Yann Seznec, Joy Thomas, Pelletier Jean Baptiste, Benjamin Buhot, Philippe Convers, Roland Peyron, François Vassal
{"title":"硬膜外运动皮质刺激治疗顽固性神经性疼痛的双盲比较研究。","authors":"Yann Seznec, Joy Thomas, Pelletier Jean Baptiste, Benjamin Buhot, Philippe Convers, Roland Peyron, François Vassal","doi":"10.1002/ejp.4778","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Preliminary studies on epidural motor cortex stimulation (eMCS) for the treatment of drug-resistant neuropathic pain have supported the extension to novel stimulation waveforms, in particular burstDR. However, only a low level of evidence is available. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of burstDR versus tonic eMCS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Patients suffering from unilateral, drug-resistant neuropathic pain were selected for eMCS. During the trial phase, burstDR and tonic waveforms were successively applied for three consecutive months in a double-blinded fashion and in a random order. The primary outcome criterion was the percentage of pain relief (%PR) at 3 and 6 months. The secondary outcome criterion was the proportion of patients reporting a superior %PR with the burstDR waveform.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Thirteen patients were included. The averaged %PR was 75.4% ± 18.6% after burstDR eMCS and 61.1% ± 28.6% after tonic eMCS (<i>p</i> = 0.21). Nine patients preferred the burstDR waveform for chronic eMCS (<i>p</i> = 0.16), and six of them were able to decrease or withdraw their analgesic drug intake. No adverse side effect was encountered in relation to burstDR eMCS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>BurstDR eMCS seems at least as effective as tonic eMCS for the treatment of drug-resistant neuropathic pain and shows a similar safety profile. Although the precise mechanisms of action remain to be fully elucidated, adequate matching between the oscillatory rhythm in the motor cortex and that of the burstDR waveform may increase synaptic efficacy, thus enhancing the functional connectivity of the motor cortex with remote brain networks involved in pain modulation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Significance Statement</h3>\n \n <p>In the present paper, we provide for the first time a double-blinded study comparing burstDR versus tonic eMCS for the treatment of intractable, drug-resistant neuropathic pain. Our results show that burstDR eMCS is a promising option in a population of patients especially difficult to treat, and support the ongoing move toward new stimulation waveforms able to more efficiently activate the brain networks involved in pain modulation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12021,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pain","volume":"29 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Double-Blind Comparative Study of burstDR Versus Tonic Epidural Motor Cortex Stimulation for the Treatment of Intractable Neuropathic Pain\",\"authors\":\"Yann Seznec, Joy Thomas, Pelletier Jean Baptiste, Benjamin Buhot, Philippe Convers, Roland Peyron, François Vassal\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ejp.4778\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Preliminary studies on epidural motor cortex stimulation (eMCS) for the treatment of drug-resistant neuropathic pain have supported the extension to novel stimulation waveforms, in particular burstDR. However, only a low level of evidence is available. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of burstDR versus tonic eMCS.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patients suffering from unilateral, drug-resistant neuropathic pain were selected for eMCS. During the trial phase, burstDR and tonic waveforms were successively applied for three consecutive months in a double-blinded fashion and in a random order. The primary outcome criterion was the percentage of pain relief (%PR) at 3 and 6 months. The secondary outcome criterion was the proportion of patients reporting a superior %PR with the burstDR waveform.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Thirteen patients were included. The averaged %PR was 75.4% ± 18.6% after burstDR eMCS and 61.1% ± 28.6% after tonic eMCS (<i>p</i> = 0.21). Nine patients preferred the burstDR waveform for chronic eMCS (<i>p</i> = 0.16), and six of them were able to decrease or withdraw their analgesic drug intake. No adverse side effect was encountered in relation to burstDR eMCS.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>BurstDR eMCS seems at least as effective as tonic eMCS for the treatment of drug-resistant neuropathic pain and shows a similar safety profile. Although the precise mechanisms of action remain to be fully elucidated, adequate matching between the oscillatory rhythm in the motor cortex and that of the burstDR waveform may increase synaptic efficacy, thus enhancing the functional connectivity of the motor cortex with remote brain networks involved in pain modulation.