4.8 Review

Neurosurgical treatment for addiction: lessons from an untold story in China and a path forward

Journal

NATIONAL SCIENCE REVIEW
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 702-712

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nsr/nwz207

Keywords

drug addiction; psychosurgery; ablative surgery; deep-brain stimulation; medical ethics

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC0803607]
  2. Shanghai Science and Technology Committee [18410710400, 18QA1403700]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81822017, 31771215]
  4. Shanghai Jiao TongUniversity School of Medicine-Institution of Neuroscience Research Center for Brain Disorders
  5. Medical Research Council Senior Clinical Fellowship [MR/P008747/1]
  6. Shanghai Clinical Research Center for Mental Health [19MC1911100]
  7. MRC [MR/P008747/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Addiction is a major public-health crisis associated with significant disability and mortality. Although various pharmacological and behavioral treatments are currently available, the clinical efficacy of these treatments is limited. Given this situation, there is a growing interest in finding an effective neurosurgical treatment for addiction. First, we discuss the use of ablative surgery in treating addiction. We focus on the rise and fall of nucleus accumbens ablation for addiction in China. Subsequently, we review recent studies that have explored the efficacy and safety of deep-brain-stimulation treatment for addiction. We conclude that neurosurgical procedures, particularly deep-brain stimulation, have a potentially valuable role in the management of otherwise intractable addictive disorders. Larger well-controlled clinical trials, however, are needed to assess clinical efficacy and safety. We end by discussing several key issues involved in this clinical field and identifying some areas of progress.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available