Koen P V Meuwissen1,2, Jianwen Wendy Gu3, Tianhe C Zhang3, Elbert A J Joosten1,2. 1. Pain Management and Research Centre, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 2. Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 3. Neuromodulation, Research and Advanced Concepts Team, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Two well-known spinal cord stimulation (SCS) paradigms, conventional (Con) and burst SCS, are hypothesized to exert their antinociceptive effects through different stimulation-induced mechanisms. We studied the course of the behavioral antinociceptive effect during 60 minutes of SCS and 30 minutes post-SCS in a rat model of chronic neuropathic pain. METHODS: Animals underwent a unilateral partial sciatic nerve ligation, after which quadripolar electrodes were implanted into the epidural space at vertebral level T13 (n = 43 rats). While receiving either Con SCS or biphasic burst SCS, the pain behavior of the rats was assessed by means of paw withdrawal thresholds (WTs) in response to the application of von Frey monofilaments. RESULTS: After 15 minutes of Con SCS (n = 21), WTs significantly differed from baseline (P = 0.04), whereas WTs of the burst SCS group (n = 22) did not. After 30 minutes of SCS, WTs of the Con SCS and burst SCS groups reached similar levels, both significantly different from baseline, indicating a comparable antinociceptive effect for these SCS paradigms. Yet, the WTs of the burst SCS group were still significantly increased compared with baseline at 30 minutes post-stimulation, whereas the WTs of the Con SCS group were not. CONCLUSIONS: To conclude, biphasic burst SCS results in a delayed antinociceptive effect after onset of the stimulation, as compared with Con SCS, in a chronic neuropathic pain model. Furthermore, biphasic burst SCS seems to exhibit a delayed wash-out of analgesia after stimulation is turned off.
OBJECTIVE: Two well-known spinal cord stimulation (SCS) paradigms, conventional (Con) and burst SCS, are hypothesized to exert their antinociceptive effects through different stimulation-induced mechanisms. We studied the course of the behavioral antinociceptive effect during 60 minutes of SCS and 30 minutes post-SCS in a rat model of chronic neuropathic pain. METHODS: Animals underwent a unilateral partial sciatic nerve ligation, after which quadripolar electrodes were implanted into the epidural space at vertebral level T13 (n = 43 rats). While receiving either Con SCS or biphasic burst SCS, the pain behavior of the rats was assessed by means of paw withdrawal thresholds (WTs) in response to the application of von Frey monofilaments. RESULTS: After 15 minutes of Con SCS (n = 21), WTs significantly differed from baseline (P = 0.04), whereas WTs of the burst SCS group (n = 22) did not. After 30 minutes of SCS, WTs of the Con SCS and burst SCS groups reached similar levels, both significantly different from baseline, indicating a comparable antinociceptive effect for these SCS paradigms. Yet, the WTs of the burst SCS group were still significantly increased compared with baseline at 30 minutes post-stimulation, whereas the WTs of the Con SCS group were not. CONCLUSIONS: To conclude, biphasic burst SCS results in a delayed antinociceptive effect after onset of the stimulation, as compared with Con SCS, in a chronic neuropathic pain model. Furthermore, biphasic burst SCS seems to exhibit a delayed wash-out of analgesia after stimulation is turned off.
Authors: Jacob Caylor; Rajiv Reddy; Sopyda Yin; Christina Cui; Mingxiong Huang; Charles Huang; Rao Ramesh; Dewleen G Baker; Alan Simmons; Dmitri Souza; Samer Narouze; Ricardo Vallejo; Imanuel Lerman Journal: Bioelectron Med Date: 2019-06-28
Authors: Koen P V Meuwissen; Luuk E de Vries; Jianwen Wendy Gu; Tianhe C Zhang; Elbert A J Joosten Journal: Pain Pract Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Martijn R Mons; Caro Edelbroek; Xander Zuidema; Katja Bürger; Lars Elzinga; Jessica de Vries; Sander van Kuijk; Elbert A Joosten; Jan-Willem Kallewaard Journal: Trials Date: 2022-09-05 Impact factor: 2.728