• Siobhan M Schabrun, Emma Burns, Tribikram Thapa, and Paul Hodges.
• Brain Rehabilitation and Neuroplasticity Unit, School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia.
• Pain Med. 2018 Jun 1; 19 (6): 1227-1236.

ObjectiveNeuromodulation is increasingly investigated for the treatment of low back pain (LBP). However, the neurophysiological effects of common neuromodulatory techniques (anodal transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS] and peripheral electrical stimulation [PES]) have not been investigated in people with chronic LBP. Here we aimed to compare the effect of three neuromodulatory protocols (anodal tDCS, high intensity PES, and a priming protocol of combined tDCS/PES) on primary motor cortex (M1) excitability in people with and without chronic LBP.DesignCross-sectional.SettingUniversity laboratory.ParticipantsTen individuals with chronic LBP and 10 pain-free controls.MethodsParticipants received four interventions in random order across separate sessions: 1) anodal tDCS to M1 + PES to the back muscles; 2) tDCS + sham PES; 3) sham tDCS + PES; or 4) sham tDCS + sham PES. Motor cortical excitability (map volume, discrete map peaks, and cortical silent period [CSP]) was measured before and after each intervention.ResultsAnodal tDCS increased M1 excitability (increased map volume and reduced CSP) in controls but had no effect in the LBP group. PES reduced M1 excitability in both groups. The combined tDCS + PES treatment increased M1 excitability in the LBP group but had no effect in controls.ConclusionsThe neurophysiological response to common neuromodulatory treatments differs between people with and without LBP. This has relevance for the design and tailoring of neuromodulation in pain. Further, if the goal of treatment is to increase M1 excitability, a priming protocol (e.g., combined tDCS + PES) may be more effective than tDCS alone.

16 keywords...

hide…