Dataset Information

Percutaneous direct current stimulation - a new electroceutical solution for severe neurological pain and soft tissue injuries.

ABSTRACT: There is a high medical need to improve the effectiveness of the treatment of pain and traumatic soft tissue injuries. In this context, electrostimulating devices have been used with only sporadic success. There is also much evidence of endogenous electrical signals that play key roles in regulating the development and regeneration of many tissues. Transepithelial potential gradients are one source of the direct current (DC) electrical signals that stimulate and guide the migration of inflammatory cells, epithelial cells, fibroblasts and mesenchymal stem cells to achieve effective wound healing. Up to now, this electrophysiological knowledge has not been adequately translated into a clinical treatment. Here, we present a mobile, handheld electroceutical smart device based on a microcontroller, an analog front end and a battery, which generates DC electric fields (EFs), mimicking and modulating the patient's own physiological electrical signals. The electrical stimulation is applied to percutaneous metal probes, which are located close to the inflamed or injured tissue of the patient. The treatment can be used in an ambulatory or stationary environment. It shows unexpectedly, highly effective treatment for certain severe neurological pain conditions, as well as traumatic soft tissue injuries (muscle/ligament ruptures, joint sprains). Without EF intervention, these conditions, respectively, are either virtually incurable or take several months to heal. We present three cases - severe chronic cluster headache, acute massive muscle rupture of the rectus femoris and an acute ankle sprain with a ruptured anterior talofibular ligament - to demonstrate clinical effectiveness and discuss the fundamental differences between mimicking DC simulation and conventional transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) or TENS-like implanted devices as used for peripheral nerve cord, spinal cord or dorsal root stimulation.

SUBMITTER: Molsberger A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6011884 | biostudies-other | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Percutaneous direct current stimulation - a new electroceutical solution for severe neurological pain and soft tissue injuries.

Molsberger Albrecht A McCaig Colin D CD

Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) 20180614

There is a high medical need to improve the effectiveness of the treatment of pain and traumatic soft tissue injuries. In this context, electrostimulating devices have been used with only sporadic success. There is also much evidence of endogenous electrical signals that play key roles in regulating the development and regeneration of many tissues. Transepithelial potential gradients are one source of the direct current (DC) electrical signals that stimulate and guide the migration of inflammato ...[more]

PMID: 29950908

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTranscranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) have been described as promising alternatives to treat different pain syndromes. This study evaluated the effects of TMS and tDCS in the treatment of chronic orofacial pain, through a systematic review.MethodsAn electronic search was performed in major databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, LILACS, BBO, Open Gray and CINAHL. The eligibility criteria comprised randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that applied TMS or tDCS to treat chronic orofacial pain. The variables analyzed were pain, functional limitation, quality of life, tolerance to treatment, somatosensory changes, and adverse effects. The risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated through GRADE. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018090774).ResultsThe electronic search resulted in 636 studies. Thereafter, the eligibility criteria were applied and the duplicates removed, resulting in eight RCTs (four TMS and four tDCS). The findings of these studies suggest that rTMS applied to the Motor cortex (M1), the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the secondary somatosensory cortex (S2) provide adequate orofacial pain relief. Two studies reported significant pain improvement with tDCS applied over M1 while the other two failed to demonstrate significant effects compared to placebo.ConclusionsrTMS, applied to M1, DLPFC or S2, is a promising approach for the treatment of chronic orofacial pain. Moreover, tDCS targeting M1 seems to be also effective in chronic orofacial pain treatment. The included studies used a wide variety of therapeutic protocols. In addition, most of them used small sample sizes, with a high risk of biases in their methodologies, thus producing a low quality of evidence. The results indicate that further research should be carried out with caution and with better-standardized therapeutic protocols.

