Long-term Outcomes of Deep Brain Stimulation for Neuropathic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Deep brain stimulation (DBS) to treat neuropathic pain refractory to pharmacotherapy has reported variable outcomes and has gained United Kingdom but not USA regulatory approval. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess long-term efficacy of DBS for chronic neuropathic pain in a single-center case series. METHODS: Patient reported outcome measures were collated before and after surgery, using a visual analog score, short-form 36-question quality-of-life survey, McGill pain questionnaire, and EuroQol-5D questionnaires (EQ-5D and health state). RESULTS: One hundred ninety-seven patients were referred over 12 years, of whom 85 received DBS for various etiologies: 9 amputees, 7 brachial plexus injuries, 31 after stroke, 13 with spinal pathology, 15 with head and face pain, and 10 miscellaneous. Mean age at surgery was 52 years, and mean follow-up was 19.6 months. Contralateral DBS targeted the periventricular gray area (n = 33), the ventral posterior nuclei of the thalamus (n = 15), or both targets (n = 37). Almost 70% (69.4%) of patients retained implants 6 months after surgery. Thirty-nine of 59 (66%) of those implanted gained benefit and efficacy varied by etiology, improving outcomes in 89% after amputation and 70% after stroke. In this cohort, >30% improvements sustained in visual analog score, McGill pain questionnaire, short-form 36-question quality-of-life survey, and EuroQol-5D questionnaire were observed in 15 patients with >42 months of follow-up, with several outcome measures improving from those assessed at 1 year. CONCLUSION: DBS for pain has long-term efficacy for select etiologies. Clinical trials retaining patients in long-term follow-up are desirable to confirm findings from prospectively assessed case series. ABBREVIATIONS: DBS, deep brain stimulation EQ-5D, EuroQol-5D questionnaire IPG, implantable pulse generator MPQ, McGill pain questionnaire PVG, periventricular gray region SD, standard deviation SF-36, short-form 36-question quality-of-life survey VAS, visual analog score VPL, ventral posterior lateral thalamic nuclei VPM, ventral posterior medial thalamic nuclei
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".