Literature DB >> 10491938

An in vivo preparation for investigating neural responses to controlled loading of a lumbar vertebra in the anesthetized cat.

J G Pickar1.   

Abstract

This paper describes a method for applying controlled loads to a lumbar vertebra while recording in vivo from primary afferents innervating the lumbar paraspinal tissues. Unlike the appendicular skeleton, the vertebral column poses a unique challenge for neurophysiological investigations. Distances between paraspinal tissues and the spinal cord are short. In addition, substantial removal of the paraspinal tissues to access the spinal roots or spinal cord appears necessary. The preparation described in this report takes advantage of the anatomical fact that the L6 dorsal root enters the spinal cord 2-2.5 vertebral segments rostral to its passage through the intervertebral foramina. This effectively lengthens the distance between the lumbar paraspinal tissues and central recording sites. The preparation has five unique features: (1) the L6 and L7 vertebrae remain intact; (2) lumbar paraspinal tissues and their attachments to the L6 and L7 vertebrae remain intact on one side of the vertebral column; (3) the intact L6 vertebra can be loaded at its spinous process; (4) the magnitude of the load applied at the L6 spinous process can be controlled with a feedback motor; (5) the direction of load relative to the long axis of the spine can be controlled. Using this preparation, single unit recordings were obtained from the L6 dorsal root during controlled loading of the L6 lumbar vertebra at its spinous process. The responses of two paraspinal muscle proprioceptors to vertebral loading are characterized in this report. With existing electrophysiological techniques this preparation can be used to study central processing of paraspinal inputs. By combining mechanical loading of the lumbar spine in the presence of inflammatory mediators this preparation can contribute to the understanding of the mechanisms by which interactions between mechanical and chemical stimuli likely produce low back pain.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10491938     DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0270(99)00060-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci Methods        ISSN: 0165-0270            Impact factor:   2.390


  35 in total

1.  Plane of vertebral movement eliciting muscle lengthening history in the low back influences the decrease in muscle spindle responsiveness of the cat.

Authors:  Weiqing Ge; Dong-Yuan Cao; Cynthia R Long; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2011-09-29

2.  The decreased responsiveness of lumbar muscle spindles to a prior history of spinal muscle lengthening is graded with the magnitude of change in vertebral position.

Authors:  Weiqing Ge; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 2.368

3.  Characteristics of Paraspinal Muscle Spindle Response to Mechanically Assisted Spinal Manipulation: A Preliminary Report.

Authors:  William R Reed; Joel G Pickar; Randall S Sozio; Michael A K Liebschner; Joshua W Little; Maruti R Gudavalli
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2017-06-17       Impact factor: 1.437

4.  Performance and reliability of a variable rate, force/displacement application system.

Authors:  Michèle Vaillant; Joel G Pickar; Gregory N Kawchuk
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.437

5.  Vertebral position alters paraspinal muscle spindle responsiveness in the feline spine: effect of positioning duration.

Authors:  Weiqing Ge; Cynthia R Long; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2005-10-06       Impact factor: 5.182

6.  Response of lumbar paraspinal muscles spindles is greater to spinal manipulative loading compared with slower loading under length control.

Authors:  Joel G Pickar; Paul S Sung; Yu-Ming Kang; Weiqing Ge
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-01-10       Impact factor: 4.166

7.  Determination of torque-limits for human and cat lumbar spine specimens during displacement-controlled physiological motions.

Authors:  Allyson Ianuzzi; Joel G Pickar; Partap S Khalsa
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-11-05       Impact factor: 4.166

8.  Using vertebral movement and intact paraspinal muscles to determine the distribution of intrafusal fiber innervation of muscle spindle afferents in the anesthetized cat.

Authors:  William R Reed; Dong-Yuan Cao; Weiqing Ge; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-12-11       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Effects of thrust amplitude and duration of high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation on lumbar muscle spindle responses to vertebral position and movement.

Authors:  Dong-Yuan Cao; William R Reed; Cynthia R Long; Gregory N Kawchuk; Joel G Pickar
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.437

10.  Effect of changing lumbar stiffness by single facet joint dysfunction on the responsiveness of lumbar muscle spindles to vertebral movement.

Authors:  William R Reed; Joel G Pickar; Cynthia R Long
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2014-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.