A Systematic Literature Review of Brain Neurostimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of brain neurostimulation for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for deep brain neurostimulation (DBS). METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for brain stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria were graded by two independent reviewers. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (RCTs and observational) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the United States Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: Two high-quality RCTs and three observational trials supported DBS, resulting in Level II (moderate) evidence. CONCLUSION: Moderate evidence supports DBS to treat chronic pain. Additional Level I RCTs are needed to further the strength of the evidence in this important area of medicine, but the current evidence suggests that DBS should be considered as an option in treating complex pain cases.

A Systematic Literature Review of Spine Neurostimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for SCS. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year's duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: SCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT). CONCLUSIONS: High-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

Subthalamic deep brain stimulation with a constant-current device in Parkinson's disease: an open-label randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effects of constant-current deep brain stimulation (DBS) have not been studied in controlled trials in patients with Parkinson's disease. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of bilateral constant-current DBS of the subthalamic nucleus. METHODS: This prospective, randomised, multicentre controlled trial was done between Sept 26, 2005, and Aug 13, 2010, at 15 clinical sites specialising in movement disorders in the USA. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18-80 years, had Parkinson's disease for 5 years or more, and had either 6 h or more daily off time reported in a patient diary of moderate to severe dyskinesia during waking hours. The patients received bilateral implantation in the subthalamic nucleus of a constant-current DBS device. After implantation, computer-generated randomisation was done with a block size of four, and patients were randomly assigned to the stimulation or control group (stimulation:control ratio 3:1). The control group received implantation without activation for 3 months. No blinding occurred during this study, and both patients and investigators were aware of the treatment group. The primary outcome variable was the change in on time without bothersome dyskinesia (ie, good quality on time) at 3 months as recorded in patients' diaries. Patients were followed up for 1 year. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00552474. FINDINGS: Of 168 patients assessed for eligibility, 136 had implantation of the constant-current device and were randomly assigned to receive immediate (101 patients) or delayed (35 patients) stimulation. Both study groups reported a mean increase of good quality on time after 3 months, and the increase was greater in the stimulation group (4·27 h vs 1·77 h, difference 2·51 [95% CI 0·87-4·16]; p=0·003). Unified Parkinson's disease rating scale motor scores in the off-medication, on-stimulation condition improved by 39% from baseline (24·8 vs 40·8). Some serious adverse events occurred after DBS implantation, including infections in five (4%) of 136 patients and intracranial haemorrhage in four (3%) patients. Stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus was associated with dysarthria, fatigue, paraesthesias, and oedema, whereas gait problems, disequilibrium, dyskinesia, and falls were reported in both groups. INTERPRETATION: Constant-current DBS of the subthalamic nucleus produced significant improvements in good quality on time when compared with a control group without stimulation. Future trials should compare the effects of constant-current DBS with those of voltage-controlled stimulation. FUNDING: St Jude Medical Neuromodulation Division.