Post on 08-Aug-2020
transcript
Neurosurgery for chronicneuropathic pain
Jung Y Park MD PhD1,2, Andres M Lozano MD PhD FRCSC1,2
Chronic pain has been defined as pain that lasts longerthan three to six months or, as proposed by the Interna-
tional Association for the Study of Pain. It is pain that out-lasts the period of normal healing of an acute abnormality(1). Any acute pain has the potential to become chronic, andthis conversion can follow different temporal courses for dif-ferent problems. Pain of primarily neural origin is termedneuropathic pain.
Common features of chronic neuropathic pain include
spontaneous burning, paroxysmal jabbing or shocking pain,
hyperpathia, hyperalgesia, and allodynia or touch-evoked
pain. These features may occur alone or in combination.
Causes of neuropathic pain include injuries to the nervous
system, whether by trauma, ischemia or metabolic dysfunc-
tion. Neuropathic pain is idiosyncratic; not every patient who
suffers neural injury develops this type of pain. The inci-
dence of neuropathic pain may also vary according to the site
of neural injury. It is classified as ‘peripheral type’ when it re-
sults from neural injury or dysfunction from peripheral
sources or as ‘central type’, when it arises from dysfunction
in the brain and spinal cord. Neuropathic pain, in contrast to
somatic or nociceptive pain, usually occurs without ongoing
physiological activation of nociceptors. However, neuro-
pathic and nociceptive pain may have overlapping features,
and both types may at times be complicated by psychological
and psychosocial factors. Table 1 lists the broad range of
causes of peripheral and central neuropathic pain.
Only patients with chronic neuropathic pain that fails to
respond to medical treatment are considered potential candi-
dates for surgical treatment. Hence, neurosurgeons are called
upon to treat these often difficult pain syndromes. The goal
here is to describe neurosurgical treatments for the chronic,
intractable neuropathic pain states and to provide a brief out-
line of current neurosurgical approaches in these settings.
Pain Res Manage Vol 5 No 1 Spring 2000 101
JY Park, AM Lozano.Neurosurgery for chronic neuropathic pain.Pain Res Manage 2000;5(1):101-106.
Neurosurgery can play a role in the management of patients withrefractory chronic neuropathic pain. However, selecting patientsas candidates for surgery and choosing the most appropriate surgi-cal procedure is challenging, and surgical interventions often havelimited efficacy. When considering surgery, neuroaugmentative orneuromodulative procedures (eg, peripheral, spinal, motor cortexor deep brain stimulation) are generally preferred over ablativeprocedures as initial modalities. With better understanding of spe-cific pain mechanisms, surgery will have more to offer patientswith chronic neuropathic pain.
Key Words: Chronic neuropathic pain; Surgery
La neurochirurgie pour la douleurneuropathique chroniqueRÉSUMÉ : La neurochirurgie peut jouer un rôle dans la prise encharge des patients souffrant d’une douleur neuropathique chroniqueréfractaire. Cependant, la sélection des patients comme candidats à lachirurgie et le choix de l’intervention chirurgicale la mieux appropriéerestent un défi, et les interventions chirurgicales ont souvent uneefficacité limitée. Si l’on envisage une chirurgie, les interventions quiont un effet neuromodulateur ou neuroamplificateur (par exemple, unestimulation cérébrale profonde, ou celle du cortex moteur ou unestimulation spinale ou bien périphérique) sont généralementpréférables à des méthodes ablatives comme méthodes de premierchoix. Avec une meilleure compréhension des mécanismes de ladouleur, la chirurgie aura plus à offrir aux patients atteints d’unedouleur neuropathique chronique.
Toronto Western Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
Correspondence and reprints: Dr Andres M Lozano, 1The Toronto Hospital, Western Division, McLaughlin Pavilion 2-433, 399 Bathurst Street,
Toronto, Ontario M5T 2S8. Telephone 416-603-6200, fax 416-603-5298, e-mail lozano@playfair.utoronto.ca
NEUROLOGY AND CHRONIC PAIN
1
G:\PAIN\2000\5#1\Park\Park.vpTue Apr 18 15:56:50 2000
Color profile: EMBASSY.CCM - Scitex ScitexComposite Default screen
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
Detailed review is not intended, but rather an attempt is made
to establish a framework within which the practising clini-
cian can add insights when providing care to these patients.
