Gamma-aminobutyric Acid Is Released in the Dorsal Horn by Electrical Spinal Cord Stimulation: An In Vivo Microdialysis Study in the Rat

Physiology of spinal cord stimulation: review and update

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) was an outgrowth of the well-known gate control theory presented by Melzack and Wall in 1965. Although the method has been used to treat chronic severe pain for more than three decades, very little was known about the physiological and biochemical mechanisms behind the beneficial effects until recently. We now know that SCS activates several different mechanisms to treat different types of pain such as neuropathic and ischemic. In general, these mechanisms seem most dependent on activation of only a few segments of the spinal cord. However, both animal studies and human observations have indicated that supraspinal circuits may contribute as well. In the treatment of neuropathic pain, intermittent SCS may give several hours of pain relief after cessation of the stimulation. This protracted effect indicates long-lasting modulation of neural activity involving changes in the local transmitter systems in the dorsal horns. In ischemic pain, animal experiments demonstrate that inhibition of afferent activity in the spinothalamic tracts, long-term suppression of sympathetic activity, and antidromic effects on peripheral reflex circuits may take part in the pain alleviation. Moderate SCS intensities seem to evoke sympathetic inhibition, but higher stimulation intensities may induce antidromically mediated release of vasoactive substances, eg, the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), resulting in peripheral vasodilation. The anti-ischemic effect of SCS in angina pectoris due to intermittent coronary ischemia probably occurs because application of SCS appears to result in a redistribution of cardiac blood supply, as well as a decrease in tissue oxygen demand. Recent studies indicate that SCS modulates the activity of cardiac intrinsic neurons thereby restricting the arrythmogenic consequences of intermittent local coronary ischemia. The present state of knowledge is briefly reviewed and recent research directions outlined.

Spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of chronic critical limb ischemia

This paper reviews the clinical experience and proposed working mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the treatment of chronic critical limb ischemia (CCLI). SCS appears to provide a significant long-term relief of ischemic pain and to improve healing of small ulcers, most likely due to effects on the nutritional skin blood flow. Despite these observations, randomized trials were not able to show limb salvage. Assessment of the microcirculatory skin blood flow, by means of transcutaneous oxygen pressure measurements and videocapillaromicroscopy, is necessary to evaluate the remaining microcirculatory reserve capacity likely to be exploited by SCS and to help identify patients that will benefit most from this treatment and in whom stimulation could lead to limb salvage.

Drug-enhanced spinal stimulation for pain: a new strategy

Neuropathic pain is notoriously difficult to manage and only a few classes of drugs may provide adequate benefits. Thus, in many cases spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is considered; however, in this group of patients, between 30-50% of the cases offered a percutaneous SCS trial may fail to obtain a satisfactory effect. Additionally, a certain number of patients with a good initial effect, report that after a period the benefits are reduced necessitating additional peroral drug therapy. Based on animal studies of transmitters and receptors involved in the effects of SCS in neuropathic pain, the GABA-B receptor seems to play a pivotal role for the effect and, moreover, the agonist baclofen injected intrathecally in rats potentiated the SCS effect in animals not responsive to SCS per se. Based on these and further studies, 48 patients with neuropathic pain and inadequate response to SCS were given intrathecal (i.t.) baclofen (ITB) in bolus doses as an adjuvant. In this group 7 patients enjoyed such a good effect that they were implanted with both SCS and drug delivery systems for ITB. Four additional cases received baclofen pumps alone. Some other patients were given intrathecal (i.t.) adenosine in combination with SCS and initially preferred this to baclofen. The chronic use of this drug in a pump however proved to be technically problematic and all the adenosine cases were eventually terminated. At follow-ups, in average 32 and 67 months after start of SCS + baclofen therapy, more than 50% still enjoy a very good effect. The daily dose of baclofen needed to maintain the effects was approximately doubled during the observation period. There were few and mild side-effects. However, in a group of three patients with peroral baclofen therapy and SCS, complaints of side-effects were common and this therapy was terminated. Informal reports from collegues support the negative experience with additional peroral baclofen. In conclusion, in patients with neuropathic pain demonstrating inadequate response to SCS (small VAS reduction; short duration) a trial of intrathecal baclofen in combination with SCS may be warranted.

Only early intervention with gamma-aminobutyric acid cell therapy is able to reverse neuropathic pain after partial nerve injury

Pharmacological treatment for neuropathic pain, although often effective for brief periods, can result in intractable persistent pain with certain patients. Cell therapy for neuropathic pain is a newly developing technology useful for an examination of enhanced normal sensory function after nerve injury with the placement of cells near the spinal cord, and grafts of immortalized cells bioengineered to chronically supply the inhibitory neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) have been used to reverse the chronic pain behaviors. However, it is not known whether there is a therapeutic window for the use of intervention with cell therapy after partial nerve injury. To investigate whether neuropathic pain is sensitive to the timing of placement of cell grafts, neuronal cells bioengineered to synthesize GABA were transplanted in the lumbar subarachnoid space one to four weeks after unilateral chronic constriction injury (CCI) of the sciatic nerve and sensory behaviors were evaluated before and after CCI and transplants. Both thermal hyperalgesia and tactile allodynia were reversed when transplants were placed either one or two weeks after partial nerve injury, compared to maintenance of these behaviors with the injury alone. However, if GABA cells were placed any later than 2 weeks after nerve injury, such intervention was ineffective to reverse the thermal and tactile hypersensitivities induced by the injury. This suggests that altered spinal GABA levels may contribute to the early development of chronic neuropathic pain and that early intervention with cellular therapy to restore GABA may prevent the development of that pain.