A review of burn symptoms and potential novel neural targets for non-invasive brain stimulation for treatment of burn sequelae

Burn survivors experience myriad associated symptoms such as pain, pruritus, fatigue, impaired motor strength, post-traumatic stress, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance. Many of these symptoms are common and remain chronic, despite current standard of care. One potential novel intervention to target these post burn symptoms is transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). tDCS is a non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) technique that modulates neural excitability of a specific target or neural network. The aim of this work is to review the neural circuits of the aforementioned clinical sequelae associated with burn injuries and to provide a scientific rationale for specific NIBS targets that can potentially treat these conditions. We ran a systematic review, following the PRISMA statement, of tDCS effects on burn symptoms. Only three studies matched our criteria. One was a feasibility study assessing cortical plasticity in chronic neuropathic pain following burn injury, one looked at the effects of tDCS to reduce pain anxiety during burn wound care, and one assessed the effects of tDCS to manage pain and pruritus in burn survivors. Current literature on NIBS in burn remains limited, only a few trials have been conducted. Based on our review and results in other populations suffering from similar symptoms as patients with burn injuries, three main areas were selected: the prefrontal region, the parietal area and the motor cortex. Based on the importance of the prefrontal cortex in the emotional component of pain and its implication in various psychosocial symptoms, targeting this region may represent the most promising target. Our review of the neural circuitry involved in post burn symptoms and suggested targeted areas for stimulation provide a spring board for future study initiatives.     

Decreased neuroplasticity in minor burn injury survivors compared to non-injured adults: A pilot study in burn injury survivors aged 45 years and older

ObjectiveNeuroplasticity is the capacity of the brain to change or adapt with experience: brain changes occur with use, disuse, and injury. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can be used to induce neuroplasticity in the human brain. Here, we examined rTMS-induced neuroplasticity in the primary motor cortex in burns survivors and controls without injury, and whether neuroplasticity is associated with functional recovery in burns survivors.MethodsSixteen burn injury survivors (total body surface area of burn injury <15%) and 13 non-injured control participants were tested. Repetitive TMS (specifically, spaced continuous theta-burst stimulation[cTBS]) was applied to induce neuroplasticity 6 and 12 weeks after injury in burn survivors and in two sessions separated by 6 weeks in controls. Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by single-pulse TMS were measured before and after rTMS to measure neuroplasticity. Burns survivors completed a functional assessment 12 weeks after injury.ResultsNon-injured controls showed decreased MEP amplitude 15?30 min after spaced cTBS in both experimental sessions. Burn survivors showed a smaller change in MEP amplitude after spaced cTBS compared to controls 6 weeks after burn injury but no difference compared to controls 12 weeks after burn injury. In burn survivors, there was a significant positive association between general health outcome (Short-Form Health Survey) and the change in MEP amplitude after spaced cTBS 12 weeks after injury (r=.73, p = .01).ConclusionsThe current findings suggest that burn survivors have a reduced capacity for neuroplasticity early in the recovery period (6 weeks after injury), which normalizes later in the recovery period (12 weeks after injury). Furthermore, the results provide preliminary evidence to suggest that burn survivors with normalized neuroplasticity 12 weeks after injury recover faster after burn injury.     

Comparison of Single and Dual Monitoring during Carotid Endarterectomy

We compared the rate of selective shunt and pattern of monitoring change between single and dual monitoring in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA). A total of 121 patients underwent 128 consecutive CEA procedures. Excluding five procedures using internal shunts in a premeditated manner, we classified patients according to the monitoring: Group A (n = 72), patients with single somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring; and Group B (n = 51), patients with dual SSEP and motor evoked potential (MEP). Among the 123 CEAs, an internal shunt was inserted in 12 procedures (9.8%) due to significant changes in monitoring (Group A 5.6%, Group B 15.7%, p = 0.07). The rate of shunt use was significantly higher in patients with the absence of contralateral proximal anterior cerebral artery (A1) on magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) than in patients with other types of MRA (p <0.001). Significant monitor changes were seen in 16 (12.5%) in both groups. In four of nine patients in Group B, SSEP and MEP changes were synchronized, and in the remaining five patients, a time lag was evident between SSEP and MEP changes. In conclusion, the rate of internal shunt use tended to be more frequent in patients with dual monitoring than in patients with single SSEP monitoring, but the difference was not significant. Contralateral A1 absence may predict the need for a shunt and care should be taken to monitor changes throughout the entire CEA procedure. Use of dual monitoring can capture ischemic changes due to the complementary relationship, and may reduce the rate of false-negative monitor changes during CEA.     

