Suppr超能文献

神经刺激对慢性胰腺炎疼痛的影响:一项系统评价。

Effect of Neurostimulation on Chronic Pancreatic Pain: A Systematic Review.

作者信息

Andrade Maria F, Fabris-Moraes Walter, Pacheco-Barrios Kevin, Fregni Felipe

机构信息

Neuromodulation Center and Center for Clinical Research Learning, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Neuromodulation Center and Center for Clinical Research Learning, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Faculty of Medicine, University of São Paulo (FMUSP), São Paulo, Brazil.

出版信息

Neuromodulation. 2024 Dec;27(8):1255-1265. doi: 10.1016/j.neurom.2024.08.003. Epub 2024 Oct 4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Chronic pancreatic pain is one of the most severe causes of visceral pain, and treatment response is often limited. Neurostimulation techniques have been investigated for chronic pain syndromes once there are pathophysiological reasons to believe that these methods activate descending pain inhibitory systems. Considering this, we designed this systematic literature review to investigate the evidence on neuromodulation techniques as a treatment for chronic pancreatic pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a literature search using the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase until April 2024. The included studies used neurostimulation techniques in participants with chronic pancreatic pain and reported pain-related outcomes, with a focus on pain scales and opioid intake. Two reviewers screened and extracted data, and a third reviewer resolved discrepancies. We assessed the risk of bias using the Jadad scale. The authors then grouped the findings by the target of the neurostimulation, cortex, spinal cord, or peripheral nerves; described the findings qualitatively in the results section, including qualitative data reported by the articles; and calculated effect sizes of pain-related outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies were included (7 randomized clinical trials [RCTs], 14 case series, and 1 survey), including a total of 257 clinical trial participants. The two outcomes most commonly reported were pain, measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS), numeric rating scale (NRS), and pressure pain threshold scores, and opioid intake. Two RCTs investigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), showing a reduction of 36% (±16) (d = 2.25; 95% CI, 0.66-3.83) and 27.2% (±24.5%) (d = 2.594; 95% CI, 1.303-3.885) in VAS pain scale. In another clinical trial, transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) and transcranial pulsed current stimulation were not observed to effect a significant reduction in VAS pain (χ2 = 5.87; p = 0.12). However, a complete remission was reported in one tDCS case. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion stimulation were performed in a survey and 11 case series, showing major pain decrease and diminished opioid use in 90% of participants after successful implantation; most studies had follow-up periods of months to years. Two noninvasive vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) RCTs showed no significant pain reduction in pain thresholds or VAS (d = 0.916; 95% CI, -0.005 to 1.838; and d = 0.17; -0.86 to 1.20; p = 0.72; respectively). Splanchnic nerve stimulation in one case report showed complete pain reduction accompanied by discontinuation of oral morphine and fentanyl lozenges and a 95% decrease in fentanyl patch use. Two RCTs investigated transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). One found a significant pain reduction effect with the NRS (d = 1.481; 95% CI, 1.82-1.143), and decreased opioid use, while the other RCT did not show significant benefit. Additionally, one case report with TENS showed pain improvement that was not quantitatively measured.

DISCUSSION

The neuromodulation techniques of rTMS and SCS showed the most consistent potential as a treatment method for chronic pancreatic pain. However, the studies have notable limitations, and SCS has had no clinical trials. For VNS, we have two RCTs that showed a non-statistically significant improvement; we believe that both studies had a lack of power issue and suggest a gap in the literature for new RCTs exploring this modality. Additionally, tDCS and TENS showed mixed results. Another important insight was that opioid intake decrease is a common trend among most studies included and that adverse effects were rarely reported. To further elucidate the potential of these neurostimulation techniques, we suggest the development of new clinical trials with larger samples and adequate sham controls.

摘要

背景

慢性胰腺疼痛是内脏疼痛最严重的病因之一,治疗反应往往有限。一旦有病理生理学依据认为这些方法可激活下行性疼痛抑制系统,神经刺激技术就已被用于研究慢性疼痛综合征。考虑到这一点,我们设计了这项系统文献综述,以研究神经调节技术作为慢性胰腺疼痛治疗方法的证据。

材料与方法

我们使用MEDLINE、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)和Embase数据库进行文献检索,直至2024年4月。纳入的研究在慢性胰腺疼痛患者中使用神经刺激技术,并报告与疼痛相关的结果,重点是疼痛量表和阿片类药物摄入量。两名评审员筛选并提取数据,第三名评审员解决分歧。我们使用Jadad量表评估偏倚风险。作者随后按神经刺激的目标(皮层、脊髓或周围神经)对研究结果进行分组;在结果部分对结果进行定性描述,包括文章报告的定性数据;并计算与疼痛相关结果的效应量。

结果

共纳入22项研究(7项随机临床试验[RCT]、14个病例系列和1项调查),包括257名临床试验参与者。最常报告的两项结果是疼痛(通过视觉模拟量表[VAS]、数字评分量表[NRS]和压力疼痛阈值评分测量)和阿片类药物摄入量。两项RCT研究了重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS),结果显示VAS疼痛量表分别降低了36%(±16)(d = 2.25;95%CI,0.66 - 3.83)和27.2%(±24.5%)(d = 2.594;95%CI,1.303 - 3.885)。在另一项临床试验中,未观察到经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)和经颅脉冲电流刺激能使VAS疼痛显著降低(χ2 = 5.87;p = 0.12)。然而,有1例tDCS病例报告出现了完全缓解。在1项调查和11个病例系列中进行了脊髓刺激(SCS)和背根神经节刺激,结果显示成功植入后90%的参与者疼痛明显减轻且阿片类药物使用减少;大多数研究的随访期为数月至数年。两项非侵入性迷走神经刺激(VNS)RCT显示疼痛阈值或VAS无显著疼痛减轻(d = 0.916;95%CI, - 0.005至1.838;以及d = 0.17; - 0.86至1.20;p分别为0.72)。1例病例报告中,内脏神经刺激显示疼痛完全缓解,同时停用了口服吗啡和芬太尼含片,芬太尼透皮贴剂使用减少了95%。两项RCT研究了经皮电刺激神经疗法(TENS)。其中1项发现NRS疼痛有显著减轻效果(d = 1.481;95%CI,1.82 - 1.143),且阿片类药物使用减少,而另一项RCT未显示出显著益处。此外,1例TENS病例报告显示疼痛有所改善,但未进行定量测量。

讨论

rTMS和SCS的神经调节技术作为慢性胰腺疼痛的治疗方法显示出最一致的潜力。然而,这些研究有明显局限性,且SCS尚无临床试验。对于VNS,我们有两项RCT显示改善无统计学意义;我们认为这两项研究都存在效能不足的问题,并表明在探索这种治疗方式的新RCT方面存在文献空白。此外,tDCS和TENS的结果不一。另一个重要的发现是,阿片类药物摄入量减少是大多数纳入研究中的常见趋势,且很少报告有不良反应。为了进一步阐明这些神经刺激技术的潜力,我们建议开展样本量更大且有适当假对照的新临床试验。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验