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Significance Statement</h3>\\n \\n <p>In the present paper, we provide for the first time a double-blinded study comparing burstDR versus tonic eMCS for the treatment of intractable, drug-resistant neuropathic pain. Our results show that burstDR eMCS is a promising option in a population of patients especially difficult to treat, and support the ongoing move toward new stimulation waveforms able to more efficiently activate the brain networks involved in pain modulation.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\"29 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejp.4778\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejp.4778","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:硬膜外运动皮层刺激(eMCS)治疗耐药神经性疼痛的初步研究支持了新刺激波形的扩展,特别是burst - dr。然而,只有低水平的证据可用。本回顾性观察性研究的目的是比较突发性dr与强直性eMCS的镇痛效果。方法:选择单侧耐药神经性疼痛患者进行eMCS。在试验阶段,以双盲和随机顺序连续三个月连续应用爆发dr和强直波形。主要结局标准是3个月和6个月时疼痛缓解百分比(%PR)。次要结果标准是报告具有burstDR波形的高%PR的患者比例。结果:纳入13例患者。burst - dr eMCS组平均%PR为75.4%±18.6%,tonic eMCS组平均%PR为61.1%±28.6% (p = 0.21)。9例患者首选burstDR波形治疗慢性eMCS (p = 0.16),其中6例患者能够减少或停用镇痛药物。没有遇到与爆裂dr eMCS相关的不良副作用。结论:在治疗耐药神经性疼痛方面,BurstDR eMCS似乎至少与强直性eMCS一样有效,并且显示出相似的安全性。虽然确切的作用机制仍有待完全阐明,但运动皮层的振荡节律与脉冲dr波形之间的充分匹配可能会增加突触的效力,从而增强运动皮层与参与疼痛调节的远程脑网络的功能连通性。意义声明:在这篇论文中,我们首次提供了一项双盲研究,比较了爆裂dr和强直eMCS治疗难治性、耐药神经性疼痛的效果。我们的研究结果表明,对于那些特别难以治疗的患者来说,burst - dr eMCS是一个很有前途的选择,并且支持正在进行的能够更有效地激活参与疼痛调节的大脑网络的新刺激波形。
A Double-Blind Comparative Study of burstDR Versus Tonic Epidural Motor Cortex Stimulation for the Treatment of Intractable Neuropathic Pain
Background
Preliminary studies on epidural motor cortex stimulation (eMCS) for the treatment of drug-resistant neuropathic pain have supported the extension to novel stimulation waveforms, in particular burstDR. However, only a low level of evidence is available. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of burstDR versus tonic eMCS.
Methods
Patients suffering from unilateral, drug-resistant neuropathic pain were selected for eMCS. During the trial phase, burstDR and tonic waveforms were successively applied for three consecutive months in a double-blinded fashion and in a random order. The primary outcome criterion was the percentage of pain relief (%PR) at 3 and 6 months. The secondary outcome criterion was the proportion of patients reporting a superior %PR with the burstDR waveform.
Results
Thirteen patients were included. The averaged %PR was 75.4% ± 18.6% after burstDR eMCS and 61.1% ± 28.6% after tonic eMCS (p = 0.21). Nine patients preferred the burstDR waveform for chronic eMCS (p = 0.16), and six of them were able to decrease or withdraw their analgesic drug intake. No adverse side effect was encountered in relation to burstDR eMCS.
Conclusions
BurstDR eMCS seems at least as effective as tonic eMCS for the treatment of drug-resistant neuropathic pain and shows a similar safety profile. Although the precise mechanisms of action remain to be fully elucidated, adequate matching between the oscillatory rhythm in the motor cortex and that of the burstDR waveform may increase synaptic efficacy, thus enhancing the functional connectivity of the motor cortex with remote brain networks involved in pain modulation.
Significance Statement
In the present paper, we provide for the first time a double-blinded study comparing burstDR versus tonic eMCS for the treatment of intractable, drug-resistant neuropathic pain. Our results show that burstDR eMCS is a promising option in a population of patients especially difficult to treat, and support the ongoing move toward new stimulation waveforms able to more efficiently activate the brain networks involved in pain modulation.
期刊介绍:
European Journal of Pain (EJP) publishes clinical and basic science research papers relevant to all aspects of pain and its management, including specialties such as anaesthesia, dentistry, neurology and neurosurgery, orthopaedics, palliative care, pharmacology, physiology, psychiatry, psychology and rehabilitation; socio-economic aspects of pain are also covered.
Regular sections in the journal are as follows:
• Editorials and Commentaries
• Position Papers and Guidelines
• Reviews
• Original Articles
• Letters
• Bookshelf
The journal particularly welcomes clinical trials, which are published on an occasional basis.
Research articles are published under the following subject headings:
• Neurobiology
• Neurology
• Experimental Pharmacology
• Clinical Pharmacology
• Psychology
• Behavioural Therapy
• Epidemiology
• Cancer Pain
• Acute Pain
• Clinical Trials.