Project description:Background: In transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), the injected current becomes distributed across the brain areas. The objective is to stimulate the target region of interest (ROI) while minimizing the current in non-target ROIs (the 'focality' of tDCS). For this purpose, determining the appropriate current dose for an individual is difficult. Aim: To introduce a dose-target determination index (DTDI) to quantify the focality of tDCS and examine the dose-focality relationship in three different populations. Method: Here, we extended our previous toolbox i-SATA to the MNI reference space. After a tDCS montage is simulated for a current dose, the i-SATA(MNI) computes the average (over voxels) current density for every region in the brain. DTDI is the ratio of the average current density at the target ROI to the ROI with a maximum value (the peak region). Ideally, target ROI should be the peak region, so DTDI shall range from 0 to 1. The higher the value, the better the dose. We estimated the variation of DTDI within and across individuals using T1-weighted brain images of 45 males and females distributed equally across three age groups: (a) young adults (20 ≤ x ˂ 40 years), (b) mid adults (40 ≤ x ˂ 60 years), and (c) older adults (60 ≤ x ˂ 80 years). DTDI's were evaluated for the frontal montage with electrodes at F3 and the right supraorbital for three current doses of 1 mA, 2 mA, and 3 mA, with the target ROI at the left middle frontal gyrus. Result: As the dose is incremented, DTDI may show (a) increase, (b) decrease, and (c) no change across the individuals depending on the relationship (nonlinear or linear) between the injected tDCS current and the distribution of current density in the target ROI. The nonlinearity is predominant in older adults with a decrease in focality. The decline is stronger in males. Higher current dose at older age can enhance the focality of stimulation. Conclusion: DTDI provides information on which tDCS current dose will optimize the focality of stimulation. The recommended DTDI dose should be prioritized based on the age (>40 years) and sex (especially for males) of an individual. The toolbox i-SATA(MNI) is freely available.

Project description:The aim of the present study was to compare the analgesic effect of motor cortex stimulation using high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation or transcranial direct current stimulation and transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Thirty-three patients with complex regional pain syndrome were randomized to one of the three treatment groups (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, n = 11; transcranial direct current stimulation, n = 10; transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation, n = 12) and received a series of 12 sessions of stimulation for 3 weeks (induction phase) and 11 sessions for 4 months (maintenance therapy). The primary end-point was the mean pain intensity assessed weekly with a visual numerical scale during the month prior to treatment (baseline), the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month after the treatment. The weekly visual numerical scale pain score was significantly reduced at all time points compared to baseline in the transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation group, at the last two time points in the repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation group (end of the 5-month stimulation period and 1 month later), but at no time point in the transcranial direct current stimulation group. A significant pain relief was observed at the end of induction phase using transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation compared to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (P = 0.008) and to transcranial direct current stimulation (P = 0.003). In this trial, transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation was more efficient to relieve pain in patients with complex regional pain syndrome compared to motor cortex stimulation techniques (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation). This efficacy was found during the induction phase and was maintained thereafter. This study warrants further investigation to confirm the potentiality of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation as a therapeutic option in complex regional pain syndrome.

Project description:Introduction: Conventional transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and high-definition tDCS (HD-tDCS) may improve motor learning in children. Mechanisms are not understood. Neuronavigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can produce individualised maps of primary motor cortex (M1) topography. We aimed to determine the effects of tDCS- and HD-tDCS-enhanced motor learning on motor maps. Methods: Typically developing children aged 12-18 years were randomised to right M1 anodal tDCS, HD-tDCS, or Sham during training of their left-hand on the Purdue Pegboard Task (PPT) over 5 days. Bilateral motor mapping was performed at baseline (pre), day 5 (post), and 6-weeks retention time (RT). Primary muscle was the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) with secondary muscles of abductor pollicis brevis (APB) and adductor digiti minimi (ADM). Primary mapping outcomes were volume (mm2/mV) and area (mm2). Secondary outcomes were centre of gravity (COG, mm) and hotspot magnitude (mV). Linear mixed-effects modelling was employed to investigate effects of time and stimulation type (tDCS, HD-tDCS, Sham) on motor map characteristics. Results: Twenty-four right-handed participants (median age 15.5 years, 52% female) completed the study with no serious adverse events or dropouts. Quality maps could not be obtained in two participants. No effect of time or group were observed on map area or volume. LFDI COG (mm) differed in the medial-lateral plane (x-axis) between tDCS and Sham (p = 0.038) from pre-to-post mapping sessions. Shifts in map COG were also observed for secondary left-hand muscles. Map metrics did not correlate with behavioural changes. Conclusion: Robotic TMS mapping can safely assess motor cortex neurophysiology in children undergoing motor learning and neuromodulation interventions. Large effects on map area and volume were not observed while changes in COG may occur. Larger controlled studies are required to understand the role of motor maps in interventional neuroplasticity in children.

Dataset Information

Percutaneous direct current stimulation - a new electroceutical solution for severe neurological pain and soft tissue injuries.

Publications

Percutaneous direct current stimulation - a new electroceutical solution for severe neurological pain and soft tissue injuries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets