Skip to content

Spinal cord and central neuropathic pain

TL;DR — Central neuropathic pain requires a CNS somatosensory lesion with a matching distribution and signs (Widerström-Noga 2017, PMID 28666966). After SCI, pooled neuropathic-pain prevalence is 53% (95% CI 38.58–67.47), with 19% at-level and 27% below-level (Burke 2017, PMID 27341614). Stroke, MS and SCI evidence cannot be merged casually because anatomy and coexisting spasticity or musculoskeletal pain differ.

Classification

SCI pain is at-level or below-level; at-level pain may mix root and cord mechanisms (Widerström-Noga 2017, PMID 28451808). Post-stroke pain should map to a relevant spinothalamic/thalamocortical lesion (Betancur 2021, PMID 34484097).

Central neuropathic pain is a localization diagnosis, not a descriptor diagnosis. Burning or electric pain after stroke can still be shoulder, spasticity-related or peripheral pain; numbness below SCI can coexist with pressure injury, entrapment or visceral disease (Watson 2016, PMID 26944242).

Syndrome Required lesion link Typical distribution Common competing pain
Central post-stroke pain Brain lesion affecting somatosensory pathways Contralateral body region matching lesion Shoulder, spasticity, headache
SCI at-level pain Cord/root lesion near neurologic level Segmental band Root injury, instability, overuse
SCI below-level pain Cord lesion Diffuse below lesion Visceral, pressure injury, spasticity
MS central pain Demyelinating CNS lesion Variable lesion-concordant territory Trigeminal, spasticity, musculoskeletal
Syringomyelia Cord cavity and tract involvement Segmental/cape or below-level Mechanical spine pain

Diagnosis

Confirm lesion, distribution and sensory signs; exclude pressure injury, syrinx, instability, spasticity, visceral disease and entrapment (Widerström-Noga 2017, PMID 28666966).

SCI burden

Seventeen studies/2,529 people yielded 53% pooled prevalence, with high heterogeneity (I² 84–93%) (Burke 2017, PMID 27341614).

Prevalence is therefore a range, not a stable constant. Injury completeness, level, time since injury, case definition and whether at-level and below-level syndromes are separated all shift estimates. Cross-sectional burden also misses delayed onset and changing mixed-pain generators.

SCI treatment

Pregabalin/gabapentin have the broadest pharmacologic base; evidence for other drugs is small and heterogeneous (Mehta 2016, PMID 26797114). Rehabilitation targets sleep and function.

A gabapentin-versus-pregabalin meta-analysis found both reduced SCI neuropathic pain without a statistically significant difference between them, but the small trial base and adverse-event reporting limit comparative certainty (Davari 2020, PMID 31888312). Choice remains driven by renal function, sedation, edema, dosing and prior response rather than a demonstrated class winner.

A 20-session multidisciplinary program over 10 weeks combined education, cognitive/behavioral work, relaxation, stretching and exercise. In 27 treated versus 11 control participants, depression and sense of coherence improved and sleep showed a favorable tendency at 12 months, without evidence of a large analgesic effect (Norrbrink Budh 2006, PMID 16702084). Small, non-randomized designs support rehabilitation as complement, not replacement for analgesic trials.

Post-stroke pain

A network meta-analysis included only 13 RCTs/529 participants; several large standardized effects arose from small studies and require cautious replication (Bo 2022, PMID 36035203).

Delayed onset may obscure the causal link to stroke, and impaired sensory discrimination complicates separation from spasticity or musculoskeletal pain (Watson 2016, PMID 26944242). Lesion concordance and a bedside sensory map should therefore be eligibility criteria in trials rather than post hoc descriptions.

MS

Pain may be central, trigeminal, spasticity-related or musculoskeletal. Cannabinoid evidence addresses mixed MS symptoms and should not be read as central-pain-specific proof (Filippini 2022, PMID 35510826).

The same interpretive problem applies to botulinum toxin: it has established motor effects for spasticity and plausible sensory actions, but central-pain evidence spans heterogeneous syndromes and cannot distinguish analgesia from reduced spasticity or shoulder mechanics (Park 2018, PMID 29857568).

Non-invasive stimulation

rTMS meta-analyses suggest short-term benefit in SCI and post-stroke pain, but protocols and durability vary (Gao 2017, PMID 27603408); (Gurdiel-Álvarez 2024, PMID 38419662).

Stimulation evidence is sensitive to cortical target, frequency, intensity, number of sessions, sham credibility and timing of measurement. A positive immediate post-course mean difference cannot establish durable benefit. Trials should report responder proportions, functional outcomes and maintenance schedules in addition to pain-score change.

Lesion topography and phenotype

In a comparative study of 39 central post-stroke and 40 spinal-cord central-pain participants, post-stroke cases had more evoked/paroxysmal pain and lower cold-detection limen (5.6°C versus 20.0°C), while cord cases had higher mechanical pain thresholds (784.5 versus 235.2 mN) (Barbosa 2023, PMID 36773324). This supports etiologic stratification, but cross-sectional sensory differences do not yet predict treatment response.

Experimental work implicates loss of inhibition, thalamic dysrhythmia, spinothalamic deafferentation, microglial activation and maladaptive cortical plasticity. A thalamic loss-of-inhibition model offers a mechanistic bridge from cord injury to supraspinal amplification, but remains insufficient as a clinical biomarker (Masri 2012, PMID 23281514).

Controversy Position A Position B Resolution needed
Pool etiologies Shared central-lesion framework enables trials Brain and cord phenotypes differ materially Prespecified lesion/topography strata
Treat pain score Comparable primary endpoint Misses sleep, participation and spasticity Core outcome set with responder thresholds
Use QST for selection Captures sensory mechanism Cross-sectional differences are not predictive Prospective treatment-interaction study
rTMS efficacy Meta-analytic short-term signal Small heterogeneous trials and uncertain durability Larger sham-controlled maintenance trial
Cannabinoids in MS Symptom benefit may include pain Mixed symptom outcomes obscure central pain Lesion-confirmed central-pain trial

Evidence table

Syndrome Key competing pain Research gap
SCI at-level Root/shoulder/overuse Mixed localization
SCI below-level Spasticity/visceral pain Biomarker validation
Post-stroke Shoulder/spasticity Small RCTs
MS Spasticity/musculoskeletal Phenotype-specific trials
Syrinx Mechanical spine pain Rare cohorts

Evidence interpretation map

The table makes the evidence role and inferential boundary explicit; it is not a replacement for the full reports.

PMID Year Evidence role What it cannot establish alone
27341614 2017 SCI prevalence meta-analysis Individual risk or stable universal prevalence
36773324 2023 Brain-versus-cord sensory comparison Treatment prediction
36035203 2022 Post-stroke network meta-analysis Robust ranking from large trials
38419662 2024 rTMS systematic review/meta-analysis Long-term maintenance effect
16702084 2006 Multidisciplinary prospective program Randomized analgesic efficacy

Minimum reporting controls

Domain Required report
Case definition Possible, probable or definite neuropathic pain
Etiology Lesion/disease and diagnostic evidence
Distribution Focal, length-dependent, dermatomal, at-level or below-level
Baseline phenotype Negative and positive sensory signs
Comparator Placebo/sham, active care or natural history
Exposure Dose, duration, adherence and co-interventions
Benefit Mean change plus ≥30% and ≥50% responders where applicable
Function Sleep, mobility, participation and patient global change
Harm Adverse events, withdrawals and serious events
Durability Follow-up after treatment and attrition
Subgroups Prespecified interaction test, not within-group significance
Missingness Denominator and imputation method

Reporting cautions

  • Do not infer lesion presence from a symptom descriptor.
  • Do not convert a group-average association into an individual diagnostic rule.
  • Do not treat statistical significance as clinically important benefit.
  • Do not compare NNTs without checking outcome threshold, duration and population.
  • Do not interpret an inactive or completed registry record as proof of efficacy.
  • Do not merge painful and painless neuropathy outcomes.
  • Do not omit adverse-event withdrawals from responder interpretation.
  • Do not call a post hoc subgroup predictive without an interaction test.
  • Do not generalize a focal peripheral result to central neuropathic pain.
  • State when evidence is short-term, indirect or restricted to a selected cohort.

Open questions

  • Can lesion mapping predict phenotype?
  • Which SCI treatments retain benefit beyond six months?
  • Can rTMS protocols be standardized?
  • How should mixed MS pain be classified?

References

  1. Widerström-Noga E, Loeser JD, Jensen TS, et al.. AAPT Diagnostic Criteria for Central Neuropathic Pain. J Pain. 2017;18:1417-1426. PMID 28666966
  2. Burke D, Fullen BM, Stokes D, et al.. Neuropathic pain prevalence following spinal cord injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pain. 2017;21:29-44. PMID 27341614
  3. Widerström-Noga E. Neuropathic Pain and Spinal Cord Injury: Phenotypes and Pharmacological Management. Drugs. 2017;77:967-984. PMID 28451808
  4. Betancur DFA, Tarragó MDGL, Torres ILDS, et al.. Central Post-Stroke Pain: An Integrative Review of Somatotopic Damage, Clinical Symptoms, and Neurophysiological Measures. Front Neurol. 2021;12:678198. PMID 34484097
  5. Mehta S, McIntyre A, Janzen S, et al.. Systematic Review of Pharmacologic Treatments of Pain After Spinal Cord Injury: An Update. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97:1381-1391.e1. PMID 26797114
  6. Bo Z, Jian Y, Yan L, et al.. Pharmacotherapies for Central Post-Stroke Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022;2022:3511385. PMID 36035203
  7. Filippini G, Minozzi S, Borrelli F, et al.. Cannabis and cannabinoids for symptomatic treatment for people with multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;5:CD013444. PMID 35510826
  8. Gao F, Chu H, Li J, et al.. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for pain after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurosurg Sci. 2017;61:514-522. PMID 27603408
  9. Gurdiel-Álvarez F, Navarro-López V, Varela-Rodríguez S, et al.. Transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy for central post-stroke pain: systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Neurosci. 2024;18:1345128. PMID 38419662
  10. Rosner J, de Andrade DC, Davis KD, et al.. Central neuropathic pain. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2023;9:73. PMID 38129427
  11. Finnerup NB, Jensen TS. Spinal cord injury pain--mechanisms and treatment. Eur J Neurol. 2004;11:73-82. PMID 14748766
  12. Teasell RW, Mehta S, Aubut JA, et al.. A systematic review of pharmacologic treatments of pain after spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:816-31. PMID 20434623
  13. Koukoulithras I, Alkhazi A, Gkampenis A, et al.. A Systematic Review of the Interventions for Management of Pain in Patients After Spinal Cord Injury. Cureus. 2023;15:e42657. PMID 37644939
  14. Chi B, Chau B, Yeo E, et al.. Virtual reality for spinal cord injury-associated neuropathic pain: Systematic review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019;62:49-57. PMID 30312665
  15. Brinzeu A, Berthiller J, Caillet JB, et al.. Ziconotide for spinal cord injury-related pain. Eur J Pain. 2019;23:1688-1700. PMID 31233255
  16. Li C, Jirachaipitak S, Wrigley P, et al.. Transcranial direct current stimulation for spinal cord injury-associated neuropathic pain. Korean J Pain. 2021;34:156-164. PMID 33785667
  17. Oh H, Seo W. A Comprehensive Review of Central Post-Stroke Pain. Pain Manag Nurs. 2015;16:804-18. PMID 25962545
  18. Kumar G, Soni CR. Central post-stroke pain: current evidence. J Neurol Sci. 2009;284:10-7. PMID 19419737
  19. Akyuz G, Kuru P. Systematic Review of Central Post Stroke Pain: What Is Happening in the Central Nervous System? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;95:618-27. PMID 27175563
  20. Choi HR, Aktas A, Bottros MM. Pharmacotherapy to Manage Central Post-Stroke Pain. CNS Drugs. 2021;35:151-160. PMID 33550430
  21. Lefaucheur JP, Aleman A, Baeken C, et al.. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014-2018). Clin Neurophysiol. 2020;131:474-528. PMID 31901449
  22. Lefaucheur JP, Antal A, Ayache SS, et al.. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128:56-92. PMID 27866120
  23. Zhang YH, Hu HY, Xiong YC, et al.. Exercise for Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Expert Consensus. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:756940. PMID 34901069
  24. Widerström-Noga E. Neuropathic Pain and Spinal Cord Injury: Management, Phenotypes, and Biomarkers. Drugs. 2023;83:1001-1025. PMID 37326804
  25. Argoff CE. Central Neuropathic Pain. Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2024;30:1381-1396. PMID 39445926
  26. Watson JC, Sandroni P. Central Neuropathic Pain Syndromes. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91:372-385. PMID 26944242
  27. Park J, Chung ME. Botulinum Toxin for Central Neuropathic Pain. Toxins (Basel). 2018;10. PMID 29857568
  28. Barbosa LM, Valerio F, Pereira SLA, et al. Site matters: Central neuropathic pain characteristics and somatosensory findings after brain and spinal cord lesions. Eur J Neurol. 2023;30:1443-1452. PMID 36773324
  29. Masri R, Keller A. Chronic pain following spinal cord injury. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2012;760:74-88. PMID 23281514
  30. Norrbrink Budh C, Kowalski J, Lundeberg T. A comprehensive pain management programme comprising educational, cognitive and behavioural interventions for neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury. J Rehabil Med. 2006;38:172-180. PMID 16702084
  31. Davari M, Amani B, Amani B, et al. Pregabalin and gabapentin in neuropathic pain management after spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Pain. 2020;33:3-12. PMID 31888312