...
首页> 外文期刊>Neuromodulation: journal of the International Neuromodulation Society >Neurophysiological Comparison Among Tonic, High Frequency, and Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Novel Insights Into Spinal and Brain Mechanisms of Action
【24h】

Neurophysiological Comparison Among Tonic, High Frequency, and Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Novel Insights Into Spinal and Brain Mechanisms of Action

机译:滋补,高频和爆震脊髓刺激的神经生理学比较:对脊柱和脑脑的行动机制的新洞察

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Rationale Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective option for neuropathic pain treatment. New technological developments, as high‐frequency (HF) and theta burst stimulation (TBS), have shown promising results, although putative mechanisms of action still remain debated. Methods thirty patients with lower back pain were enrolled and underwent LF, HF, and TBS. Laser evoked potentials (LEPs) were recorded by using a Nd:YAG laser. Amplitudes and latencies of the main two components (N1, N2/P2) were compared among different experimental sessions. Changes in resting motor threshold (RMT), cortical silent period (cSP), short intracortical inhibition (SICI), and intracortical facilitation (ICF) were also evaluated. Results TBS dampened LEP amplitudes compared with LF (N1: p ?=?0.032; N2/P2: p ??0.0001) and HF stimulation (N1: p ?=?0.029; N2/P2: p ??0.0001, Holm‐Sidak post‐hoc test). Concurrently, TBS increased N1 latency, when compared with baseline and LF stimulation ( p ?=?0.009 and 0.0033). Whereas RMT and SICI did not change among experimental conditions, TBS significantly prolonged cSP duration compared with baseline ( p ?=?0.002), LF ( p ?=?0.048), and HF‐SCS ( p ?=?0.016); finally, both HF ( p ?=?0.004) and TBS ( p ?=?0.0039) increased ICF. Conclusion TBS modulates medial and lateral pain pathways through distinct mechanisms, possibly involving both GABA(a)ergic and Glutamatergic networks at an intracortical level. These results may have implications for therapy and for the choice of best stimulation protocol.
机译:理由脊髓刺激(SCS)是神经病疼痛治疗的有效选择。作为高频(HF)和突发刺激(TBS)的新技术发展已经显示出有前途的结果,尽管推定的行动机制仍然仍然存在争论。方法患有30例腰痛的患者均注册并进行LF,HF和TBS。使用ND:YAG激光记录激光诱发电位(LEPS)。在不同的实验期间比较了主要两种组分(N1,N2 / P2)的幅度和延迟。还评估了休息电机阈值(RMT),皮质静音时段(CSP),短暂性抑制(SICI)和鞘内促进(ICF)的变化。结果TBS湿润的LEP振幅与LF相比(N1:P?= 0.032; N2 / P2:P?<0.0001)和HF刺激(N1:P?= 0.029; N2 / P2:P?0.0001 ,Holm-Sidak后HOC测试)。与基线和LF刺激相比,TBS同时,TBS增加N1潜伏期(P?= 0.009和0.0033)。虽然RMT和SICI在实验条件下没有改变,但TBS与基线相比显着延长了CSP持续时间(P?= 0.002),LF(P?= 0.048)和HF-SCS(P?= 0.016);最后,HF(p?= 0.004)和TBS(p?= 0.0039)增加了ICF。结论TBS通过独特机制调节内侧和横向疼痛途径,可能涉及GABA(A)ERGIC和谷氨酸基底网络在内的内部水平。这些结果可能对治疗有影响和选择最佳刺激方案。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号