Evidence Hub

Neuronavigation‑guided rTMS of the facial motor cortex for atypical facial pain: Two case reports

Xiao D, Tao W, Li Y, Balbi M, Zhang Y

Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2026

Abstract

Objective: Evaluate safety and analgesic effect of neuronavigation-guided 10 Hz rTMS precisely targeting facial M1 in atypical facial pain (AFP).

Methods: Two adults with refractory AFP received 10 daily sessions (2,500 pulses/day) of 10 Hz rTMS at 110 % resting motor threshold. Targeting used MRI/CT-integrated neuronavigation to the facial M1. Pain severity (Barrow Neurological Institute [BNI] scale I-V) and adverse events were recorded through treatment and short follow-up.

Results: Both completed treatment without serious adverse events. Case 1 improved from BNI V at baseline to II at end of treatment, persisting BNI III for 15 days. Case 2 improved from BNI IV to I, with BNI III for 2 days after therapy; both reported better sleep and mood.

Conclusions: Neuronavigation-guided 10 Hz rTMS of facial M1 was well tolerated and associated with rapid, clinically meaningful analgesia in two AFP cases.

Significance: Pilot data support sham-controlled studies to define dose-response and durability, identify responders, and formalize navigated rTMS as a physiological screen to select candidates and targets for implanted brain stimulations.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free