Can we improve pain and sleep in elderly individuals with transcranial direct current stimulation? - Results from a randomized controlled pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of chronic pain and sleep disturbances substantially increases with age. Pharmacotherapy remains the primary treatment option for these health issues. However, side effects and drug interactions are difficult to control in elderly individuals. AIMS: The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized sham-controlled trial and to collect preliminary data on the efficacy of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to reduce pain and improve sleep in older adults suffering from chronic pain. METHODS: Fourteen elderly individuals (mean age 71±7 years) suffering from chronic pain and sleep complaints were randomized to receive either anodal tDCS, applied over the primary motor cortex (2 mA, 20 minutes), or sham tDCS, for 5 consecutive days. Pain was measured with visual analog scales, pain logbooks and questionnaires, while sleep was assessed with actigraphy, sleep diaries and questionnaires. RESULTS: There were no missing data for pain and sleep measures, except for actigraphy, that generated several missing data. Blinding was maintained throughout the study, for both the evaluator and participants. Active but not sham tDCS significantly reduced pain (P<0.05). No change was observed in sleep parameters, in both the active and sham tDCS groups (all P≥0.18). CONCLUSION: The present study provides guidelines for the implementation of future tDCS studies in larger populations of elderly individuals. M1 anodal tDCS in this population appears to be effective to reduce pain, but not to improve sleep.

Comparative study of Gamma Knife surgery and percutaneous retrogasserian glycerol rhizotomy for trigeminal neuralgia in patients with multiple sclerosis.

OBJECT: Among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) there is a high incidence of trigeminal neuralgia (TN), and outcomes after treatment seem inferior to those in patients suffering from idiopathic TN. The goal of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with MS-related TN after Gamma Knife surgery (GKS) and compare them with those obtained using percutaneous retrogasserian glycerol rhizotomy (PRGR). METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the charts of 45 patients with MS-related TN. The first procedure undertaken was GKS in 27 patients and PRGR in 18 patients. Pain had been present for a median of 60 months (range 12-276 months) in patients who underwent GKS and 48 months (range 12-240 months) in patients who underwent PRGR. The following outcome measures were assessed in both groups of patients: pain relief (using the Barrow Neurological Institute [BNI] Pain Scale), procedure-related morbidity, time to pain relief and recurrence, and subsequent procedures that were performed. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 39 months (range 13-69 months) in the GKS group and 38 months (range 2-75 months) in the PRGR group. Reasonable pain control (BNI Pain Scale Scores I-IIIb) was noted in 22 patients (81.5%) who underwent GKS and in 18 patients (100%) who underwent PRGR. For patients who underwent GKS, the median time to pain relief was 6 months; for those who underwent PRGR, pain relief was immediate. In the GKS group 12 patients required subsequent procedures (3 patients for absence of response and 9 patients for pain recurrence), whereas in the PRGR group 6 patients required subsequent procedures (all for pain recurrence). As of the last follow-up, complete or reasonable pain control was finally achieved in 23 patients (85.2%) in the GKS group and in 16 patients (88.9%) in the PRGR group. The morbidity rate was 22.2% in the GKS group (all due to sensory loss and paresthesia) and 66.7% in the PRGR group (mostly hypalgesia, with 2 patients having corneal reflex loss and 1 patient suffering from meningitis). CONCLUSIONS: Both GKS and PRGR are satisfactory strategies for treating MS-related TN. Gamma Knife surgery has a lower rate of sensory and overall morbidity than PRGR, but requires a delay before pain relief occurs. The authors propose that patients with extreme pain in need of fast relief should undergo PRGR. For other patients, both management strategies can lead to satisfactory pain relief, and the choice should be made based on patient preference and expectations.