The aim of the present study was to quantitatively analyze the response of patients with chronic low back pain to treatment at the Back School at the IMREA-HCFMUSP. The following scales were used to measure the therapeutic response: the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and a corporal diagram of the pain. The sample was composed of 43 patients with chronic low back pain evaluated, treated, and referred to by the Back School program. The results showed significant improvement among those who completed the program in all three scales applied. Since the period of study was only two months, the results do not support any claim that the Back School is also this effective on long-term treatment of chronic low back pain. Further qualitative and quantitative studies must be carried out in order to support the development of specialized multi-professional teams, who will carry out alterations and improvements in therapeutic resources to the management of chronic low back pain.

O objetivo do presente trabalho foi analisar a resposta ao tratamento dos pacientes com dor lombar cronica, atendidos pela “Escola de Postura” do IMREA-HCFMUSP. Os questionarios utilizados para avaliacao da resposta terapeutica foram a escala “Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire”, a Escala Visual Analogica (EVA), e um diagrama corporal de dor. A amostra foi composta por 43 pacientes com lombalgia cronica encaminhados, avaliados e tratados pela Escola de Postura. Observou-se que os individuos que concluiram a Escola apresentaram melhora significativa com relacao as tres escalas de avaliacao aplicadas. Cabe ressaltar que o periodo de estudo de avaliacao da Escola de Postura foi de dois meses, sendo que os resultados nao possibilitam afirmar que tal metodo terapeutico tambem e eficaz em longo prazo. Mais estudos, quantitativos e qualitativos, devem ser realizados de modo a oferecer subsidios a equipe multiprofissional da Escola que permitam operar mudancas e ampliar recursos terapeuticos no tratamento de pacientes com lombalgia cronica.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain. Methods: MEDLINE and other databases were searched as data sources. Reference lists and conference abstracts were examined for further relevant articles. We included studies that evaluated the effects of invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation of motor cortex on chronic pain using the visual analogue scale. Eleven studies using noninvasive brain stimulation and 22 studies using invasive brain stimulation met our inclusion criteria. The results showed that weighted responder rate was 72.6% (95% CI, 67.7–77.4) for the invasive stimulation studies and 45.3% (95% CI, 39.2–51.4) for the noninvasive stimulation studies. This difference was significant. For the noninvasive stimulation studies, the random effects model revealed that the number of responders in the active group was significantly higher as compared with sham stimulation group (risk ratio of 2.64) (95% CI, 1.63–4.30). Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that two different techniques of brain stimulation of motor cortex—invasive and noninvasive—can exert a significant effect on pain in patients with chronic pain. We discuss potential reasons that invasive brain stimulation showed a larger effect in this meta-analysis. Our findings encourage continuation of research in this area and highlight the need for well-designed clinical trials to define the role of brain stimulation in pain management.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain.Methods: MEDLINE and other databases were searched as data sources. Reference lists and conference abstracts were examined for further relevant articles. We included studies that evaluated the effects of invasive and noninvasive brain stimulation of motor cortex on chronic pain using the visual analogue scale. Eleven studies using noninvasive brain stimulation and 22 studies using invasive brain stimulation met our inclusion criteria. The results showed that weighted responder rate was 72.6% (95% CI, 67.7-77.4) for the invasive stimulation studies and 45.3% (95% CI, 39.2-51.4) for the noninvasive stimulation studies. This difference was significant. For the noninvasive stimulation studies, the random effects model revealed that the number of responders in the active group was significantly higher as compared with sham stimulation group (risk ratio of 2.64) (95% CI, 1.63-4.30).Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that two different techniques of brain stimulation of motor cortex-invasive and noninvasive-can exert a significant effect on pain in patients with chronic pain. We discuss potential reasons that invasive brain stimulation showed a larger effect in this meta-analysis. Our findings encourage continuation of research in this area and highlight the need for well-designed clinical trials to define the role of brain stimulation in pain management.

The development of non‐invasive techniques of cortical stimulation, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), has opened new potential avenues for the treatment of neuropsychiatric diseases. We hypothesized that an increase in the activity in the motor cortex by cortical stimulation would increase its inhibitory influence on spinal excitability through the corticospinal tract and, thus, reduce the hyperactivity of the gamma and alpha neurons, improving spasticity. Seventeen participants (eight males, nine females; mean age 9y 1mo [SD 3y 2mo]) with cerebral palsy and spastic quadriplegia were randomized to receive sham, active 1Hz, or active 5Hz repetitive TMS of the primary motor cortex. Stimulation was applied for 5 consecutive days (90% of motor threshold). The results showed that there was a significant reduction of spasticity after 5Hz, but not sham or 1Hz, stimulation as indexed by the degree of passive movement; however this was not evident when using the Ashworth scale, although a trend for improvement was seen for elbow movement. The safety evaluation showed that stimulation with either 1Hz or 5Hz did not result in any adverse events as compared with sham stimulation. Results of this trial provide initial evidence to support further trials exploring the use of cortical stimulation in the treatment of spasticity.

Electrical stimulation of deep brain structures, such as globus pallidus and subthalamic nucleus, is widely accepted as a therapeutic tool for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). Cortical stimulation either with epidural implanted electrodes or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation can be associated with motor function enhancement in PD. We aimed to study the effects of another noninvasive technique of cortical brain stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), on motor function and motor‐evoked potential (MEP) characteristics of PD patients. We tested tDCS using different electrode montages [anodal stimulation of primary motor cortex (M1), cathodal stimulation of M1, anodal stimulation of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), and sham‐stimulation] and evaluated the effects on motor function—as indexed by Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), simple reaction time (sRT) and Purdue Pegboard test—and on corticospinal motor excitability (MEP characteristics). All experiments were performed in a double‐blinded manner. Anodal stimulation of M1 was associated with a significant improvement of motor function compared to sham‐stimulation in the UPDRS (P < 0.001) and sRT (P = 0.019). This effect was not observed for cathodal stimulation of M1 or anodal stimulation of DLPFC. Furthermore, whereas anodal stimulation of M1 significantly increased MEP amplitude and area, cathodal stimulation of M1 significantly decreased them. There was a trend toward a significant correlation between motor function improvement after M1 anodal–tDCS and MEP area increase. These results confirm and extend the notion that cortical brain stimulation might improve motor function in patients with PD. © 2006 Movement Disorder Society

Past evidence has shown that motor cortical stimulation with invasive and non-invasive brain stimulation is effective to relieve central pain. Here we aimed to study the effects of another, very safe technique of non-invasive brain stimulation – transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) – on pain control in patients with central pain due to traumatic spinal cord injury. Patients were randomized to receive sham or active motor tDCS (2mA, 20min for 5 consecutive days). A blinded evaluator rated the pain using the visual analogue scale for pain, Clinician Global Impression and Patient Global Assessment. Safety was assessed with a neuropsychological battery and confounders with the evaluation of depression and anxiety changes. There was a significant pain improvement after active anodal stimulation of the motor cortex, but not after sham stimulation. These results were not confounded by depression or anxiety changes. Furthermore, cognitive performance was not significantly changed throughout the trial in both treatment groups. The results of our study suggest that this new approach of cortical stimulation can be effective to control pain in patients with spinal cord lesion. We discuss potential mechanisms for pain amelioration after tDCS, such as a secondary modulation of thalamic nuclei activity.