Insular-limbic dissociation to intra-epidermal electrical Aδ activation: A comparative study with thermo-nociceptive laser stimulation

Understanding neuropathic pain: the role of neurophysiological tests in unveiling underlying mechanisms

Neuropathic pain, arising from lesions of the somatosensory nervous system, presents with diverse symptoms including ongoing pain, paroxysmal pain, and provoked pain, usually accompanied by sensory deficits. Understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms behind these symptoms is crucial for targeted treatment strategies. Neurophysiological techniques such as nerve conduction studies, reflexes, and evoked potentials help elucidate these mechanisms by assessing large myelinated non-nociceptive fibres and small nociceptive fibres. This argumentative review highlights the importance of tailored neurophysiological assessments for improving our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms behind neuropathic pain symptoms.

[Insular lobe epilepsy. Part 1: semiology]

The insula is often referred to as "the fifth lobe" of the brain, and its accessibility used to be very limited due to the deep location under the opercula as well as the sylvian vasculature. It was not until the availability of modern stereo-electroencephalography (SEEG) technique that the intracranial electrodes could be safely and chronically implanted within the insula, thereby enabling anatomo-electro-clinical correlations in seizures of this deep origin. Since the first report of SEEG-recorded insular seizures in late 1990s, the knowledge of insular lobe epilepsy (ILE) has rapidly expanded. Being on the frontline for the diagnosis and management of epilepsy, neurologists should have a precise understanding of ILE to differentiate it from epilepsies of other lobes or non-epileptic conditions. Owing to the multimodal nature and rich anatomo-functional connections of the insula, ILE has a wide range of clinical presentations. The following symptoms should heighten the suspicion of ILE: somatosensory symptoms involving a large/bilateral cutaneous territory or taking on thermal/painful character, and cervico-laryngeal discomfort. The latter ranges from slight dyspnea to a strong sensation of strangulation (laryngeal constriction). Other symptoms include epigastric discomfort/nausea, hypersalivation, auditory, vestibular, gustatory, and aphasic symptoms. However, most of these insulo-opercular symptoms can easily be masked by those of extra-insular seizure propagation. Indeed, sleep-related hyperkinetic (hypermotor) epilepsy (SHE) is a common clinical presentation of ILE, which shows predominant hyperkinetic and/or tonic-dystonic features that are often indistinguishable from those of fronto-mesial seizures. Subtle objective signs, such as constrictive throat noise (i.e., laryngeal constriction) or aversive behavior (e.g., facial grimacing suggesting pain), are often the sole clue in diagnosing insular SHE. Insular-origin seizures should also be considered in temporal-like seizures without frank anatomo-electro-clinical correlations. All in all, ILE is not the epilepsy of an isolated island but rather of a crucial hub involved in the multifaceted roles of the brain.

An overview of diagnosis and assessment methods for neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain, defined as pain arising as a consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory nervous system, requires precise diagnostic assessment. Different diagnostic tools have been devised for the diagnosis of neuropathic pain. This review offers insights into the diagnostic accuracy of screening questionnaires and different tests that investigate the somatosensory nervous system, in patients with suspected neuropathic pain. Thus, it illustrates how these tools can aid clinicians in accurately diagnosing neuropathic pain.

[The EAN-NeuPSIG guideline on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain-a summary]

In this joint guideline of the scientific societies and working groups mentioned in the title, evidence-based recommendations for the use of screening questionnaires and diagnostic tests in patients with neuropathic pain were developed. The systematic literature search and meta-analysis yielded the following results: Of the screening questionnaires, Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4), I‑DN4 (self-administered DN4), and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) received a strong recommendation, while S‑LANSS (self-administered LANSS) and PainDETECT received weak recommendations for their use in the diagnostic workup of patients with possible neuropathic pain. There was a strong recommendation for the use of skin biopsy and a weak recommendation for quantitative sensory testing and nociceptive evoked potentials. The role of confocal corneal microscopy is still unclear. Functional imaging and peripheral nerve blocks are helpful in elucidating the pathophysiology, but current literature does not support their use in diagnosing neuropathic pain. In selected cases, genetic testing in specialized centers may be considered.

