Motor cortex neurostimulation technologies for chronic post-stroke pain: implications of tissue damage on stimulation currents

Background: Central post stroke pain (CPSP) is a highly refractory syndrome that can occur after stroke. Primary motor cortex (M1) brain stimulation using epidural brain stimulation (EBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been explored...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Anthony Terrence O´Brien, Rivadavio Amorim, Richard Jarrett Rushmore, Uri Eden, Linda Afifi, Laura Dipietro, Timothy Wagner, Antoni Valero-Cabre
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2016-11-01
Series:Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00545/full
id doaj-c6804343edad412596449ec959e8838e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c6804343edad412596449ec959e8838e2020-11-25T02:55:50ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Human Neuroscience1662-51612016-11-011010.3389/fnhum.2016.00545196997Motor cortex neurostimulation technologies for chronic post-stroke pain: implications of tissue damage on stimulation currentsAnthony Terrence O´Brien0Rivadavio Amorim1Richard Jarrett Rushmore2Uri Eden3Linda Afifi4Laura Dipietro5Timothy Wagner6Antoni Valero-Cabre7Antoni Valero-Cabre8Spaulding Rehabilitation HospitalSpaulding Rehabilitation HospitalBoston University School of Medicine, Boston, MABoston University, Boston, MABoston University School of Medicine, Boston, MAHighland Instruments, Cambridge, MAHarvard Medical School/Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MABoston University School of Medicine, Boston, MAOpen University of Catalonia (UOC), Barcelona, SpainBackground: Central post stroke pain (CPSP) is a highly refractory syndrome that can occur after stroke. Primary motor cortex (M1) brain stimulation using epidural brain stimulation (EBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been explored as potential therapies for CPSP. These techniques have demonstrated variable clinical efficacy. It is hypothesized that changes in the stimulating currents that are caused by stroke-induced changes in brain tissue conductivity limit the efficacy of these techniques. Methods: We generated MRI-guided finite element models of the current density distributions in the human head and brain with and without chronic focal cortical infarctions during EBS, TMS, and tDCS. We studied the change in the stimulating current density distributions’ magnitude, orientation, and maxima locations between the different models. Results: Changes in electrical properties at stroke boundaries altered the distribution of stimulation currents in magnitude, location, and orientation. Current density magnitude alterations were larger for the non-invasive techniques (i.e., tDCS and TMS) than for EBS. Nonetheless, the lesion also altered currents during EBS. The spatial shift of peak current density, relative to the size of the stimulation source, was largest for EBS.Conclusions: In order to maximize therapeutic efficiency, neurostimulation trials need to account for the impact of anatomically disrupted neural tissues on the location, orientation, and magnitude of exogenously applied currents. The relative current-neuronal structure should be considered when planning stimulation treatment, especially across techniques (e.g., using TMS to predict EBS response). We postulate that the effects of altered tissue properties in stroke regions may impact stimulation induced analgesic effects and/or lead to highly variable outcomes during brain stimulation treatments in CPSP.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00545/fullMotor CortexPainStrokeTranscranial Magnetic Stimulationtranscranial direct current stimulationAnalgesia.
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Anthony Terrence O´Brien
Rivadavio Amorim
Richard Jarrett Rushmore
Uri Eden
Linda Afifi
Laura Dipietro
Timothy Wagner
Antoni Valero-Cabre
Antoni Valero-Cabre
spellingShingle Anthony Terrence O´Brien
Rivadavio Amorim
Richard Jarrett Rushmore
Uri Eden
Linda Afifi
Laura Dipietro
Timothy Wagner
Antoni Valero-Cabre
Antoni Valero-Cabre
Motor cortex neurostimulation technologies for chronic post-stroke pain: implications of tissue damage on stimulation currents
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Motor Cortex
Pain
Stroke
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
transcranial direct current stimulation
Analgesia.
author_facet Anthony Terrence O´Brien
Rivadavio Amorim
Richard Jarrett Rushmore
Uri Eden
Linda Afifi
Laura Dipietro
Timothy Wagner
Antoni Valero-Cabre
Antoni Valero-Cabre
author_sort Anthony Terrence O´Brien
title Motor cortex neurostimulation technologies for chronic post-stroke pain: implications of tissue damage on stimulation currents
title_short Motor cortex neurostimulation technologies for chronic post-stroke pain: implications of tissue damage on stimulation currents
title_full Motor cortex neurostimulation technologies for chronic post-stroke pain: implications of tissue damage on stimulation currents
title_fullStr Motor cortex neurostimulation technologies for chronic post-stroke pain: implications of tissue damage on stimulation currents
title_full_unstemmed Motor cortex neurostimulation technologies for chronic post-stroke pain: implications of tissue damage on stimulation currents
title_sort motor cortex neurostimulation technologies for chronic post-stroke pain: implications of tissue damage on stimulation currents
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
series Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
issn 1662-5161
publishDate 2016-11-01
description Background: Central post stroke pain (CPSP) is a highly refractory syndrome that can occur after stroke. Primary motor cortex (M1) brain stimulation using epidural brain stimulation (EBS), transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) have been explored as potential therapies for CPSP. These techniques have demonstrated variable clinical efficacy. It is hypothesized that changes in the stimulating currents that are caused by stroke-induced changes in brain tissue conductivity limit the efficacy of these techniques. Methods: We generated MRI-guided finite element models of the current density distributions in the human head and brain with and without chronic focal cortical infarctions during EBS, TMS, and tDCS. We studied the change in the stimulating current density distributions’ magnitude, orientation, and maxima locations between the different models. Results: Changes in electrical properties at stroke boundaries altered the distribution of stimulation currents in magnitude, location, and orientation. Current density magnitude alterations were larger for the non-invasive techniques (i.e., tDCS and TMS) than for EBS. Nonetheless, the lesion also altered currents during EBS. The spatial shift of peak current density, relative to the size of the stimulation source, was largest for EBS.Conclusions: In order to maximize therapeutic efficiency, neurostimulation trials need to account for the impact of anatomically disrupted neural tissues on the location, orientation, and magnitude of exogenously applied currents. The relative current-neuronal structure should be considered when planning stimulation treatment, especially across techniques (e.g., using TMS to predict EBS response). We postulate that the effects of altered tissue properties in stroke regions may impact stimulation induced analgesic effects and/or lead to highly variable outcomes during brain stimulation treatments in CPSP.
topic Motor Cortex
Pain
Stroke
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
transcranial direct current stimulation
Analgesia.
url http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00545/full
work_keys_str_mv AT anthonyterrenceobrien motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT rivadavioamorim motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT richardjarrettrushmore motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT urieden motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT lindaafifi motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT lauradipietro motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT timothywagner motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT antonivalerocabre motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
AT antonivalerocabre motorcortexneurostimulationtechnologiesforchronicpoststrokepainimplicationsoftissuedamageonstimulationcurrents
_version_ 1724715926576693248