ReviewSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2026
[Central invasive neuromodulation for the treatment of chronic pain : Epidural motor cortex stimulation and deep brain stimulation].
Review in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment of central neuropathic pain, such as pain after plexus avulsion, stroke or cerebral hemorrhage (central post-stroke pain; CPSP) or trigeminal neuropathies, is generally not possible with neuromodulation methods that are carried out further peripherally. Non-invasive neuromodulation methods only have a temporary effect. Permanently implanted electrodes subcortically (deep brain stimulation; DBS) or epi- or subdurally over the motor cortex ("motor cortex stimulation", MCS) can lead to pain relief in about 50-70% of patients with central neuropathic pain.
objectivesTo present the main indications for DBS and MCS according to the literature. MATERIAL AND
methodsBoth procedures, DBS and MCS, are not approved for the treatment of chronic pain, but decades of clinical experiences exist. The results of meaningful studies and clinical series are presented on the basis of a literature search and recommendations for specific indications are developed.
resultsPatients with CPSP benefit significantly more from MCS than from DBS, and better results are also achieved with MCS in patients with neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. Patients with pain after plexus avulsion or phantom pain can be treated better with DBS. The best results are achieved with both procedures in patients with trigeminal neuropathy. We prefer MCS as it is less invasive. The results from both stimulation therapies for postherpetic neuralgia are disappointing.
conclusionsDBS and MCS can be used to treat chronic neuropathic pain when conservative or less invasive measures have failed. Depending on the cause and localization of the pain, DBS or MCS may have better long-term results. However, neither procedure is a "stand-alone" therapy; they are additive and must be accompanied by medication and behavioral therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42059911What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.