Sensory neurons and fibers from multiple spinal cord levels innervate the rabbit lumbar disc

Effect of Arecoline on Regeneration of Injured Peripheral Nerves

The present study provides in vitro and in vivo evaluation of arecoline on peripheral nerve regeneration. In the in vitro study, we found that arecoline at 50 μg/ml could significantly promote the survival and outgrowth of cultured Schwann cells as compared to the controls treated with culture medium only. In the in vivo study, we evaluated peripheral nerve regeneration across a 10-mm gap in the sciatic nerve of the rat, using a silicone rubber nerve chamber filled with the arecoline solution. In the control group, the chambers were filled with normal saline only. At the end of the fourth week, morphometric data revealed that the arecoline-treated group at 5 μg/ml significantly increased the number and the density of myelinated axons as compared to the controls. Immunohistochemical staining in the arecoline-treated animals at 5 μg/ml also showed their neural cells in the L4 and L5 dorsal root ganglia ipsilateral to the injury were strongly retrograde-labeled with fluorogold and lamina I–II regions in the dorsal horn ipsilateral to the injury were significantly calcitonin gene-related peptide-immunolabeled compared with the controls. In addition, we found that the number of macrophages recruited in the distal sciatic nerve was increased as the concentration of arecoline was increased. Electrophysiological measurements showed the arecoline-treated groups at 5 and 50 μg/ml had a relatively larger nerve conductive velocity of the evoked muscle action potentials compared to the controls. These results indicate that arecoline could stimulate local inflammatory conditions, improving the recovery of a severe peripheral nerve injury.

Inflammatory mediators in intervertebral disk degeneration and discogenic pain

Although degeneration of the intervertebral disk has historically been described as a misbalance between anabolic and catabolic factors, the role of inflammatory mediators has long been neglected. However, past research clearly indicates that inflammatory mediators such as interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-8 and tumor necrosis factor-α are expressed at higher levels in "diseased" intervertebral disks. Both disk cells as well as invading macrophages can be the source of the detected cytokines. Importantly, occurrence of inflammatory mediators in the disk can worsen the progress of degeneration by inducing the expression of matrix degrading enzymes as well as by inhibiting extracellular matrix synthesis. In addition, inflammatory mediators play a crucial role in pain development during intervertebral disk herniation (i.e., sciatica) and disk degeneration (i.e., discogenic pain). This review provides information on the most relevant inflammatory mediators during different types of disk diseases and explains how these factors can induce disk degeneration and the development of discogenic and sciatic/radiculopathic pain.

Effectiveness of L2 spinal nerve infiltration for selective discogenic low back pain patients

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that rat L5/6 lumbar discs are innervated mainly by L2 dorsal root ganglion neurons. We previously reported that L2 spinal nerve infiltration was effective for discogenic low back pain (DLBP) patients, although the diagnosis was based only on the results of physical examination, plain films, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The purpose of the current study was to evaluate L2 spinal nerve block for DLBP patients retrospectively based on MRI findings and surgical results.

METHODS

A total of 62 patients with only LBP and no accompanying radicular pain were investigated. Patients had only one level of disc degeneration on MRI. When pain was provoked during discography, we performed surgery at the next stage (40 patients). In all, 22 patients were excluded owing to negative discography results. Of the 40 patients, we evaluated 25 strictly selected patients suffering from DLBP. DLBP was diagnosed when the patient experienced pain relief at least 2 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Fifteen patients who did not show pain relief after surgery were used for the non-DLBP group. L2 spinal nerve infiltration using 1.5 ml of lidocaine was performed in all 40 patients before surgery. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score after L2 spinal nerve infiltration was recorded, and an association of L2 spinal nerve infiltration and DLBP was explored.

RESULTS

Low back pain scores assessed using the VAS score, the Japanese Orthopedic Association score, and the Oswestry Disability Index score in the two groups were not significantly different. L 2 spinal nerve infiltration was effective for 27 patients but not effective for 13 patients; the VAS score after 15 min and 2 h improved in the DLBP group compared with that of the non-DLBP group (P < 0. 05). L2 spinal nerve infiltration was more effective in DLBP patients (21 patients, 84%) than in the non-DLBP group (6 patients, 40%) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the current study, L2 spinal nerve infiltration was effective in 84% of selected DLBP patients and is thought to be a useful tool for diagnosing DLBP. However, we should take into consideration that the L2 spinal nerve infiltration was effective in 40% of non-DLBP patients as well.

Current evidence for a modulation of low back pain by human genetic variants

The manifestation of chronic back pain depends on structural, psychosocial, occupational and genetic influences. Heritability estimates for back pain range from 30% to 45%. Genetic influences are caused by genes affecting intervertebral disc degeneration or the immune response and genes involved in pain perception, signalling and psychological processing. This inter-individual variability which is partly due to genetic differences would require an individualized pain management to prevent the transition from acute to chronic back pain or improve the outcome. The genetic profile may help to define patients at high risk for chronic pain. We summarize genetic factors that (i) impact on intervertebral disc stability, namely Collagen IX, COL9A3, COL11A1, COL11A2, COL1A1, aggrecan (AGAN), cartilage intermediate layer protein, vitamin D receptor, metalloproteinsase-3 (MMP3), MMP9, and thrombospondin-2, (ii) modify inflammation, namely interleukin-1 (IL-1) locus genes and IL-6 and (iii) and pain signalling namely guanine triphosphate (GTP) cyclohydrolase 1, catechol-O-methyltransferase, mu opioid receptor (OPMR1), melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R), transient receptor potential channel A1 and fatty acid amide hydrolase and analgesic drug metabolism (cytochrome P450 [CYP]2D6, CYP2C9).

Biological treatment for degenerative disc disease: implications for the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation

Spine care is a fast-growing sector of the outpatient practice for physiatrists. Current nonsurgical treatment modalities and surgical options for severe symptomatic intervertebral disc degeneration have limited and inconsistent clinical results. Thus, the development of novel approaches, such as biological treatments that offer the potential to halt or even reverse disc degeneration and restore physiologic disc function, are very attractive. In this article, we first review the structural changes that occur during intervertebral disc degeneration and their relationship with discogenic back pain. Subsequently, we review the treatment approaches currently under clinical trial and laboratory investigation. Physiatrists specializing in spine care have the skill set required for administering intradiscal injections and supervising a comprehensive rehabilitation program after the procedures. Ultimately, the clinical use of any biological treatment discussed herein would require the collective efforts of physicians (such as physiatrists and surgeons) and researchers (such as chemical and biomedical engineers, biologists, and chemists).