SURGICAL TREATMENT OF CHRONICNEUROPATHIC PAIN
Before considering any surgical measure to treat patientswith chronic neuropathic pain, appropriate medical thera-peutic approaches should be thoroughly investigated andexhausted. Generally, when neurosurgical therapy is consid-ered, neuroaugmentative or neuromodulative procedures arepreferred over ablative approaches as the initial surgical mo-dality. This is because of their reversibility and low incidenceof significant side effects. These approaches are only un-dertaken after the primary and causative disturbances, forexample compression, tumours, infections and ongoing me-chanical injury, etc, have been addressed.
Pain associated with peripheral nerve abnormalities that is
located primarily in the distribution of a single peripheral
nerve may be treated with peripheral nerve stimulation
(PNS) (2). The mechanism of action of PNS may be central
or peripheral. As with other pain control operations, there
must be a clear cut etiology for the pain, and a correctable pa-
thology (eg, nerve entrapment syndrome) should be ex-
cluded. The surgery is usually done in two phases. Usually, a
site proximal to the injury site is selected for electrode place-
ment. After a skin incision and dissection to free 5 to 6 cm of
nerve, the electrode is placed directly under the nerve and su-
tured in place. The electrode lead is then externalized
through a small stab wound and connected to a temporary
electrical stimulator. The effects of stimulation through the
implanted electrode are evaluated over this trial phase, which
can last two to three days. The settings of the temporary
stimulator are considered satisfactory when the patient re-
ports a fine tingling sensation in the nerve distribution. There
are two potential outcomes of this trial. In patients where
stimulation does not help the pain, the device is removed. On
the other hand, patients who derive substantial pain relief,
usually greater than 50% on a pain visual analogue scale, go
on to permanent implantation in which the stimulating elec-
trode is connected to a battery powered, pacemaker-like, im-
planted pulse generator. Results from a large series (3)
indicated good to excellent pain relief in 70% to 80% of pa-
tients. These devices, like all stimulation implants, are sub-
ject to displacement, infection, breakage of leads and loss of
battery power over time.
Peripheral nerve pain from multiple sources, including
neuropathic pain secondary to neural injury as a consequence
of degenerative disc disease, postamputation pain (eg, phan-
tom limb pain, stump pain), reflex sympathetic dystrophy
(now replaced with the term ‘complex regional pain syn-
drome’ [CRPS] type 1), or causalgia (CRPS type 2), may be
relieved by spinal cord stimulation (SCS) (4,5) (Figure 1). A
relevant animal model of chronic neuropathic pain, showing
apparent relief by SCS, has been developed recently (6). Its
exact mechanism of action of SCS is not fully understood but
may at least partly be mediated via GABAergic and
adenosine-dependent mechanisms, or modulated by influ-
encing the transmission of A fibres and not of c fibres. Some
effects of SCS may be mediated by the sympathetic nervous
102 Pain Res Manage Vol 5 No 1 Spring 2000
Park and Lozano
TABLE 1Various types of peripheral and central neuropathic pain
Peripheral neuropathic pain Central neuropathic pain
Peripheral nerve injury with orwithout sympatheticallymaintained pain
Complex regional painsyndromes (reflexsympathetic dystrophy orcausalgia)
Carpal tunnel syndrome
Meralgia paresthetica
Diabetic neuropathy
Failed back surgery syndrome orpostlaminectomy syndrome
Trigeminal neuralgia ortrigeminal neuropathic pain
Glossopharyngeal neuralgia
Postherpetic neuralgia
Occipital neuralgia
Brachial plexus neuropathy oravulsion
Incisional neuralgia
Phantom pain
Pain of spinal cord origin
Trauma
Inflammation (eg, myelitis)
Tumour
Vascular pain (eg, Wallenberg’ssyndrome)
Iatrogenic pain (postcordotomydysesthesia)
Other (eg, syringomyelia)
Pain of brain stem origin
Syringobulbia
Multiple sclerosis (symptomatictrigeminal neuralgia)
Thalamus (ventroposteriorthalamus)
Stroke, tumour, abscess
Cortical or subcortical pain
Stroke, tumour
Figure 1) Postoperative thoracolumbar spine x-ray showing spinal cordstimulation electrode with four contacts on T10-11 epidural space. Re-produced with permission from Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis
2
G:\PAIN\2000\5#1\Park\Park.vpTue Apr 18 15:56:52 2000
Color profile: EMBASSY.CCM - Scitex ScitexComposite Default screen
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
system. The development of percutaneous placement of elec-
trode arrays and of improved programmable implanted elec-
tronics have been major technical advances in the application
of SCS in patients with intractable neuropathic pain.
