Literature DB >> 7435661

Effect of anodal blockade of myelinated fibers on vagal C-fiber afferents.

F A Hopp, E J Zuperku, R L Coon, J P Kampine.   

Abstract

The effects of monopolar cathodal, monopolar anodal, and bipolar anodal polarizing currents on vagal A- and C-fiber activity were studied in anesthetized dogs. Monopolar cathodal polarization consistently produced excitation of spontaneous and evoked A- and C-fibers. Monopolar anodal and bipolar anodal polarizations differentially blocked A-fibers as a function of fiber diameter. The specific purpose of this study was to compare the effects of monopolar anodal and bipolar anodal currents on C-fiber excitability. Small fiber preparations were dissected from the vagal trunk, cut centrally, and placed on recording electrodes. A constant-current stimulus pulse was applied to the nerve at various distances from the blocking electrodes. The stimulus current strength was increased until an isolated C-fiber spike was observed. This value was defined as 100% of threshold. The stimulus current was then reduced to zero, the blocking current was increased slowly to 100 microA, and the procedure repeated. Threshold data obtained in this manner for each set of stimulation electrodes was plotted as a function of distance from the blocking electrode(s) for both modes of anodal blockade. No significant change in C-fiber excitability was observed with bipolar anodal blockade, whereas excitability was significantly (P less than or equal to 0.05) decreased using the monopolar technique. Thus, monopolar anodal block may reduce the possibility of asynchronous C-fiber discharge, which has been associated with a bipolar block of A-fibers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1980        PMID: 7435661     DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.1980.239.5.R454

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Physiol        ISSN: 0002-9513


  8 in total

1.  Break excitation alone does not explain the delay and amplitude of anodal current-induced vasodilatation in human skin.

Authors:  S Durand; B Fromy; A Humeau; D Sigaudo-Roussel; J L Saumet; P Abraham
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2002-07-15       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  Electronics for a Safe Direct Current Stimulator.

Authors:  Patrick Ou; Gene Fridman
Journal:  IEEE Biomed Circuits Syst Conf       Date:  2018-03-29

3.  Continuous Direct Current Nerve Block Using Multi Contact High Capacitance Electrodes.

Authors:  Tina Vrabec; Niloy Bhadra; Gustaf Van Acker; Narendra Bhadra; Kevin Kilgore
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2016-07-09       Impact factor: 3.802

4.  Characterization of high capacitance electrodes for the application of direct current electrical nerve block.

Authors:  Tina Vrabec; Niloy Bhadra; Jesse Wainright; Narendra Bhadra; Manfred Franke; Kevin Kilgore
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2015-09-11       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  A Carbon Slurry Separated Interface Nerve Electrode for Electrical Block of Nerve Conduction.

Authors:  Tina L Vrabec; Jesse S Wainright; Narendra Bhadra; Laura Shaw; Kevin L Kilgore; Niloy Bhadra
Journal:  IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng       Date:  2019-04-04       Impact factor: 3.802

6.  Analysis of nerve conduction block induced by direct current.

Authors:  Changfeng Tai; James R Roppolo; William C de Groat
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 1.621

Review 7.  Implantable Direct Current Neural Modulation: Theory, Feasibility, and Efficacy.

Authors:  Felix P Aplin; Gene Y Fridman
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2019-04-18       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  Anodal block permits directional vagus nerve stimulation.

Authors:  Umair Ahmed; Yao-Chuan Chang; Marina Cracchiolo; Maria F Lopez; Jacquelyn N Tomaio; Timir Datta-Chaudhuri; Theodoros P Zanos; Loren Rieth; Yousef Al-Abed; Stavros Zanos
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 4.379

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.