Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA.
J Pain. 2012 May;13(5):411-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.02.001. Epub 2012 Apr 7.
UNLABELLED: Chronic neuropathic pain is one of the most prevalent and debilitating disorders. Conventional medical management, however, remains frustrating for both patients and clinicians owing to poor specificity of pharmacotherapy, delayed onset of analgesia and extensive side effects. Neuromodulation presents as a promising alternative, or at least an adjunct, as it is more specific in inducing analgesia without associated risks of pharmacotherapy. Here, we discuss common clinical and investigational methods of neuromodulation. Compared to clinical spinal cord stimulation (SCS), investigational techniques of cerebral neuromodulation, both invasive (deep brain stimulation [DBS] and motor cortical stimulation [MCS]) and noninvasive (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS] and transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS]), may be more advantageous. By adaptively targeting the multidimensional experience of pain, subtended by integrative pain circuitry in the brain, including somatosensory and thalamocortical, limbic and cognitive, cerebral methods may modulate the sensory-discriminative, affective-emotional and evaluative-cognitive spheres of the pain neuromatrix. Despite promise, the current state of results alludes to the possibility that cerebral neuromodulation has thus far not been effective in producing analgesia as intended in patients with chronic pain disorders. These techniques, thus, remain investigational and off-label. We discuss issues implicated in inadequate efficacy, variability of responsiveness, and poor retention of benefit, while recommending design and conceptual refinements for future trials of cerebral neuromodulation in management of chronic neuropathic pain. PERSPECTIVE: This critical review focuses on factors contributing to poor therapeutic utility of invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation in the treatment of chronic neuropathic and pain of noncancerous origin. Through key clinical trial design and conceptual refinements, retention and consistency of response may be improved, potentially facilitating the widespread clinical applicability of such approaches.
未加标签:慢性神经性疼痛是最普遍和使人虚弱的疾病之一。然而,由于药物治疗的特异性差、镇痛效果出现延迟和广泛的副作用,常规的医学治疗对患者和临床医生来说仍然令人沮丧。神经调节作为一种有前途的替代方法,或者至少是一种辅助方法,因为它在诱导镇痛方面更具特异性,而不会产生药物治疗的相关风险。在这里,我们讨论了常见的临床和研究性神经调节方法。与临床脊髓刺激 (SCS) 相比,研究性的大脑神经调节技术,包括侵入性 (深部脑刺激 [DBS] 和运动皮质刺激 [MCS]) 和非侵入性 (重复经颅磁刺激 [rTMS] 和经颅直流电刺激 [tDCS]),可能更有优势。通过自适应地靶向大脑中整合疼痛回路所包含的多维疼痛体验,包括躯体感觉和丘脑皮质、边缘和认知,大脑方法可以调节疼痛神经基质的感觉-区分、情感-情绪和评价-认知领域。尽管有希望,但目前的结果状态暗示了大脑神经调节迄今为止在慢性疼痛障碍患者中产生预期镇痛效果的可能性不大。因此,这些技术仍然是研究性的和超适应证的。我们讨论了导致侵入性和非侵入性大脑刺激在治疗慢性神经性疼痛和非癌性疼痛方面疗效不足、反应性差异大和受益保留不佳的相关问题,并为未来大脑神经调节治疗慢性神经性疼痛的临床试验提出了设计和概念上的改进建议。
观点:本批判性综述重点关注导致侵入性和非侵入性大脑刺激在治疗慢性神经性和非癌性疼痛方面疗效不佳的因素。通过关键临床试验设计和概念上的改进,可以提高保留和一致性反应,从而有可能促进这些方法的广泛临床应用。
Eur J Neurol. 2016-10
Lancet. 2021-5-29
Neuromodulation. 2012-10-24
Rev Neurol (Paris). 2018-10-12
J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2020-4
Physiol Res. 2012
Front Oncol. 2023-7-26
Front Neuroimaging. 2023-1-16
Brain Sci. 2022-12-16
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011-10-6
J Headache Pain. 2011-2-25
J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010-7