A temporary, percutaneous electrode is first placed in the
patient under local anesthesia and connected to a temporary
stimulation device either in a fluoroscopy suite or operating
room. A permanent implant with pulse generator may be in-
troduced to the patient if satisfactory pain results are ob-
tained during the trial period. Both percutaneous and
laminectomy designs for SCS electrodes are available. The
success rates reported in the literature on SCS have varied
widely, but recent long term follow-up studies based on third
party evaluations indicate 52% to 66% good to excellent re-
sults (7,8). As with PNS, SCS has the inherent advantage of a
low morbidity trial or test phase that is used as a predictor of
the long term effect.
Although intraspinal analgesic therapy is considered to be
more effective for nociceptive than for neuropathic pain, if
PNS or SCS is unsuccessful or inappropriate, a trial of in-
traspinal analgesic therapy may be warranted. The role of in-
traspinal (ie, intrathecal or epidural) infusion therapy in cases
of intractable neuropathic pain is not fully established, but up
to 50% of patients with neuropathic pain may be improved
by intrathecal or epidural analgesic substances (9,10). De-
spite the relative insensitivity of these pain states to systemic
narcotics, significant relief has been observed in some pa-
tients by using intraspinal narcotics. Moreover, the risk of
becoming dependent or addicted to these agents from long
term use seldom exists. Other drugs such as clonidine and
adenosine in intraspinal use are also reported to be effective
in refractory cases (11-13). However, these agents and other
newly introduced drugs are still considered investigational
for this application.
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) (Figure 2) may be appro-
priate for some patients with intractable neuropathic pain,
especially when other neuroaugmentation therapies fail.
Theoretically, pain may be modulated by stimulation or
lesioning of any of the following structures or regions of
brain related to ascending or descending pain pathways:
periaqueductal grey (PAG)/periventricular grey (PVG)
region, thalamus, internal capsule and medial lemniscus. Al-
though the mechanisms underlying the effects of DBS are
not established, possible mechanisms may involve opiate
mediation and activation of descending inhibitory pathways
for PVG/PAG stimulation (14), and inhibition of spinotha-
lamic neurons in dorsal horn or blockage of disrupted activ-
ity in various thalamic nuclei (15,16). DBS has the potential
to treat chronic pain of any etiology, in any location.
However, its success rate varies according to the nature of
pain, the site of stimulation and the criteria used to define
success. The range of success is typically from 30% to 70%
(17,18). This technique is not widely available, and as with
other surgically implanted pain therapies it remains expen-
sive. Recommended brain targets for DBS electrode implan-
tation to treat central pains related to deafferentation or
neuropathic pain (eg, anesthesia dolorosa, postcordotomy
dysesthesia, thalamic syndrome, brachial plexus avulsion,
postherpetic neuralgia, and spinal and peripheral nerve inju-
ries) are thalamic sensory relay nuclei, ventral posterior lat-
eral or ventral posterior medial, and the medial lemniscus or
internal capsule (19). However, implantation of electrodes on
the PVG region may be more suitable for patients with no-
ciceptive pain when other measures fail.
