Subcortical electrostimulation to identify network subserving motor control

Objectives: Recent anatomical-functional studies have transformed our understanding of cerebral motor control away from a hierarchical structure and toward parallel and interconnected specialized circuits. Subcortical electrical stimulation during awake surgery provides a unique opportunity to identify white matter tracts involved in motor control. For the first time, this study reports the findings on motor modulatory responses evoked by subcortical stimulation and investigates the cortico-subcortical connectivity of cerebral motor control. Experimental design: Twenty-one selected patients were operated while awake for frontal, insular, and parietal diffuse low-grade gliomas. Subcortical electrostimulation mapping was used to search for interference with voluntary movements. The corresponding stimulation sites were localized on brain schemas using the anterior and posterior commissures method. Principal observations: Subcortical negative motor responses were evoked in 20/21 patients, whereas acceleration of voluntary movements and positive motor responses were observed in three and five patients, respectively. The majority of the stimulation sites were detected rostral of the corticospinal tract near the vertical anterior-commissural line, and additional sites were seen in the frontal and parietal white matter. Conclusions: The diverse interferences with motor function resulting in inhibition and acceleration imply a modulatory influence of the detected fiber network. The subcortical stimulation sites were distributed veil-like, anterior to the primary motor fibers, suggesting descending pathways originating from premotor areas known for negative motor response characteristics. Further stimulation sites in the parietal white matter as well as in the anterior arm of the internal capsule indicate a large-scale fronto-parietal motor control network. Hum Brain Mapp, 2012. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Transcutaneous electrostimulation for osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), interferential current stimulation and pulsed electrostimulation are used widely to control both acute and chronic pain arising from several conditions, but some policy makers regard efficacy evidence as insufficient. OBJECTIVES: To compare transcutaneous electrostimulation with sham or no specific intervention in terms of effects on pain and withdrawals due to adverse events in patients with knee osteoarthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro up to 5 August 2008, checked conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared transcutaneously applied electrostimulation with a sham intervention or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using standardised forms and contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. Main outcomes were pain and withdrawals or dropouts due to adverse events. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and relative risks for safety outcomes and used inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. The analysis of pain was based on predicted estimates from meta-regression using the standard error as explanatory variable. MAIN RESULTS: In this update we identified 14 additional trials resulting in the inclusion of 18 small trials in 813 patients. Eleven trials used TENS, four interferential current stimulation, one both TENS and interferential current stimulation, and two pulsed electrostimulation. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting was poor and a high degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I(2) = 80%) was revealed. The funnel plot for pain was asymmetrical (P < 0.001). The predicted SMD of pain intensity in trials as large as the largest trial was -0.07 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.32), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between electrostimulation and control of 0.2 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. There was little evidence that SMDs differed on the type of electrostimulation (P = 0.94). The relative risk of being withdrawn or dropping out due to adverse events was 0.97 (95% CI 0.2 to 6.0). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update, we could not confirm that transcutaneous electrostimulation is effective for pain relief. The current systematic review is inconclusive, hampered by the inclusion of only small trials of questionable quality. Appropriately designed trials of adequate power are warranted.