Wireless Subcutaneous Trigeminal Nerve Field Stimulation for Refractory Trigeminal Pain: A Single Center Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Subcutaneous trigeminal nerve field stimulation (sTNFS) is a neuromodulatory treatment for neuropathic trigeminal pain with the ability to reduce the intensity and frequency of pain attacks. However, hardware issues including lead migration, skin erosion, infection, so-called pocket pain at the site of the implanted neurostimulator are reported. Implantable wireless neurostimulation technology promises not only an even less invasive sTNFS treatment and thinner and more flexible electrodes better suited for facial implants, but also provides further advantages such as lack of an implantable neurostimulator and 3T magnetic resonance imaging compatibility. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients who had received trial stimulation with a partially implantable sTNFS system were analyzed for ICHD-3 (3rd edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders) diagnosis, success of trial stimulation, pre- and postoperative pain intensity, frequency of attacks, complications, and side-effects of sTNFS. RESULTS: All patients (N = 3) responded to sTNFS (≥50% pain reduction) during the trial period. According to ICHD-3, N = 2 of the patients were classified with trigeminal neuralgia (TN) with concomitant persistent facial pain and N = 1 patient with multiple sclerosis associated TN. The time of the test period was 44 ± 31.24 days (mean ± SD). The average daily duration of stimulation per patient amounted 2.5 ± 2.2 hours (range 1-5). The pain intensity (defined on a visual analog scale) was reduced by 80% ± 17% (mean ± SD). Reduction or cessation in pain medication was observed in all patients. No surgical complications occurred in the long-term follow-up period of 18.84 ± 6 (mean ± SD) months. CONCLUSION: The partially implantable sTNFS device seems to be safe, effective, and reliable. Compared to conventional devices, the equipment is not limited to the length of trial stimulation. Furthermore, the daily stimulation duration was much shorter compared to previous reports.

Mapping autonomic, mood and cognitive effects of hypothalamic region deep brain stimulation.

Because of its involvement in a wide variety of cardiovascular, metabolic and behavioural functions, the hypothalamus constitutes a potential target for neuromodulation in a number of treatment-refractory conditions. The precise neural substrates and circuitry subserving these responses, however, are poorly characterized to date. We sought to retrospectively explore the acute sequelae of hypothalamic region deep brain stimulation and characterize their neuroanatomical correlates. To this end we studied-at multiple international centres-58 patients (mean age: 68.5 ± 7.9 years, 26 females) suffering from mild Alzheimer's disease who underwent stimulation of the fornix region between 2007 and 2019. We catalogued the diverse spectrum of acutely induced clinical responses during electrical stimulation and interrogated their neural substrates using volume of tissue activated modelling, voxel-wise mapping, and supervised machine learning techniques. In total 627 acute clinical responses to stimulation-including tachycardia, hypertension, flushing, sweating, warmth, coldness, nausea, phosphenes, and fear-were recorded and catalogued across patients using standard descriptive methods. The most common manifestations during hypothalamic region stimulation were tachycardia (30.9%) and warmth (24.6%) followed by flushing (9.1%) and hypertension (6.9%). Voxel-wise mapping identified distinct, locally separable clusters for all sequelae that could be mapped to specific hypothalamic and extrahypothalamic grey and white matter structures. K-nearest neighbour classification further validated the clinico-anatomical correlates emphasizing the functional importance of identified neural substrates with area under the receiving operating characteristic curves between 0.67 and 0.91. Overall, we were able to localize acute effects of hypothalamic region stimulation to distinct tracts and nuclei within the hypothalamus and the wider diencephalon providing clinico-anatomical insights that may help to guide future neuromodulation work.

Location and Volume of MRI Artifacts in Patients With Implanted Sphenopalatine Ganglion Neurostimulators for Treatment of Chronic Cluster Headache.

