Memantine elicits spinal blockades of motor function, proprioception, and nociception in rats

N(Omega)-nitro-l-arginine methyl ester potentiates lidocaine analgesic and anaesthetic effect in rats

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the experiment was to study the effect of L-NAME (N(Omega)-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester) and its cotreatment with lidocaine on the spinal block and infiltrative cutaneous analgesia.

METHODS

The quality of cutaneous analgesia was examined by the block of the cutaneous trunci muscle reflexes following needle stimuli in the rat. Spinal anaesthetic potency was assessed by measuring three neurobehavioral examinations of nociceptive, proprioceptive and motor function following intrathecal injection in the rat.

KEY FINDINGS

L-NAME (0.6, 6 and 60 nmol) when cotreatment with lidocaine (ED50) produced dose-related cutaneous analgesia. Coadministration of L-NAME (0.6 μmol) with lidocaine intensified (P < 0.01) and prolonged (P < 0.001) cutaneous analgesia, whereas subcutaneous L-NAME (0.6 μmol) and saline did not provoke cutaneous analgesic effects. Adding L-NAME (2.5 μmol) to lidocaine intrathecally prolonged spinal sensory and motor block (P < 0.01), while intrathecal L-NAME (2.5 μmol) or 5% dextrose (vehicle) produced no spinal block.

CONCLUSIONS

L-NAME at 60 nmol (the minimum effective dose) increases and prolongs the effect of cutaneous analgesia of lidocaine. L-NANE at an ineffective dose potentiates lidocaine analgesic and anaesthetic effects.

Intrathecal pramipexole and selegiline for sensory and motor block in rats

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to investigate spinal sensory and motor block by antiparkinsonian drugs (pramipexole and selegiline), and the combination of pramipexole and the local anesthetic lidocaine.

METHODS

Using a technique of spinal blockade in rats, the effects of pramipexole, selegiline, and coadministration of pramipexole and lidocaine on spinal blockades of motor and sensory function were investigated.

RESULTS

Under a concentration of 100 mM, pramipexole displayed more potent and had a longer duration of nociceptive, proprioceptive, and motor block than selegiline, whereas pramipexole and selegiline were less potent in comparison to lidocaine. Pramipexole produced spinal nociceptive, proprioceptive, and motor blocks in a dose-related manner. On the ED₅₀ (50% effective dose) basis, the rank-order potency on nociceptive, proprioceptive, and motor block was pramipexole < lidocaine. The spinal block duration of pramipexole was greater than lidocaine at every equipotent dose tested (ED₂₅, ED₅₀, and ED₇₅). Coadministration of lidocaine (ED₅₀ or ED₉₅) with pramipexole (4.5 μmol/kg) improved the effect (efficacy) and duration of the spinal block.

CONCLUSIONS

Pramipexole and selegiline were less potent than lidocaine to block sensory and motor responses. The duration of the spinal anesthetic effect of pramipexole was longer than lidocaine. At a non-effective dose, pramipexole increased the duration of efficacy of lidocaine.

Spinal sensory and motor blockade by intrathecal doxylamine and triprolidine in rats

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this experiment was mainly to examine the effects of intrathecally injected doxylamine and triprolidine, two antihistamine drugs spinal motor and sensory functions.

METHODS

After intrathecally injecting the rats with five different doses, the dose-response curves of spinal sensory and motor block with doxylamine and triprolidine were constructed. In comparison with the local anaesthetic mepivacaine, the quality and duration of spinal anaesthesia with doxylamine or triprolidine were conducted.

KEY FINDINGS

Doxylamine, mepivacaine and triprolidine elicited spinal motor and sensory (nociception and proprioception) blockades in a dose-dependent fashion. On the ED₅₀ (50% effective dose) basis, the rank order of drug potency was triprolidine > mepivacaine > doxylamine (P < 0.05) at provoking spinal motor, proprioceptive and nociceptive blockades. On the equianaesthetic doses (ED₂₅ , ED₅₀ and ED₇₅ ), the duration of spinal anaesthesia with doxylamine was longer (P < 0.01) than that with mepivacaine or triprolidine. Moreover, doxylamine or triprolidine displayed greater potency (ED₅₀ ) (P < 0.05) and duration (P < 0.05) of sensory block over motor block.

CONCLUSIONS

Doxylamine or triprolidine produces a dose-dependent effect of spinal motor and sensory block. Triprolidine with a better nociception-selective action over motor block has a better potency than mepivacaine or doxylamine. Doxylamine and triprolidine produce longer durations than mepivacaine.

