4.4 Article

High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reduces Pain in Postherpetic Neuralgia

Journal

PAIN MEDICINE
Volume 16, Issue 11, Pages 2162-2170

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/pme.12832

Keywords

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Postherpetic Neuralgia; Neuromodulation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is one of the most intractable pain disorders, especially in elderly patients. There is evidence that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) reduces neuropathic pain; however, its effectiveness for PHN is unknown. This study investigated the efficacy of high-frequency rTMS in patients with PHN. Design. A total of 40 patients were randomly assigned to receive 10 sessions of real or sham rTMS of the primary motor cortex. Each stimulation session consisted of a series of 300 five-second pulses with a frequency of 10 Hz and an interval of 3 seconds between each train, giving a total of 1500 pulses per session. The primary outcome was pain intensity measured before stimulation from first intervention (T0) to the final stimulation (T10), and 1 and 3 months after final stimulation (T11 and T12). Other outcomes measured included scores on the short form McGill pain questionnaire, self-rating depression scale, quality of life (QOL), sleep quality, the patient global impression of change, medication regulation, and reported adverse events. Results. The real rTMS group demonstrated greater reduction of visual analogue scale (VAS) than the sham group at each time point except for T0 (P = 0.399) and T1 (P = 0.091). Mean VAS reduction in the real rTMS group was 16.89% for duration of disease longer than 6 months. These analgesic effects were associated with long-term improvement in rating-scale items related to QOL. Conclusion. The results suggest that rTMS is an effective and safe therapy in patients with PHN.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available