E V Carrington1, J Evers2, S M Scott3, C H Knowles3, P R O'Connell4, J F X Jones5. 1. School of Medicine and Medical Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; GI Physiology Unit, The Wingate Institute of Neurogastroenterology, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; National Centre for Bowel Research and Surgical Innovation (NCRBSI), Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. 2. School of Medicine and Medical Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address: judith.evers@ucdconnect.ie. 3. GI Physiology Unit, The Wingate Institute of Neurogastroenterology, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; National Centre for Bowel Research and Surgical Innovation (NCRBSI), Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. 4. School of Medicine and Medical Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Surgical Professorial Unit, St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 5. School of Medicine and Medical Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Normal defaecation involves activation of anorectal mechanoreceptors responsive to pressure and stretch. The aim of this study was to develop selective anal and rectal mucosal light-touch stimulation suitable for measurement of cortical evoked potentials (EPs) in order to explore the sensory arm of these pathways. NEW METHOD: A novel device was manufactured to deliver selective rectal and/or anal light-touch stimulation using a shielded inter-dental brush mounted on a rotating stepper motor (1Hz, 1ms, 15° rotation). Resultant somatosensory EPs recorded with a 32-channel cortical multi-electrode array were compared to those elicited by electrical anorectal stimulation (2mm anal plug electrode [1Hz, 1ms, 10V]). RESULTS: Eighteen anaesthetized female Wistar rats (body mass 180-250g) were studied. Electrical and mechanical stimulation provoked similar maximal response amplitudes (electrical anorectal 39.0μV[SEM 5.5], mechanical anal 42.2μV[8.1], mechanical rectal 45.8μV[9.0]). Response latency was longer following mechanical stimulation (electrical anorectal 8.8ms[0.5], mechanical anal 16.4ms[1.1], mechanical rectal 18.3ms[2.5]). The extent of activated sensory cortex was smaller for mechanical stimulation. Sensory inferior rectal nerve activity was greater during anal compared to rectal mechanical in a subgroup of 4 rats. Evoked potentials were reproducible over 40min in a subgroup of 9 rats. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Cortical EPs are typically recorded in response to non-physiological electrical stimuli. The use of a mechanical stimulus may provide a more localized physiological method of assessment. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge these are the first selective brush-elicited anal and rectal EPs recorded in animals and provide a physiological approach to testing of anorectal afferent pathways.
BACKGROUND: Normal defaecation involves activation of anorectal mechanoreceptors responsive to pressure and stretch. The aim of this study was to develop selective anal and rectal mucosal light-touch stimulation suitable for measurement of cortical evoked potentials (EPs) in order to explore the sensory arm of these pathways. NEW METHOD: A novel device was manufactured to deliver selective rectal and/or anal light-touch stimulation using a shielded inter-dental brush mounted on a rotating stepper motor (1Hz, 1ms, 15° rotation). Resultant somatosensory EPs recorded with a 32-channel cortical multi-electrode array were compared to those elicited by electrical anorectal stimulation (2mm anal plug electrode [1Hz, 1ms, 10V]). RESULTS: Eighteen anaesthetized female Wistar rats (body mass 180-250g) were studied. Electrical and mechanical stimulation provoked similar maximal response amplitudes (electrical anorectal 39.0μV[SEM 5.5], mechanical anal 42.2μV[8.1], mechanical rectal 45.8μV[9.0]). Response latency was longer following mechanical stimulation (electrical anorectal 8.8ms[0.5], mechanical anal 16.4ms[1.1], mechanical rectal 18.3ms[2.5]). The extent of activated sensory cortex was smaller for mechanical stimulation. Sensory inferior rectal nerve activity was greater during anal compared to rectal mechanical in a subgroup of 4 rats. Evoked potentials were reproducible over 40min in a subgroup of 9 rats. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Cortical EPs are typically recorded in response to non-physiological electrical stimuli. The use of a mechanical stimulus may provide a more localized physiological method of assessment. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge these are the first selective brush-elicited anal and rectal EPs recorded in animals and provide a physiological approach to testing of anorectal afferent pathways.