Electrodes are implanted stereotactically when the patient
is under local anesthesia supplemented as necessary by in-
travenous midazolam and/or fentanyl. Electrodes are
introduced according to anatomical targets, based on pre-
operatively obtained anterior commissure and posterior com-
Pain Res Manage Vol 5 No 1 Spring 2000 103
Surgery for chronic neuropathic pain
Figure 2) Configuration of implanted brain electrode and connections toremainder of deep brain stimulation equipment (top) and magnetic reso-nance imaging after implantation of a thalamic deep brain stimulationelectrode (bottom). Reproduced with permission from Medtronic Inc,Minneapolis, Minnesota
3
G:\PAIN\2000\5#1\Park\Park.vpTue Apr 18 15:56:54 2000
Color profile: EMBASSY.CCM - Scitex ScitexComposite Default screen
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
missure coordinates from stereotactic magnetic resonance
images. Intraoperative physiological studies such as single
unit microelectrode recording, and micro- and macrostimu-
lation techniques greatly enhance the correct targeting before
implantation of the electrode. A trial stimulation period of
two to seven days is carried out. If significant pain relief en-
sues, the electrode is connected either to a radiofrequency re-
ceiver or to a fully implanted pulse generator for chronic
stimulation. The internalization procedure, which is done un-
der short general anesthesia, involves connecting the elec-
trode to a pulse generator subcutaneously, usually in the sub-
clavicular area. Although nociceptive pain is known to
respond better to DBS, about 30% to 60% of patients with
neuropathic pain are expected to have long term pain relief
from DBS (8,17). However, DBS is among the most invasive
techniques available and is associated with substantial mor-
bidity. The incidence of minor complications (electrode dis-
lodgement, breakage, skin erosion infection) is approxi-
mately 10%, while the incidence of serious neurological
complications including intracerebral hemorrhage leading to
permanent neurological deficit is 2% to 3% with these proce-
dures.
Other areas of the brain have been studied for
stimulation-induced analgesia and pain relief for neuropathic
pain. In particular, chronic stimulation of the motor cortex
(Figure 3) has recently gained attention. Favourable results
have been reported for intractable central and neuropathic
pain of peripheral origin including thalamic pain, trigeminal
neuropathic pain, postherpetic neuralgia pain, bulbar pain of
Wallenberg syndrome, and pain from peripheral nerve or spi-
nal cord injuries (20-24). Again, the therapeutic mechanism
underlying motor cortex stimulation is unclear, but it has
been proposed that precentral stimulation activates non-
nociceptive neurons in the sensory cortex, which may then
act to inhibit presumed hyperactive nociceptive cortical neu-
rons (24). The surgical procedure is similar to that of DBS,
except that mapping of the motor cortex is necessary by in-
traoperative somatosensory-evoked potentials. Although this
technique is not widely investigated, it appears to be a new
and promising possibility of pain treatment, especially in
cases with chronic, refractory neuropathic pain.
Ablative procedures in the spinal cord such as cordotomy
have been used in some patients with intractable nonmalig-
nant pain but are known to be more effective in nociceptive
pain than in neuropathic pain conditions. Cordotomy is sel-
dom used to treat disorders, except malignant diseases, be-
cause of concern about the development of postcordotomy
dysesthesia or fading of the level of pain relief with time.
Dorsal root entry zone (DREZ) lesions, however, can be
uniquely effective in select cases of intractable neuropathic
pain, including roots or plexus avulsions and postparaplegic
pain, with long term success rates often greater than 50%.
The segmental, end zone pain of spinal cord injury may also
respond to DREZ lesions; the more diffuse, distal pain fol-
lowing spinal cord injury tends to be refractory. Also, it is not
as successful for the treatment of postamputation stump pain
(25). DREZ destroys the dorsal horn (including substantia
gelatinosa), Lissauer’s tract, and the adjacent portion of the
posterior and lateral funiculi, thus inhibiting incoming no-
ciceptive inputs and modulating signals descending via the
Raphe spinal, reticulospinal and cortical spinal tracts. After
laminectomy and dural opening at appropriate levels have
been achieved under general anesthesia, the electrode is in-
troduced to a depth of 2 mm, and the lesion is generally made
by heating the radio frequency (RF) electrode tip to 75°C and
holding the temperature for 15 s. Successive lesions are
spaced 2 mm apart, and spinal cord function is monitored by
using somatosensory- and motor-evoked potential during the
operation. In summary, pain recalcitrant to conventional
therapy, in cases of neuropathic pain due to brachial plexus
injury, is seen in about one-third of patients and causes sig-
nificant disability. DREZ lesions mitigate this pain in ap-
proximately 60% of patients (26). In addition, although up to
50% of patients experience some neurological deficits fol-
lowing surgery, this occasionally results in worsening of
functional impairment.
