods for pain treatment

Kvašňák

Rokyta²

2018

gpb

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment of pain is one of the most important aims of medicine. Over the past several decades, invasive, semi-invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation methods have been tested and implemented for modulation of the pain. In this review, we bring an overview of those methods including stimulation of both deep brain structures utilizing invasive and semi-invasive techniques and the brain cortex stimulated by non-invasive transcranial magnetic and electrical techniques. Another potentially beneficial method that could modulate pain by stimulating the deep brain with interferential transcranial alternating current is discussed as well.

show abstract

“…Moreover, not all patients are willing to positively respond to tDCS. The proportion of tDCS responders vary from 40 to 80% (42)(43)(44). Trying to define the structural and functional brain features of patients in MCS who are likely to respond to tDCS, a multi-modal neuroimaging study was performed to characterize the subgroup of tDCS responders previously describe in Thibaut et al (39).…”

Section: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (Tdcs)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain stimulation in patients with disorders of consciousness

Thibaut

Laureys

2015

ppcrj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: There is a long history of brain stimulation in medical science, and it was tested for years trying to treat several neurological diseases. On the other hand, the treatment choices for patients with severe brain injury resulting in disorders of consciousness (DOC) are still limited and research in this field remains challenging. In the current literature, only a few techniques of brain stimulation were studied in this population of patients. This review describes noninvasive techniques, namely transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which permit to stimulate the brain through the scalp, as well as the current status of deep brain stimulation (DBS) as treatment for patients with DOC. For each technique (i.e. TMS, tDCS and DBS) a systematic search on Pubmed was performed including the term "vegetative state" or "minimally conscious state" or "disorders of consciousness" and 16 articles matched the criteria. Conclusion: Currently, repetitive TMS (rTMS) and tDCS studies have shown encouraging results, with transient improvements of behavioral signs of consciousness in patients in minimally conscious state (MCS). DBS showed more impressive and extensive behavioral improvement after the implantation of an electrical stimulator in the thalamus. However, this procedure is riskier and the number of patients who can benefit from this intervention is limited. All these therapeutic approaches are still in their infancy. In the years to follow, controlled clinical studies on potential treatments for patients with DOC should multiply and therapeutic measures should be more accessible, controlled and effective.

show abstract

Effects of tDCS-induced Motor Cortex Modulation on Pain in HTLV-1

Cited by 30 publications

References 34 publications

Brain stimulation methods for pain treatment

Brain stimulation in patients with disorders of consciousness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About