4.4 Article

Analgesic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex in neuropathic pain: Influence of theta burst stimulation priming

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 16, 期 10, 页码 1403-1413

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00150.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Conventional protocols of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) delivered to M1 can produce analgesia. Theta burst stimulation (TBS), a novel rTMS paradigm, is thought to produce greater changes in M1 excitability than conventional protocols. After a preliminary experiment showing no analgesic effect of continuous or intermittent TBS trains (cTBS or iTBS) delivered to M1 as single procedures, we used TBS to prime a subsequent session of conventional 10?Hz-rTMS. Methods In 14 patients with chronic refractory neuropathic pain, navigated rTMS was targeted over M1 hand region, contralateral to painful side. Analgesic effects were daily assessed on a visual analogue scale for the week after each 10?Hz-rTMS session, preceded or not by TBS priming. In an additional experiment, the effects on cortical excitability parameters provided by single- and paired-pulse TMS paradigms were studied. Results Pain level was reduced after any type of rTMS procedure compared to baseline, but iTBS priming produced greater analgesia than the other protocols. Regarding motor cortex excitability changes, the analgesic effects were associated with an increase in intracortical inhibition, whatever the type of stimulation, primed or non-primed. Conclusions The present results show that the analgesic effects of conventional 10?Hz-rTMS delivered to M1 can be enhanced by TBS priming, at least using iTBS. Interestingly, the application of cTBS and iTBS did not produce opposite modulations, unlike previously reported in other systems. It remains to be determined whether the interest of TBS priming is to generate a simple additive effect or a more specific process of cortical plasticity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据