Intracranial ablative procedures, including medial thala-
motomy, mesencephalic tractotomy, anterior capsulotomy,
hypophysectomy and cingulotomy, have been used primarily
in terminally ill patients with cancer-related pain. However,
these procedures have often been associated with recurrence
or worsening of pain after the procedure. Cingulotomy le-
sions neurons and interrupts the Papez circuit of the limbic
system; its target is the anterior cingulated gyrus, caudal por-
tion, area 24. The recommended target for thalamotomy is
the medial thalamus, involving the central lateral or parafas-
cicular nucleus (27). The results, however, do not seem to be
as good as those of DBS and are usually short lived. Overall,
these procedures have limited indications, are used infre-
quently and are not generally applicable to patients with
chronic neuropathic pain. However, with improved stereo-
tactic techniques guided by better imaging systems, refined
microelectrode recordings and stimulation techniques; rela-
104 Pain Res Manage Vol 5 No 1 Spring 2000
Park and Lozano
Figure 3) Postoperative skull x-ray showing electrodes placed on motorcortex for chronic stimulation
4
G:\PAIN\2000\5#1\Park\Park.vpTue Apr 18 15:56:56 2000
Color profile: EMBASSY.CCM - Scitex ScitexComposite Default screen
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
tively low morbidity; lower cost than that of augmentative
procedures; and lack of need for general anesthesia, they may
be suitable in certain circumstances.
Generally, patients with trigeminal neuralgia are managed
by medical treatment. However, up to 30% of patients will
ultimately require more aggressive therapy. There are two
common mainstays of surgical therapy for these patients (ie,
percutaneous trigeminal gangliolysis and microvascular
decompression), both with similar high success rates (70%
to 90%) of long lasting or even permanent pain relief (28-30).
Recently, radiosurgery with gamma knife for chronic pain
has been used by several investigators with some promising
results (31-34). The role of radiosurgery in disorders such as
trigeminal neuralgia is being studied (35,36). Although it is a
noninvasive procedure to the brain, it may produce unpre-
dictably large lesions, and until well-designed, long term
follow-up studies are available, this technique remains
speculative.
CONCLUSIONSThe main challenge facing the treatment of neuropathic painis the incomplete understanding of its pathogenesis andconsequently the limited success of its treatment. The selec-tion of patients who are likely to respond to surgery and the
choice of the surgical procedure should be carefully decidedbased on diligent evaluation.
Some surgical interventions have substantial potential
morbidity, and this must be considered before deciding to op-
erate. Also, no one neurosurgical procedure can relieve the
pain complaints of all patients, and surgery performed be-
cause there is ‘nothing left to try’ is most likely to fail.
Whichever procedure is chosen or intended, treating neuro-
surgeons should have the necessary neuroscience background
and surgical skills to be an important member of the team car-
ing for these multifaceted, chronically ill patients.
Neurosurgical strategies will be more diverse, and neuro-
surgery will likely offer better and more options for the man-
agement of chronic neuropathic pain syndromes in the future.
These strategies will be driven by a better understanding of
basic pathophysiological mechanisms underlying neuropathic
pain. Animal models of chronic neuropathic pain are available
to test novel strategies. Further, the available surgical proce-
dures (eg, SCS, DBS and chronic cortical stimulation) are be-
ing refined and will be more widely available. Other
promising modes of therapies (eg, transplantation, gene ther-
apy) are also being intensely investigated. Advances in these
surgical and pharmacological strategies will make a signifi-
cant impact on the treatment of pain of neural origin.
