Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39479369›Full record

ReviewBrain communications2024

The cingulum: a central hotspot for the battle against chronic intractable pain?

Linda Kollenburg, Hisse Arnts, Alexander Green, Ido Strauss, Kris Vissers, Saman Vinke, Erkan Kurt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Brain communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Linda KollenburgRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Functional Neurosurgery Unit, Nijmegen, 6525 GA, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1044-2838
Hisse ArntsRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Functional Neurosurgery Unit, Nijmegen, 6525 GA, Netherlands.
Alexander GreenOxford Functional Neurosurgery and Experimental Neurology Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neuroscience and Surgery, University of Oxford, Oxford OX39DU, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7262-7297
Ido StraussTel Aviv Medical Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Functional Neurosurgery Unit, Tel Aviv 6801298, Israel.
Kris VissersRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Pain and Palliative Care, Nijmegen, 6525 GA, Netherlands.
Saman VinkeRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Functional Neurosurgery Unit, Nijmegen, 6525 GA, Netherlands.
Erkan KurtRadboud University Medical Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Functional Neurosurgery Unit, Nijmegen, 6525 GA, Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3768-4007

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic pain causes a major burden on patient's lives, in part due to its profound socioeconomic impact. Despite the development of various pharmacological approaches and (minor) invasive treatments, a subset of patients remain refractory, hence why alternative targeted neurosurgical interventions like cingulotomy and deep brain stimulation of the anterior cingulate cortex should be considered in the last resort. Despite clinical evidence supporting the potential of these treatments in the management of chronic intractable pain, physicians remain reluctant on its clinical implementation. This can be partially attributed to the lack of clear overviews summarizing existent data. Hence, this article aims to evaluate the current status of cingulotomy and deep brain stimulation of the anterior cingulate cortex in the treatment of chronic intractable pain, to provide insight in whether these neurosurgical approaches and its target should be reconsidered in the current era. In the current study, a literature searches was performed using the PubMed database. Additional articles were searched manually through reviews or references cited within the articles. After exclusion, 24 and 5 articles remained included in the analysis of cingulotomy and deep brain stimulation of the anterior cingulate cortex, respectively. Results indicate that various surgical techniques have been described for cingulotomy and deep brain stimulation of the anterior cingulate cortex. Cingulotomy is shown to be effective 51-53% and 43-64% of patients with neoplastic and non-neoplastic pain at ≤6 months follow-up, and 82% (9/11) and 76% (90/118) at ≥ 12months follow-up, respectively. With regard to deep brain stimulation of the anterior cingulate cortex, no data on neoplastic pain was reported, however, 59% (10/17) and 57% (8/14) of patients with non-neoplastic pain were considered responders at ≤ 6 months and ≥ 12months follow-up, respectively. The most reported adverse events include change in affect (>6.9%, >29/420) and confusion (>4.8%, >20/420) for cingulotomy, and infection (12.8%, 6/47), seizures (8.5%, 4/47) and decline in semantic fluency (6.4%, 3/47) for deep brain stimulation of the anterior cingulate cortex. It can be concluded that cingulotomy and deep brain stimulation of the anterior cingulate cortex are effective last resort strategies for patients with refractory non-neoplastic and neoplastic pain, especially in case of an affective emotional component. Future research should be performed on the cingulum as a neurosurgical target as it allows for further exploration of promising treatment options for chronic intractable pain.

Indexed as

chronic paincingulate cortexcingulotomycingulumdeep brain stimulation

Identifiers

PMID39479369
PMCPMC11522883

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.