4.6 Article

Electrical stimulation of primary motor cortex within the central sulcus for intractable neuropathic pain

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 119, Issue 5, Pages 993-1001

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.12.022

Keywords

motor cortex stimulation; deafferentation pain; neuropathic pain; post-stroke pain; phantom-limb pain; repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the pain-relieving effects of motor cortex electrical stimulation (MCS) within the central sulcus and the predictive factors retrospectively. Methods: Thirty-four patients with intractable neuropathic pain underwent MCS; 19 patients had cerebral lesions, and 15 had non-cerebral lesions. In selected 12 patients, test electrodes were implanted within the central sulcus and on the precentral gyrus. Twelve patients received both MCS and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex. Results: Pain reduction of >= 50% was observed in 12 of 32 (36%) patients with >= 12 months follow-ups (2 patients were excluded because of short follow-up). In 10 of the 12 patients who received test electrodes within the central sulcus and on the precentral gyrus, the optimal stimulation was MCS within the central sulcus. In 4 of these (40%) patients, positive effects were maintained at follow-ups. The pain reduction of rTMS significantly correlated with that of MCS during test stimulation. Conclusions: The test stimulation within the central sulcus was more effective than that of the precentral gyrus. In the selected patients, chronic stimulation within the central sulcus did not significantly improve long-term results. Significance: The present findings suggest that an intra-central sulcus is one of the favorable targets for MCS. (c) 2008 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available