Effects of anesthetics on nociceptive sensory evoked potentials by intraepidermal noxious electrical stimulation of A-δ fibers

PURPOSE

Generation of nociceptive sensory evoked potentials (NEPs) by selective stimulation of nociceptive intraepidermal nerve fibers is a simple technique which could be used as intraoperative nociception monitor. We evaluated the effects of remifentanil, propofol and sevoflurane on NEPs by this technique.

METHODS

Patients undergoing general anesthesia were assigned to groups in two studies. A-δ fiber selective NEPs were recorded. Study 1: NEPs were recorded at control, under anesthetics administration: remifentanil at an effect-site concentration (Ce) of 1.0 ng/mL (n = 10), propofol at Ce of 0.5 µg/mL (n = 10), or sevoflurane at 0.2 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) (n = 10), and recovery from the anesthetics. Study 2: NEPs were recorded at control and under administration of higher dose anesthetics: propofol at Ce of 0.5 and 1.0 µg/mL (n = 10) or sevoflurane at 0.2 and 0.5 MAC (n = 10). A P-value < 0.016 was considered statistically significant in multiple analyses.

RESULTS

Study 1: Remifentanil at Ce of 1.0 ng/mL significantly suppressed the amplitude of NEPs (mean amplitude (standard deviation) of control vs. remifentanil administration: 16.8 µV (3.8) vs. 10.1 µV (2.5), P < 0.001). Propofol and sevoflurane did not suppress the amplitude significantly. Study 2: Propofol at Ce of 0.5 and 1.0 µg/mL and sevoflurane at 0.2 and 0.5 MAC did not suppress the amplitude significantly.

CONCLUSION

The amplitude of A-δ fiber selective NEPs was suppressed by remifentanil but not propofol or sevoflurane. NEPs with intraepidermal electrical stimulation can assess the analgesic effect of anesthetics.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

UMIN000038214 REGISTRY URL: https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000043328.

Joint European Academy of Neurology-European Pain Federation-Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In these guidelines, we aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of screening questionnaires and diagnostic tests in patients with neuropathic pain (NeP).

METHODS

We systematically reviewed studies providing information on the sensitivity and specificity of screening questionnaires, and quantitative sensory testing, neurophysiology, skin biopsy, and corneal confocal microscopy. We also analysed how functional neuroimaging, peripheral nerve blocks, and genetic testing might provide useful information in diagnosing NeP.

RESULTS

Of the screening questionnaires, Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4), I-DN4 (self-administered DN4), and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) received a strong recommendation, and S-LANSS (self-administered LANSS) and PainDETECT weak recommendations for their use in the diagnostic pathway for patients with possible NeP. We devised a strong recommendation for the use of skin biopsy and a weak recommendation for quantitative sensory testing and nociceptive evoked potentials in the NeP diagnosis. Trigeminal reflex testing received a strong recommendation in diagnosing secondary trigeminal neuralgia. Although many studies support the usefulness of corneal confocal microscopy in diagnosing peripheral neuropathy, no study specifically investigated the diagnostic accuracy of this technique in patients with NeP. Functional neuroimaging and peripheral nerve blocks are helpful in disclosing pathophysiology and/or predicting outcomes, but current literature does not support their use for diagnosing NeP. Genetic testing may be considered at specialist centres, in selected cases.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations provide evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for NeP diagnosis. Due to the poor-to-moderate quality of evidence identified by this review, future large-scale, well-designed, multicentre studies assessing the accuracy of diagnostic tests for NeP are needed.

