神经调控治疗神经病理性疼痛。

International review of neurobiology Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-16 DOI:10.1016/bs.irn.2024.10.013
Pedro Henrique Martins da Cunha, Jorge Dornellys da Silva Lapa, Koichi Hosomi, Daniel Ciampi de Andrade
{"title":"神经调控治疗神经病理性疼痛。","authors":"Pedro Henrique Martins da Cunha, Jorge Dornellys da Silva Lapa, Koichi Hosomi, Daniel Ciampi de Andrade","doi":"10.1016/bs.irn.2024.10.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The treatment of neuropathic pain (NeP) often leads to partial or incomplete pain relief, with up to 40 % of patients being pharmaco-resistant. In this chapter the efficacy of neuromodulation techniques in treating NeP is reviewed. It presents a detailed evaluation of the mechanisms of action and evidence supporting the clinical use of the most common approaches like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), invasive motor cortex stimulation (iMCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). Current literature suggests that motor cortex rTMS is effective for peripheral and central NeP, and TENS for peripheral NeP. Evidence for tDCS is inconclusive. DBS is reserved for research settings due to heterogeneous results, while iMSC has shown efficacy in a small randomized trial in neuropathic pain due to stroke and brachial plexus avulsion. SCS has moderate evidence for painful diabetic neuropathy and failed back surgery syndrome, but trials were not controlled with sham. DRG-S and PNS have shown positive results for complex regional pain syndrome and post-surgical neuropathic pain, respectively. Adverse effects vary, with non-invasive techniques showing local discomfort, dizziness and headache, and DBS and SCS hardware-related issues. To date, non-invasive techniques have been more extensively studied and some are included in international guidelines, while the evidence level for invasive techniques are less robust, potentially suggesting their use in a case-by-case indication considering patient´s preferences, costs and expected benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":94058,"journal":{"name":"International review of neurobiology","volume":"179 ","pages":"471-502"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neuromodulation for neuropathic pain.\",\"authors\":\"Pedro Henrique Martins da Cunha, Jorge Dornellys da Silva Lapa, Koichi Hosomi, Daniel Ciampi de Andrade\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/bs.irn.2024.10.013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The treatment of neuropathic pain (NeP) often leads to partial or incomplete pain relief, with up to 40 % of patients being pharmaco-resistant. In this chapter the efficacy of neuromodulation techniques in treating NeP is reviewed. It presents a detailed evaluation of the mechanisms of action and evidence supporting the clinical use of the most common approaches like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), invasive motor cortex stimulation (iMCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). Current literature suggests that motor cortex rTMS is effective for peripheral and central NeP, and TENS for peripheral NeP. Evidence for tDCS is inconclusive. DBS is reserved for research settings due to heterogeneous results, while iMSC has shown efficacy in a small randomized trial in neuropathic pain due to stroke and brachial plexus avulsion. SCS has moderate evidence for painful diabetic neuropathy and failed back surgery syndrome, but trials were not controlled with sham. DRG-S and PNS have shown positive results for complex regional pain syndrome and post-surgical neuropathic pain, respectively. Adverse effects vary, with non-invasive techniques showing local discomfort, dizziness and headache, and DBS and SCS hardware-related issues. To date, non-invasive techniques have been more extensively studied and some are included in international guidelines, while the evidence level for invasive techniques are less robust, potentially suggesting their use in a case-by-case indication considering patient´s preferences, costs and expected benefits.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94058,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International review of neurobiology\",\"volume\":\"179 \",\"pages\":\"471-502\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International review of neurobiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.irn.2024.10.013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International review of neurobiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.irn.2024.10.013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

神经病理性疼痛(NeP)的治疗通常会导致部分或不完全的疼痛缓解,多达 40% 的患者会对药物产生耐药性。本章回顾了神经调控技术治疗神经病理性疼痛的疗效。它详细评估了经皮神经电刺激 (TENS)、经颅直流电刺激 (tDCS)、重复经颅磁刺激 (rTMS)、脑深部刺激 (DBS)、侵入性运动皮层刺激 (iMCS)、脊髓刺激 (SCS)、背根神经节刺激 (DRG-S) 和周围神经刺激 (PNS) 等最常用方法的作用机制和临床应用证据。目前的文献表明,运动皮层经颅磁刺激对周围性和中枢性 NeP 有效,而 TENS 则对周围性 NeP 有效。关于 tDCS 的证据尚无定论。由于结果不一,DBS 仅用于研究环境,而 iMSC 在一项小型随机试验中显示对中风和臂丛神经撕脱引起的神经病理性疼痛有效。SCS 对糖尿病神经病变疼痛和背部手术失败综合症有中等程度的疗效,但试验未与假体对照。DRG-S 和 PNS 分别对复杂性区域疼痛综合症和手术后神经病理性疼痛有积极的疗效。不良反应各不相同,非侵入性技术表现出局部不适、头晕和头痛,而 DBS 和 SCS 则表现出与硬件相关的问题。迄今为止,非侵入性技术已得到了更广泛的研究,其中一些已被纳入国际指南,而侵入性技术的证据水平则不太可靠,可能建议在考虑患者偏好、成本和预期收益的情况下根据具体情况使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Neuromodulation for neuropathic pain.

The treatment of neuropathic pain (NeP) often leads to partial or incomplete pain relief, with up to 40 % of patients being pharmaco-resistant. In this chapter the efficacy of neuromodulation techniques in treating NeP is reviewed. It presents a detailed evaluation of the mechanisms of action and evidence supporting the clinical use of the most common approaches like transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), deep brain stimulation (DBS), invasive motor cortex stimulation (iMCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). Current literature suggests that motor cortex rTMS is effective for peripheral and central NeP, and TENS for peripheral NeP. Evidence for tDCS is inconclusive. DBS is reserved for research settings due to heterogeneous results, while iMSC has shown efficacy in a small randomized trial in neuropathic pain due to stroke and brachial plexus avulsion. SCS has moderate evidence for painful diabetic neuropathy and failed back surgery syndrome, but trials were not controlled with sham. DRG-S and PNS have shown positive results for complex regional pain syndrome and post-surgical neuropathic pain, respectively. Adverse effects vary, with non-invasive techniques showing local discomfort, dizziness and headache, and DBS and SCS hardware-related issues. To date, non-invasive techniques have been more extensively studied and some are included in international guidelines, while the evidence level for invasive techniques are less robust, potentially suggesting their use in a case-by-case indication considering patient´s preferences, costs and expected benefits.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A general clinical overview of the non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease: Neuropsychiatric symptoms. Executive dysfunction and cognitive decline, a non-motor symptom of Parkinson's disease captured in animal models. Insight gained from using animal models to study pain in Parkinson's disease. Investigating affective neuropsychiatric symptoms in rodent models of Parkinson's disease. Macro and micro-sleep dysfunctions as translational biomarkers for Parkinson's disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1