INTRODUCTION: Sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation (SPG-S) is an invasive form of neuromodulation by which a neurostimulator is implanted into the pterygopalatine fossa to treat refractory chronic cluster headache. The implant is MRI conditional, up to 3 T, however there is no clinical data on the shape, size, and location of the artifact produced by the implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of patients with SPG-S were analyzed for postoperative cranial MRI scans. MRI and intraoperative CT scans for visualization of the implant were fused and volumetry was performed for both the implant and the MRI artifact in different MRI sequences. RESULTS: In total, n = 3 patients with postoperative MRI scans were identified. The mean CT artifact volume was 0.73 cm3 (±0.15 cm3 ). MRI artifact volume differed between sequences (range: 25.2-220.7 cm3 ). The intracranial space was largely unaffected besides the pole of the ipsilateral temporal lobe and the basal frontal gyrus. MRI artifacts affected the extracranial space (orbit, maxillary and ethmoid sinuses, and parts of the parotid gland). No adverse events occurred during or after MRI scans. CONCLUSIONS: Cranial MRI scans with SPG-S implants were safely performed in three patients following the manufacturer's MRI conditions. MRI artifacts were mostly located in the extracranial space. Brain MRI imaging is largely unaffected. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Subcutaneous Trigeminal Nerve Field Stimulation for Refractory Facial Pain.

Chronic or neuropathic trigeminal facial pain can be challenging to treat. Neurosurgical procedures should be applied when conservative treatment fails. Neuromodulation techniques for chronic facial pain include deep brain stimulation and motor cortex stimulation, which are complex to perform. Subcutaneous nerve field stimulation is certified for chronic back pain and is the least invasive form of neuromodulation. We applied this technique to treat chronic and neuropathic trigeminal pain as an individual therapy concept. First, trial stimulation is performed. Subcutaneous leads are placed in the painful trigeminal dermatome under local anesthesia. The leads are connected to an external neurostimulator that applies constant stimulation. Patients undergo a 12 day outpatient trial to assess the effect of the stimulation. Electrodes are removed after the trial. If the patient reports pain reduction of at least 50% in intensity and/or attack frequency, a reduction in medication or increase in quality of life, permanent implantation is scheduled. New electrodes are implanted under general anesthesia and are subcutaneously tunneled to an infraclavicular internal pulse generator. Patients are able to turn stimulation on and off and to increase or decrease the stimulation amplitude as needed. This technique represents a minimal invasive alternative to other more invasive means of neuromodulation for trigeminal pain such as motor cortex stimulation or deep brain stimulation.

Subcutaneous trigeminal nerve field stimulation for refractory trigeminal pain: a cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgical pain management of drug-resistant trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is highly challenging. Microvascular decompression is a first-line neurosurgical approach for classical TN with neurovascular conflict, but can show clinical relapse despite proper decompression. Second-line destructive techniques like radiofrequency thermocoagulation have become reluctantly used due to their potential for irreversible side effects. Subcutaneous peripheral nerve field stimulation (sPNFS) is a minimally invasive neuromodulatory technique which has been shown to be effective for chronic localised pain conditions. Reports on sPNFS for the treatment of trigeminal pain (sTNFS) are still sparse and primarily focused on pain intensity as outcome measure. Detailed data on the impact of sTNFS on attack frequency are currently not available. METHODS: Patients were classified according to the International Headache Society classification (ICHD-3-beta). Three patients had classical TN without (n = 3) and another three TN with concomitant persistent facial pain (n = 3). Two patients suffered from post-herpetic trigeminal neuropathy (n = 2). All eight patients underwent a trial stimulation of at least 7 days with subcutaneous leads in the affected trigeminal area connected to an external neurostimulator. Of those, six patients received permanent implantation of a neurostimulator. During the follow-up (6-29 months, mean 15.2), VAS-scores, attack frequencies, oral drug intake, complications and side effects were documented. RESULTS: Seven out of eight patients responded to sTNFS (i.e. ≥50 % pain reduction) during the test trial. The pain intensity (according to VAS) was reduced by 83 ± 16 % (mean ± SD) and the number of attacks decreased by 73 ± 26 % (mean ± SD). Five out of six patients were able to reduce or stop pain medication. One patient developed device infection. Two patients developed stimulation-related side effects which could be resolved by reprogramming. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment by sTNFS is a beneficial option for patients with refractory trigeminal pain. Prospective randomised trials are required to systematically evaluate efficacy rates and safety of this low-invasive neurosurgical technique.