Cerebral structural alterations in the patients undergoing postherpetic neuralgia: A VBM-MRI study

This study aimed to investigate the changes in gray matter (GM) volume and density in patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Using voxel-based morphometry (VBM), the differences in cerebral GM volume and concentration between 25 PHN patients and 25 healthy controls with similar gender ratios, ages, and education were compared. Meanwhile, correlation analysis was performed between the value of GM volume/concentration in the brain areas with discrepancy and the visual analog scale (VAS) score/lesion duration. The global GM volume in PHN patients was lower than that of healthy controls, while the total volume of cerebrospinal fluid in PHN patients was higher than that of healthy controls. In PHN patients, the GM volume decreased in the striatum, cerebellum, precentral gyrus, middle frontal gyrus, parahippocampal gyrus, postcentral gyrus, and so forth; the GM concentration decreased in the striatum, insula, middle and posterior cingulate, and superior temporal gyrus. There was a negative correlation between GM concentration in the right parahippocampal gyrus and the VAS in patients with PHN. In PHN patients, GM volume and density in the brain regions involved in nociceptive sensation, pain perception, and integration decreased significantly. The interaction between chronic pain of PHN and alteration of the cerebral structure may contribute to the occurrence and development of PHN.

Event-related potentials evoked by skin puncture reflect activation of Aβ fibers: comparison with intraepidermal and transcutaneous electrical stimulations

Background

Recently, event-related potentials (ERPs) evoked by skin puncture, commonly used for blood sampling, have received attention as a pain assessment tool in neonates. However, their latency appears to be far shorter than the latency of ERPs evoked by intraepidermal electrical stimulation (IES), which selectively activates nociceptive Aδ and C fibers. To clarify this important issue, we examined whether ERPs evoked by skin puncture appropriately reflect central nociceptive processing, as is the case with IES.

Methods

In Experiment 1, we recorded evoked potentials to the click sound produced by a lance device (click-only), lance stimulation with the click sound (click+lance), or lance stimulation with white noise (WN+lance) in eight healthy adults to investigate the effect of the click sound on the ERP evoked by skin puncture. In Experiment 2, we tested 18 heathy adults and recorded evoked potentials to shallow lance stimulation (SL) with a blade that did not reach the dermis (0.1 mm insertion depth); normal lance stimulation (CL) (1 mm depth); transcutaneous electrical stimulation (ES), which mainly activates Aβ fibers; and IES, which selectively activates Aδ fibers when low stimulation current intensities are applied. White noise was continuously presented during the experiments. The stimulations were applied to the hand dorsum. In the SL, the lance device did not touch the skin and the blade was inserted to a depth of 0.1 mm into the epidermis, where the free nerve endings of Aδ fibers are located, which minimized the tactile sensation caused by the device touching the skin and the activation of Aβ fibers by the blade reaching the dermis. In the CL, as in clinical use, the lance device touched the skin and the blade reached a depth of 1 mm from the skin surface, i.e., the depth of the dermis at which the Aβ fibers are located.

Results

The ERP N2 latencies for click-only (122 ± 2.9 ms) and click+lance (121 ± 6.5 ms) were significantly shorter than that for WN+lance (154 ± 7.1 ms). The ERP P2 latency for click-only (191 ± 11.3 ms) was significantly shorter than those for click+lance (249 ± 18.6 ms) and WN+lance (253 ± 11.2 ms). This suggests that the click sound shortens the N2 latency of the ERP evoked by skin puncture. The ERP N2 latencies for SL, CL, ES, and IES were 146 ± 8.3, 149 ± 9.9, 148 ± 13.1, and 197 ± 21.2 ms, respectively. The ERP P2 latencies were 250 ± 18.2, 251 ± 14.1, 237 ± 26.3, and 294 ± 30.0 ms, respectively. The ERP latency for SL was significantly shorter than that for IES and was similar to that for ES. This suggests that the penetration force generated by the blade of the lance device activates the Aβ fibers, consequently shortening the ERP latency.

Conclusions

Lance ERP may reflect the activation of Aβ fibers rather than Aδ fibers. A pain index that correctly and reliably reflects nociceptive processing must be developed to improve pain assessment and management in neonates.