Somatosensory Change and Pain Relief Induced by Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Patients With Central Poststroke Pain

Hasan, Mohammad; Whiteley, Jennifer; Bresnahan, Rebecca; MacIver, Kate; Sacco, Paul; Das, Kumar; Nurmikko, Turo

doi:10.1111/ner.12198

Cited by 41 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Seven prospective observational studies (35, 37-40, 42, 43) also showed positive results of rTMS application in CPSP. Hasan et al (40) reported that after five 10-Hz rTMS sessions, the NRS scores decreased from 7 to 6, and the improvement in the NRS scores were maintained for up to 4 weeks in 14 patients with CPSP who were involved in this study. Similarly, in 2015, Kobayashi et al (42) reported that the application of 5-Hz rTMS over the M1 on the affected side of 18 patients with CPSP once a week effectively reduced pain for up to 8 weeks, and it remained effective in 61.1% of patients for up to 12 weeks.…”

Section: Central Pain After Strokementioning

confidence: 65%

Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Pain Management: A Systematic Narrative Review

Yang

Lee

2020

Front. Neurol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Central Pain After Strokementioning

confidence: 65%

Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Pain Management: A Systematic Narrative Review

Yang

Lee

2020

Front. Neurol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stimulation of primary motor cortex (M1) appears to be the most effective cortical target (Nguyen et al, 1999; Kumar and Soni, 2009; Hirabayashi et al, 2011; DosSantos et al, 2012; Fregni et al, 2014; Brietzke et al, 2015; Cioato et al, 2015; Morishita et al, 2015; Oh and Seo, 2015). Analgesia is believed to be achieved through the stimulation of M1-thalmic relays to reduce hyperactivity in thalamic linked pain networks (Tsubokawa et al, 1993; Mertens et al, 1999; Khedr et al, 2005; Garcia-Larrea and Peyron, 2007; Peyron et al, 2007; Lima and Fregni, 2008; Nguyen et al, 2008; Fontaine et al, 2009; Lefaucheur et al, 2009; Ohn et al, 2012; Bae et al, 2014; Hasan et al, 2014; Lefaucheur, 2016). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents

O’Brien

Amorim

Rushmore

et al. 2016

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Central post stroke pain (CPSP) is a highly refractory syndrome that can occur after stroke. Primary motor cortex (M1) brain stimulation using epidural brain stimulation (EBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been explored as potential therapies for CPSP. These techniques have demonstrated variable clinical efficacy. It is hypothesized that changes in the stimulating currents that are caused by stroke-induced changes in brain tissue conductivity limit the efficacy of these techniques.Methods: We generated MRI-guided finite element models of the current density distributions in the human head and brain with and without chronic focal cortical infarctions during EBS, TMS, and tDCS. We studied the change in the stimulating current density distributions’ magnitude, orientation, and maxima locations between the different models.Results: Changes in electrical properties at stroke boundaries altered the distribution of stimulation currents in magnitude, location, and orientation. Current density magnitude alterations were larger for the non-invasive techniques (i.e., tDCS and TMS) than for EBS. Nonetheless, the lesion also altered currents during EBS. The spatial shift of peak current density, relative to the size of the stimulation source, was largest for EBS.Conclusion: In order to maximize therapeutic efficiency, neurostimulation trials need to account for the impact of anatomically disrupted neural tissues on the location, orientation, and magnitude of exogenously applied currents. The relative current-neuronal structure should be considered when planning stimulation treatment, especially across techniques (e.g., using TMS to predict EBS response). We postulate that the effects of altered tissue properties in stroke regions may impact stimulation induced analgesic effects and/or lead to highly variable outcomes during brain stimulation treatments in CPSP.

show abstract

“…Only a few of the experimental studies referenced in this paper applied navigation (Valmunen et al , 2009, Fregni et al , 2011, Hasan et al , 2014, Lindholm et al , 2015. Navigation is superior to nonnavigated procedures because it takes into account the large inter-subject variability in brain morphology (Lefaucheur, 2010).…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-invasive cortical modulation of experimental pain in migraine

Uglem

Omland

Engstrøm

et al. 2016

Clinical Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Somatosensory Change and Pain Relief Induced by Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Patients With Central Poststroke Pain

Cited by 41 publications

References 41 publications

Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Pain Management: A Systematic Narrative Review

Effect of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Pain Management: A Systematic Narrative Review

Motor Cortex Neurostimulation Technologies for Chronic Post-stroke Pain: Implications of Tissue Damage on Stimulation Currents

Non-invasive cortical modulation of experimental pain in migraine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About