Can supplementary contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast avoid needle biopsies in suspicious microcalcifications seen on mammography? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PurposeTo analyze the rate of potentially avoidable needle biopsies in mammographically suspicious calcifications if supplementary Contrast-Enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) is negative.MethodsUsing predefined criteria, a systematic review was performed. Studies investigating the use of supplemental CE-MRI in the setting of mammographically suspicious calcifications undergoing stereotactic biopsy and published between 2000 and 2020 were eligible. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics and true positives (TP), false positives, true negatives and false negatives (FN). Specificity, in this setting equaling the number of avoidable biopsies and FN rates were calculated. The maximum pre-test probability at which post-test probabilities of a negative CE-MRI met with BI-RADS benchmarks was determined by a Fagan nomogram. Random-effects models, I²-statistics, Deek’s funnel plot testing and meta-regression were employed. P-values <0.05 were considered significant.ResultsThirteen studies investigating 1414 lesions with a cancer prevalence of 43.6% (range: 22.7–66.9%) were included. No publication bias was found (P = 0.91). CE-MRI performed better in pure microcalcification studies compared to those also including associate findings (P < 0.001). In the first group, the pooled rate of avoidable biopsies was 80.6% (95%-CI: 64.6–90.5%) while the overall and invasive cancer FN rates were 3.7% (95%-CI: 1.2–6.2%) and 1.6% (95%-CI 0–3.6%), respectively. Up to a pre-test probability of 22%, the post-test probability did not exceed 2%.ConclusionA negative supplementary CE-MRI could potentially avoid 80.6% of unnecessary stereotactic biopsies in BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications at a cost of 3.7% missed breast cancers, 1.6% invasive. BI-RADS benchmarks for downgrading mammographic calcifications would be met up to a pretest probability of 22%.     

Imaging of traumatic peripheral nerve injuries

Nerves are commonly injured in case of blunt or penetrating trauma to the extremities. Patients with nerve injuries have profound consequences and thus a timely decision for operative management is a very important. Conventionally, management decisions have been based on clinical findings, patient course and electrophysiological studies. However, imaging modalities have an enormous role not only in localizing and grading of the nerve injuries but also in the follow-up of the nerve recovery. High-resolution ultrasound (HUS) is the modality of choice for evaluation of peripheral nerves. Magnetic resonance neurography (MRN) plays a complementary role, enabling better assessment of muscle changes and deeper nerves. Corresponding to the injured layer of the cross-section of the nerve, imaging manifestations differ in different grades of injury. Since imaging cannot detect ultrastructural changes at the microscopic level, thus there may be overlap in the imaging findings. Herewith, we discuss the imaging findings in different grades of nerve injury and propose a simple 3-tier grading for imaging (HUS and MRN) assessment of peripheral nerve injuries.     

The role of peripheral nerve stimulation in the era of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia

With the widespread use of ultrasound for localising nerves during peripheral nerve blockade, the value of electrical nerve stimulation of evoked motor responses has been questioned. Studies continue to show that, compared with nerve stimulation, ultrasound guidance alone leads to: significantly improved block success; decreased need for rescue analgesia; decreased procedural pain; and lower rates of vascular puncture. Nerve stimulation combined with ultrasound does also not appear to improve block success rates, apart from those blocks where the nerves are challenging to view, such as the obturator nerve. The role of nerve stimulation has changed in the last 15 years from a technique to locate nerves to that of an adjunct to ultrasound. Nerve stimulation can serve as a monitor against needle-nerve contact and may be useful in avoiding nerves that are in the needle trajectory during specific ultrasound guided techniques. Nerve stimulation is also a useful adjunct in teaching novices ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia, especially when the position and or appearance of nerves may be variable. In this review, the changing role of nerve stimulation in contemporary regional anaesthetic practice is presented and discussed.