Efficacy and safety of microvascular decompression with or without partial sensory rhizotomy: a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review in treating trigeminal neuralgia.

Classical trigeminal neuralgia (TN), caused by vascular compression of the nerve root, is a severe cause of pain with a considerable impact on a patient's quality of life. While microvascular decompression (MVD) has lower recurrence rates when compared with partial sensory rhizotomy (PSR) alone, refractoriness can still be as high as 47%. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety profile of MVD + PSR when compared to standalone MVD for TN. We searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies included those with ≥ 4 patients, in English, published between January 1980 and December 2023, comparing MVD vs. MVD + PSR for TN. Endpoints were pain cure, immediate post-operative pain improvement, long-term effectiveness, long-term recurrence, and complications (facial numbness, hearing loss, and intracranial bleeding). We pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals with a random-effects model. I2 was used to assess heterogeneity, and sensitivity and Baujat analysis were conducted to address high heterogeneity. Eight studies were included, comprising a total of 1,338 patients, of whom 1,011 were treated with MVD and 327 with MVD + PSR. Pain cure analysis revealed a lower likelihood of pain cure in patients treated with MVD when compared to patients treated with MVD + PSR (OR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.72). Immediate postoperative pain improvement assessment revealed a lower likelihood of improvement in the MVD group when compared with the MVD + PSR group (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.95). Facial numbness assessment revealed a lower likelihood of occurrence in MVD alone when compared to MVD + PSR (OR = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.15). Long-term effectiveness, long-term recurrence, hearing loss, and intracranial bleeding analyses revealed no difference between both approaches. Our meta-analysis identified that MVD + PSR was superior to MVD for pain cure and immediate postoperative pain improvement for treating TN. However, MVD + PSR demonstrated a higher likelihood of facial numbness complications. Furthermore, identified that hearing loss and intracranial bleeding complications appear comparable between the two treatments, and no difference between long-term effectiveness and recurrence.

The deep and the deeper: Spinal cord and deep brain stimulation for neuropathic pain.

Neuropathic pain occurs in people experiencing lesion or disease affecting the somatosensorial system. It is present in 7 % of the general population and may not fully respond to first- and second-line treatments in up to 40 % of cases. Neuromodulation approaches are often proposed for those not tolerating or not responding to usual pharmacological management. These approaches can be delivered surgically (invasively) or non-invasively. Invasive neuromodulation techniques were the first to be employed in neuropathic pain. Among them is spinal cord stimulation (SCS), which consists of the implantation of epidural electrodes over the spinal cord. It is recommended in some guidelines for peripheral neuropathic pain. While recent studies have called into question its efficacy, others have provided promising data, driven by advances in techniques, battery capabilities, programming algorithms and software developments. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is another well-stablished neuromodulation therapy routinely used for movement disorders; however, its role in pain management remains limited to specific research centers. This is not only due to variable results in the literature contesting its efficacy, but also because several different brain targets have been explored in small trials, compromising comparisons between these studies. Structures such as the periaqueductal grey, posterior thalamus, anterior cingulate cortex, ventral striatum/anterior limb of the internal capsule and the insula are the main targets described to date in literature. SCS and DBS present diverse rationales for use, mechanistic backgrounds, and varying levels of support from experimental studies. The present review aims to present their methodological details, main mechanisms of action for analgesia and their place in the current body of evidence in the management of patients with neuropathic pain, as well their particularities, effectiveness, safety and limitations.