REFERENCES1. Bonica JJ. Definitions and taxonomy of pain. In: Bonica J, Loeser JD,
Chapman CR, Fordyce WE, eds. The Management of Pain.Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1990:18-27.
2. Hassenbusch SJ, Stanton-Hicks M, Schoppa D, Walsh JG,Covington EC. Long-term results of peripheral nerve stimulation forreflex sympathetic dystrophy. J Neurosurg 1996;84:415-23.
3. Shetter AG, Racz GB, Lewis R, Heavner JE. Peripheral nervestimulation. In: North RB, Levy RM, eds. Neurosurgical Managementof Pain. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997:261-70.
4. Barolat G, Singh-Sahni K, Staas WE Jr, Shatin D, Ketcik B, Allen K.Epidural spinal cord stimulation in the management of spasms inspinal cord injury: a prospective study. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg1995;64:153-64.
5. North RB, Roark GL. Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain.Neurosurg Clin N Am 1995;6:145-55.
6. Meyerson BA, Ren B, Herregodts P, Linderoth B. Spinal cordstimulation in animal models of mononeuropathy: effects onthe withdrawal response and the flexor reflex. Pain1995;61:229-43.
7. North RB, Kidd DH, Zahurak M, James CS, Long DM. Spinal cordstimulation for chronic, intractable pain: experience over two decades.Neurosurgery 1993;32:384-94.
8. Kumar K, Toth C, Nath RK. Deep brain stimulation for intractablepain: a 15-year experience. Neurosurgery 1997;40:736-46.
9. Penn RD. Intrathecal drug infusion for pain. In: Youmans JR, ed.Neurological Surgery. Philadelphia: WB Sounders, 1996:3552-9.
10. Hassenbusch SJ, Stanton-Hicks M, Covington EC, Walsh JG,Guthrey DS. Long-term intraspinal infusions of opioids in thetreatment of neuropathic pain. J Pain Symptom Manage1995;10:527-43.
11. Glynn C, O’Sullivan K. A double-blind randomised comparison ofthe effects of epidural clonidine, lignocaine and the combination ofclonidine and lignocaine in patients with chronic pain. Pain1996;64:337-43.
12. Gomes JA, Li X, Pan HL, Eisenach JC. Intrathecal adenosine interactswith a spinal noradrenergic system to produce antinociceptionin nerve-injured rats. Anesthesiology 1999;91:1072-9.
13. Middleton JW, Siddall PJ, Walker S, Molloy AR, Rutkowski SB.Intrathecal clonidine and baclofen in the management of spasticity andneuropathic pain following spinal cord injury: a case study.Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:824-6.
14. Gybels JM, Sweet WH. Neurosurgical Treatment of Persistent Pain.Physiological and Pathological Mechanisms of Human Pain, vol 11.Basel Karger, 1989.
15. Gerhart KD, Yezierski RP, Fang ZR, Willis WD. Inhibition of primatetract neurons by stimulation in ventral posterior lateral (VPLc)thalamic nucleus: possible mechanims. J Neurophysiol1983;49:406-23.
16. Lenz FA. The ventral posterior nucleus of thalamus is involvedin the generation of central pain syndromes. Am Pain Soc J1992;1:42-51.
17. Levy RM, Lamb S, Adams JE. Treatment of chronic pain by deepbrain stimulation: long term follow-up and review of the literature.Neurosurgery 1987;21:885-93.
18. Tasker RR, Vilela Filho O. Deep brain stimulation for neuropathicpain. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 1995;65:122-4.
19. Young RF, Rinaldi PC. Brain stimulation. In: North RB, Levy RM,eds. Neurosurgical Management of Pain. New York: Springer-Verlag,1997:283-301.
20. Katayama Y, Tsubokawa T, Yamamoto T. Chronic motor cortexstimulation for central deafferentation pain: experience with bulbarpain secondary to Wallenberg syndrome. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg1994;62:295-9.
