Effects of peripherally and centrally acting analgesics on somato-sensory evoked potentials

Modulation of the Somatosensory Evoked Potential by Attention and Spinal Cord Stimulation

Introduction: Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a last-resort treatment for patients with intractable chronic pain in whom pharmacological and other treatments have failed. Conventional tonic SCS is accompanied by tingling sensations. More recent stimulation protocols like burst SCS are not sensed by the patient while providing similar levels of pain relief. It has been previously reported that conventional tonic SCS can attenuate sensory-discriminative processing in several brain areas, but that burst SCS might have additional effects on the medial, motivational-affective pain system. In this explorative study we assessed the influence of attention on the somatosensory evoked brain responses under conventional tonic SCS as well as burst SCS regime.

Methods: Twelve chronic pain patients with an implanted SCS device had 2-weeks evaluation periods with three different SCS settings (conventional tonic SCS, burst SCS, and sham SCS). At the end of each period, an electro-encephalography (EEG) measurement was done, at which patients received transcutaneous electrical pulses at the tibial nerve to induce somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP). SEP data was acquired while patients were attending the applied pulses and while they were mind wandering. The effects of attention as well as SCS regimes on the SEP were analyzed by comparing amplitudes of early and late latencies at the vertex as well as brain activity at full cortical maps.

Results: Pain relief obtained by the various SCS settings varied largely among patients. Early SEP responses were not significantly affected by attention nor SCS settings (i.e., burst, tonic, and sham). However, late SEP responses (P300) were reduced with tonic and burst SCS: conventional tonic SCS reduced P300 brain activity in the unattended condition, while burst SCS reduced P300 brain activity in both attended and unattended conditions.

Conclusion: Burst spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain seems to reduce cortical attention that is or can be directed to somatosensory stimuli to a larger extent than conventional spinal cord stimulation treatment. This is a first step in understanding why in selected chronic pain patients burst SCS is more effective than tonic SCS and how neuroimaging could assist in personalizing SCS treatment.

Pain management following spinal surgeries: An appraisal of the available options

Spinal procedures are generally associated with intense pain in the postoperative period, especially for the initial few days. Adequate pain management in this period has been seen to correlate well with improved functional outcome, early ambulation, early discharge, and preventing the development of chronic pain. A diverse array of pharmacological options exists for the effective amelioration of post spinal surgery pain. Each of these drugs possesses inherent advantages and disadvantages which restricts their universal applicability. Therefore, combination therapy or multimodal analgesia for proper control of pain appears as the best approach in this regard. The current manuscript discussed the pathophysiology of postsurgical pain including its nature, the various tools for assessment, and the various pharmacological agents (both conventional and upcoming) available at our disposal to respond to post spinal surgery pain.

Perioperative pain management in the neurosurgical patient

Perioperative pain management in neurosurgical patients has been inadequately recognized and treated. An increased awareness of pain management and advances in understanding of pain modulation and pathophysiology have led to improved perioperative care of patients. There is a need to assess neurologic function while providing superior analgesia with minimal side effects. Several classes of drugs are currently available or under investigation for use as adjuvants or alternative therapies. There remains a need to determine the best treatment of perioperative pain in this patient population. Improved awareness, assessment, and treatment of pain result in better care and overall patient outcome.

Perioperative pain management in the neurosurgical patient

The perioperative management of pain in neurosurgical patients is a controversial topic with management decisions based mainly on reports of anecdotal experiences. There is no consensus regarding the standardization of pain control in this patient population. In the last decade, improved awareness and advances in the practice of pain management have resulted in the implementation of diverse techniques to achieve adequate analgesia in this undertreated group of patients. This article provides information about the various techniques and approaches, based on the latest research and clinical trials conducted in this patient population. Specifically, the physiology of pain in patients undergoing brain or spine surgery, the different modalities for pain control, and the diverse choice of drugs, with their associated risks and benefits, are reviewed.

Change in pain threshold by meperidine, naproxen sodium, and acetaminophen as determined by electric pulp testing

The purpose of this study was to compare changes in pain threshold caused by meperidine, naproxen sodium, acetaminophen, and placebo. The change in pain threshold was measured by electric pulp testing. Acetaminophen elevated the pain threshold statistically significantly. Clinically, however, the superiority of acetaminophen is questionable. No elevation of the pain threshold occurred with narcotic drugs or with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: our research shows that the electric pulp tests of patients who have taken these drugs preoperatively will have results similar to those of patients who have taken no drugs. We question the philosophy of administering these drugs for change in pain threshold at the levels used here preoperatively.

The mechanisms of action of NSAIDs in analgesia

Traditionally, the analgesic action of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) has been explained on the basis of their inhibition of the enzymes that synthesise prostaglandins. However, it is clear that NSAIDs exert their analgesic effect not only through peripheral inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis but also through a variety of other peripheral and central mechanisms. It is now known that there are 2 structurally distinct forms of the cyclo-oxygenase enzyme (COX-1 and COX-2). COX-1 is a constitutive member of normal cells and COX-2 is induced in inflammatory cells. Inhibition of COX-2 activity represent the most likely mechanism of action for NSAID-mediated analgesia, while the ratio of inhibition of COX-1 to COX-2 by NSAIDs should determine the likelihood of adverse effects. In addition, some NSAIDs inhibit the lipoxygenase pathway, which may itself result in the production of algogenic metabolites. Interference with G-protein-mediated signal transduction by NSAIDs may form the basis of an analgesic mechanism unrelated to inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis. These is increasing evidence that NSAIDs have a central mechanism of action that augments the peripheral mechanism. This effect may be the result of interference with the formation of prostaglandins within the CNS. Alternatively, the central action may be mediated by endogenous opioid peptides or blockade of the release of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT). A mechanism involving inhibition of excitatory amino acids of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor activation has also been proposed.