Subcutaneous infiltration of doxylamine on cutaneous analgesia in rats

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the effect of doxylamine, a first generation antihistamine, as a local analgesic agent by comparing its effect to bupivacaine.

METHODS

After blocking the cutaneous trunci muscle reflex (CTMR) by subcutaneous injection of doxylamine, we assessed doxylamine's cutaneous analgesic effect in rats. The dose-related effect and duration of doxylamine on infiltrative cutaneous analgesia were compared with that of bupivacaine.

RESULTS

We demonstrated that doxylamine, as well as the local anesthetic bupivacaine produced the cutaneous analgesic effects in a dose-related fashion. At the equipotent dose (50% effective doses (ED₅₀)), the relative potency was bupivacaine (0.41 (0.36-0.48) mmol)> doxylamine (7.39 (6.91-7.91)mmol) (p<0.01). On an equipotent basis (ED₂₅, ED₅₀ and ED₇₅), subcutaneous doxylamine resulted in greater duration of action (p<0.01) than bupivacaine at producing cutaneous analgesia.

CONCLUSIONS

The result of this experiment indicated that doxylamine has the local anesthetic property less potent than bupivacaine, but its nociceptive block duration is longer than that of bupivacaine at an equianalgesic dose.

Intrathecal pramoxine causes long-lasting spinal sensory and motor block in rats

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this experiment was to investigate spinal anaesthetic effects of pramoxine and its comparison with bupivacaine, a long-lasting local anaesthetic.

METHODS

After intrathecal injection, three neurobehavioural assessments, which consisted of nociceptive, proprioceptive and motor block, were constructed in rats. The effects of bupivacaine and pramoxine (four doses of each drug) in a dose-related manner were conducted to obtain the ED₅₀ (50% effective dose). Pramoxine potency and duration at provoking spinal nociceptive, proprioceptive and motor block were compared with those of bupivacaine.

KEY FINDINGS

We manifested that pramoxine provoked dose-relatedly spinal blockades of nociception, proprioception and motor function. Based on the ED₅₀ , the rank potency at producing spinal nociceptive, proprioceptive and motor block was bupivacaine (0.90 (0.82-1.02), 1.00 (0.92-1.08) and 1.16 (1.02-1.34) μmol/kg) greater (P < 0.01 for the differences) than pramoxine (15.47 (14.04-17.05), 16.46 (15.06-17.99), and 17.77 (16.48-19.15) μmol/kg). The spinal block duration created by bupivacaine was not predominantly different (P > 0.05 for the differences) from that created by pramoxine at the equipotent doses (ED₇₅ , ED₅₀ and ED₂₅ ).

CONCLUSIONS

Our preclinical experiment indicated that pramoxine elicited a dose-related spinal block, was less potent than bupivacaine and had a similar duration of spinal block compared with bupivacaine.

Naloxone prolongs cutaneous nociceptive block by lidocaine in rats

We aimed to investigate the local anesthetic properties of naloxone alone or as an adjunct for the local anesthetic lidocaine. After the block of the cutaneous trunci muscle reflex (CTMR) with drugs delivery by subcutaneous infiltration, cutaneous nociceptive block was tested on the ratsꞌ backs. We demonstrated that naloxone, as well as lidocaine, elicited cutaneous analgesia dose-dependently. The relative potency in inducing cutaneous analgesia was lidocaine [22.6 (20.1 - 25.4) μmol/kg] > naloxone [43.2 (40.3 - 46.4) μmol/kg] (P < 0.05). On an equianesthetic basis [50% effective dose (ED₅₀ ), ED₂₅ , and ED₇₅ ], naloxone displayed a greater duration of cutaneous analgesic action than lidocaine (P < 0.01). Coadministration of lidocaine (ED₉₅ or ED₅₀ ) and ineffective-dose naloxone (13.3 μmol/kg) intensifies sensory block (P < 0.01) with prolonged duration of action (P < 0.001) compared with lidocaine (ED₉₅ or ED₅₀ ) alone or naloxone (13.3 μmol/kg) alone on infiltrative cutaneous analgesia. The preclinical data showed that naloxone is less potent than lidocaine as an infiltrative anesthetic, but its analgesic duration was longer than that of lidocaine. Furthermore, naloxone prolongs lidocaine analgesia, acting synergistically for nociceptive block.