21. Nguyen JP, Keravel Y, Feve A, et al. Treatment of deafferentation painby chronic stimulation of the motor cortex: report of a series of 20cases. Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 1997;68:54-60.
22. Meyerson BA, Lindblom U, Linderoth B, Lind G, Herregodts P. Motorcortex stimulation as treatment of trigeminal neuropathic pain.Acta Neurochir Suppl (Wien) 1993;58:150-3.
23. Nguyen JP, Lefaucheur JP, Decq P, et al. Chronic motor cortexstimulation in the treatment of central and neuropathic pain.Correlations between clinical, electrophysiological and anatomicaldata. Pain 1999;82:245-51.
24. Tsubokawa T, Katayama Y, Yamamoto T, Hirayama T, Koyama S.
Pain Res Manage Vol 5 No 1 Spring 2000 105
Surgery for chronic neuropathic pain
5
G:\PAIN\2000\5#1\Park\Park.vpTue Apr 18 15:56:56 2000
Color profile: EMBASSY.CCM - Scitex ScitexComposite Default screen
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
Chronic motor cortex stimulation in patients with thalamic pain.J Neurosurg 1993;78:393-401.
25. Rosomoff HL, Papo I, Loeser JD. Neurosurgical operations of thespinal cord. In: Bonica J, Loeser JD, Chapman CR, Fordyce WE, eds.The Management of Pain. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1990:2067-81.
26. Nashold BS, Friedman AH, Sampson JH, Nashold JRB,El-Naggar AO. Dorsal root entry zone lesions for pain. In: YoumansJR, ed. Neurological Surgery. Philadelphia: WB Sounders,1996:3452-62.
27. Davis KD, Lozano AM, Tasker RR, Dostrovsky JO. Brain targets forpain control. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 1998;71:173-9.
28. Lovely TJ, Jannetta PJ. Microvascular decompression for trigeminalneuralgia. Surgical technique and long-term results.Neurosurg Clin NAm 1997;8:11-29.
29. Burchiel KJ, Clarke H, Haglund M, Loeser JD. Long-term efficacy ofmicrovascular decompression in trigeminal neuralgia. J Neurosurg1988;69:35-8.
30. Burchiel KJ, Steege TD, Howe JF, Loeser JD. Comparison ofpercutaneous radiofrequency gangliolysis and microvascular
decompression for the surgical management of tic douloureux.Neurosurgery 1981;9:111-9.
31. Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD, Flickinger JC, et al. Stereotacticradiosurgery for trigeminal neuralgia: a multiinstitutional study usingthe gamma unit. J Neurosurg 1996;84:940-5.
32. Pollock BE, Gorman DA, Schomberg PJ, Kline RW. The Mayo Clinicgamma knife experience: indications and initial results.Mayo Clin Proc 1999;74:5-13.
33. Young RF, Vermeulen SS, Grimm P, et al. Gamma knife thalamotomyfor the treatment of persistent pain. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg1995;64:172-81.
34. Lindquist C, Kihlstrom L. Department of Neurosurgery, KarolinskaInstitute: 60 years. Neurosurgery 1996;39:1016-21.
35. Young RF, Vermulen S, Posewitz A. Gamma knife radiosurgery forthe treatment of trigeminal neuralgia. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg1998;70(Suppl 1):192-9.
36. Kondziolka D, Lunsford LD, Flickinger JC. Gamma knife radiosurgeryas the first surgery for trigeminal neuralgia.Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 1998;70(Suppl 1):187-91.
106 Pain Res Manage Vol 5 No 1 Spring 2000
Park and Lozano
6
G:\PAIN\2000\5#1\Park\Park.vpTue Apr 18 15:56:56 2000
Color profile: EMBASSY.CCM - Scitex ScitexComposite Default screen
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
0
5
25
75
95
100
Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com
Stem CellsInternational
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION
of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Behavioural Neurology
EndocrinologyInternational Journal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Disease Markers
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
BioMed Research International
OncologyJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
PPAR Research
The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Journal of
ObesityJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
OphthalmologyJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Diabetes ResearchJournal of
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Research and TreatmentAIDS
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Parkinson’s Disease
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com