original abstract †Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
INTRODUCTION: Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (t-VNS) has been proposed as an alternative method for the treatment of various neurological and psychiatric disorders. Contrary to the classic invasive vagus nerve stimulation (i-VNS), t-VNS does not require surgical intervention. The application of t-VNS for the treatment of epilepsy has been poorly studied. Hence, we performed a systematic review of the literature to elucidate efficacy, adverse effects and technical features of t-VNS in patients with epilepsy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases using the following keywords: [TRANSCUTANEOUS VAGUS NERVE STIMULATION OR TRANSCUTANEOUS VAGAL NERVE STIMULATION] AND [EPILEPSY OR SEIZURES]. We searched for observational studies in English concerning the application of t-VNS for the treatment of epilepsy in humans. The full-text version of relevant studies was obtained and reviewed. Technical parameters of the stimulation, percentage of seizure frequency reduction, QOLIE-31(Quality of Life In Epilepsy-31) and LSSS (Liverpool Seizure Severity Scale) questionnaires and adverse effects were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies with 350 patients were included. Both bilateral and unilateral placement of the electrode were applied. Stimulation frequency varied from 10-30Hz, while treatment intensity was usually adjusted according to patients' preferences and tolerance (around 1mA) and below the pain threshold. In the clinical trials included in our review, the mean seizure frequency reduction varied from 30 to 65%. Eight and four studies provided information about QOLIE-31 and LSSS questionnaires respectively. Three studies reported a statistically significant (p<0,05) improvement in patients' quality of life and two studies reported statistically significant (p<0,05) seizure severity reduction. The most common side effect was headache (8,9%), followed by skin irritation at the placement site (7,1%) and nasopharyngitis (5,1%). No serious or life-threatening side effects were reported. CONCLUSION: Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, no safe conclusions could be extracted concerning the efficacy of t-VNS. However, the results of this review suggest that patients with epilepsy could possibly benefit from the use of t-VNS. The present study also emphasizes the limitations of previous clinical trials concerning the applications of t-VNS in people with epilepsy and thus could be a guidance for the conduction of future trials.
This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights:
- Exercise and education versus saline injections for knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled equivalence trial. Bandak 2022 Ann Rheum Dis.
- Association of Lumbar MRI Findings with Current and Future Back Pain in a Population-based Cohort Study. Kasch 2022 Spine (Phila Pa 1976).
- A double-blinded randomised controlled study of the value of sequential intravenous and oral magnesium therapy in patients with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component. Yousef 2013 Anaesthesia.
- Is Neck Posture Subgroup in Late Adolescence a Risk Factor for Persistent Neck Pain in Young Adults? A Prospective Study. Richards 2021 Phys Ther.
- Sudden amnesia resulting in pain relief: the relationship between memory and pain. Choi 2007 Pain.