Burst Transspinal Magnetic Stimulation Alleviates Nociceptive Pain in Parkinson Disease-A Pilot Phase II Double-Blind, Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Nociception is the most prevalent pain mechanism in Parkinson disease (PD). It negatively affects quality of life, and there is currently no evidence-based treatment for its control. Burst spinal cord stimulation has been used to control neuropathic pain and recently has been shown to relieve pain of nociceptive origin. In this study, we hypothesize that burst transspinal magnetic stimulation (bTsMS) reduces nociceptive pain in PD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients were included in a double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized parallel trial design, and the analgesic effect of lower-cervical bTsMS was assessed in patients with nociceptive pain in PD. Five daily induction sessions were followed by maintenance sessions delivered twice a week for seven weeks. The primary outcome was the number of responders (≥ 50% reduction of average pain intensity assessed on a numerical rating scale ranging from 0-10) during the eight weeks of treatment. Mood, quality of life, global impression of change, and adverse events were assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (46.2% women) were included in the study. The number of responders during treatment was significantly higher after active than after sham bTsMS (p = 0.044), mainly owing to the effect of the first week of treatment, when eight patients (61.5%) responded to active and two (15.4%) responded to sham bTsMS (p = 0.006); the number needed to treat was 2.2 at week 1. Depression symptom scores were lower after active (4.0 ± 3.1) than after sham bTsMS (8.7 ± 5.3) (p = 0.011). Patients' global impressions of change were improved after active bTsMS (70.0%) compared with sham bTsMS (18.2%; p = 0.030). Minor adverse events were reported in both arms throughout treatment sessions. One major side effect unrelated to treatment occurred in the active arm (death due to pulmonary embolism). Blinding was effective. CONCLUSION: BTsMS provided significant pain relief and improved the global impression of change in PD in this phase-II trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT04546529.

Non-invasive insular stimulation for peripheral neuropathic pain: Influence of target or symptom?

OBJECTIVES: The posterior-superior insula (PSI) has been shown to be a safe and potentially effective target for neuromodulation in peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) in humans and animal models. However, it remains unknown whether there is a measurable responder profile to PSI stimulation. Two factors were hypothesized to influence the response of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the PSI: differences in rTMS target (discrete subregions of the PSI) or PNP phenotype. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis from a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, cross-over trial assessing PSI-rTMS in PNP (N = 31, 5 days rTMS) (10.1016/j.neucli.2021.06.003). Active PSI-rTMS true responders (>50% pain reduction from baseline after active but not after sham series of treatment) were compared with not true responders, to determine whether they differed with respect to 1) rTMS neuro-navigational target coordinates, and/or 2) specific neuropathic pain symptom inventory (NPSI) clusters (pinpointed pain, evoked pain, and deep pain) at baseline. RESULTS: Mean rTMS target coordinates did not differ between true (n = 45.1%) and not true responders (p = 0.436 for X, p = 0.120 for Y, and p = 0.116 for Z). The Euclidian distance between true and not true responders was 4.04 mm. When comparing differences in responders between NPSI clusters, no participant within the evoked pain cluster was a true responder (p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: Response to PSI-rTMS may depend on pain cluster subtype rather than on differences in targeting within the PSI.

Posterior-superior insular deep transcranial magnetic stimulation alleviates peripheral neuropathic pain - A pilot double-blind, randomized cross-over study.

OBJECTIVES: Peripheral neuropathic pain (pNeP) is prevalent, and current treatments, including drugs and motor cortex repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) leave a substantial proportion of patients with suboptimal pain relief. METHODS: We explored the intensity and short-term duration of the analgesic effects produced in pNeP patients by 5 days of neuronavigated deep rTMS targeting the posterior superior insula (PSI) with a double-cone coil in a sham-controlled randomized cross-over trial. RESULTS: Thirty-one pNeP patients received induction series of five active or sham consecutive sessions of daily deep-rTMS to the PSI in a randomized sequence, with a washout period of at least 21 days between series. The primary outcome [number of responders (>50% pain intensity reduction from baseline in a numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 10)] was significantly higher after real (58.1%) compared to sham (19.4%) stimulation (p = 0.002). The number needed to treat was 2.6, and the effect size was 0.97 [95% CI (0.6; 1.3)]. One week after the 5th stimulation day, pain scores were no longer different between groups, and no difference in neuropathic pain characteristics and interference with daily living were present. No major side effects occurred, and milder adverse events (i.e., short-lived headaches after stimulation) were reported in both groups. Blinding was effective, and analgesic effects were not affected by sequence of the stimulation series (active-first or sham-first), age, sex or pain duration of participants. DISCUSSION: PSI deep-rTMS was safe in refractory pNeP and was able to provide significant pain intensity reduction after a five-day induction series of treatments. Post-hoc assessment of neuronavigation targeting confirmed deep-rTMS was delivered within the boundaries of the PSI in all participants. CONCLUSION: PSI deep-rTMS provided significant pain relief during 5-day induction sessions compared to sham stimulation.