Longlasting antalgic effects of daily sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in central and peripheral neuropathic pain

E M Khedr, H Kotb, N F Kamel, M A Ahmed, R Sadek, J C Rothwell, E M Khedr, H Kotb, N F Kamel, M A Ahmed, R Sadek, J C Rothwell

Abstract

Background and objective: A single session of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) over motor cortex had been reported to produce short term relief of some types of chronic pain. The present study investigated whether five consecutive days of rTMS would lead to longer lasting pain relief in unilateral chronic intractable neuropathic pain.

Patients and methods: Forty eight patients with therapy resistant chronic unilateral pain syndromes (24 each with trigeminal neuralgia (TGN) and post-stroke pain syndrome (PSP)) participated. Fourteen from each group received 10 minutes real rTMS over the hand area of motor cortex (20 Hz, 10x10 s trains, intensity 80% of motor threshold) every day for five consecutive days. The remaining patients received sham stimulation. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs (LANSS) scale, before, after the first, fourth, and fifth sessions, and two weeks after the last session.

Results: No significant differences were found in basal pain ratings between patients receiving real- and sham-rTMS. However, a two factor ANOVA revealed a significant "+/- TMS" x "time" interaction indicating that real and sham rTMS had different effects on the VAS and LANSS scales. Post hoc testing showed that in both groups of patients, real-rTMS led to a greater improvement in scales than sham-rTMS, evident even two weeks after the end of the treatment. No patient experienced adverse effects.

Conclusion: These results confirm that five daily sessions of rTMS over motor cortex can produce longlasting pain relief in patients with TGN or PSP.

References

    1. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1998 Jul;15(4):333-43
    1. Am J Psychiatry. 1997 Dec;154(12):1752-6
    1. Pain. 1999 Sep;82(3):245-51
    1. Neurology. 1999 Feb;52(3):529-37
    1. Pain. 1999 Nov;83(2):259-73
    1. J Neurosurg. 2000 Jan;92(1):150-5
    1. Pain. 2000 Feb;84(2-3):431-7
    1. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 1999;73(1-4):122-5
    1. Arch Med Res. 2000 May-Jun;31(3):263-5
    1. Neuroreport. 2000 Dec 18;11(18):4013-5
    1. Pain. 2001 May;92(1-2):147-57
    1. Neuroreport. 2001 Sep 17;12(13):2963-5
    1. Eur Neurol. 2002;48(1):6-10
    1. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003 Aug;114(8):1521-30
    1. Eur J Neurol. 2003 Sep;10(5):567-72
    1. Neurosci Lett. 2004 Feb 12;356(2):87-90
    1. Clin Neurophysiol. 2004 Apr;115(4):834-8
    1. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2004 Apr;75(4):612-6
    1. Neurophysiol Clin. 2004 Apr;34(2):91-5
    1. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;18(3):260-7
    1. Neurology. 1992 Jul;42(7):1302-6
    1. J Neurosurg. 1993 Mar;78(3):393-401
    1. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien). 1993;58:150-3
    1. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1994 Aug;91(2):79-92
    1. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 1994;62(1-4):295-9
    1. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1997 Jan;21(1):105-10

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner