Fundamentals of Burst Stimulation of the Spinal Cord and Brain

Background Individuals with spinal cord injury may undergo multiple surgical procedures; however, it is not clear how spinal cord injury affects anesthetic requirements and movement force under anesthesia during both acute and chronic stages of the injury. Methods The authors determined the isoflurane minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) necessary to block movement in response to supramaximal noxious stimulation, as well as tail-flick and hind paw withdrawal latencies, before and up to 28 days after thoracic spinal transection. Tail-flick and hind paw withdrawal latencies were measured in the awake state to test for the presence of spinal shock or hyperreflexia. The authors measured limb forces elicited by noxious mechanical stimulation of a paw or the tail at 28 days after transection. Limb force experiments were also conducted in other animals that received a reversible spinal conduction block by cooling the spinal cord at the level of the eighth thoracic vertebra. Results A large decrease in MAC (to </= 40% of pretransection values) occurred after spinal transection, with partial recovery (to approximately 60% of control) at 14-28 days after transection. Awake tail-flick and hind paw withdrawal latencies were facilitated or unchanged, whereas reflex latencies under isoflurane were depressed or absent. However, at 80-90% of MAC, noxious stimulation of the hind paw elicited ipsilateral limb withdrawals in all animals. Hind limb forces were reduced (by >/= 90%) in both chronic and acute cold-block spinal animals. Conclusions The immobilizing potency of isoflurane increases substantially after spinal transection, despite the absence of a baseline motor depression, or "spinal shock." Therefore, isoflurane MAC is determined by a spinal depressant action, possibly counteracted by a supraspinal facilitatory action. The partial recovery in MAC at later time points suggests that neuronal plasticity after spinal cord injury influences anesthetic requirements.

Download Full-text

Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation

Neurosurgery ◽

10.1227/01.neu.0000368153.44883.b3 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 66 (5) ◽

pp. 986-990 ◽

Cited By ~ 201

Author(s):

Dirk De Ridder ◽

Sven Vanneste ◽

Mark Plazier ◽

Elsa van der Loo ◽

Tomas Menovsky

Keyword(s):

Spinal Cord ◽

Neuropathic Pain ◽

Visual Analog Scale ◽

Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽

Short Form ◽

Burst Stimulation ◽

Analog Scale ◽

Tonic Stimulation ◽

Better Than

Abstract INTRODUCTION Spinal cord stimulation is commonly used for neuropathic pain modulation. The major side effect is the onset of paresthesia. The authors describe a new stimulation design that suppresses pain as well as, or even better than, the currently used stimulation, but without creating paresthesia. METHODS A spinal cord electrode (Lamitrode) for neuropathic pain was implanted in 12 patients via laminectomy: 4 at the C2 level and 7 at the T8–T9 level for cervicobrachialgia and lumboischialgia, respectively (1 at T11 at another center). During external stimulation, the patients received the classic tonic stimulation (40 or 50 Hz) and the new burst stimulation (40-Hz burst with 5 spikes at 500 Hz per burst). RESULTS Pain scores were measured using a visual analog scale and the McGill Short Form preoperatively and during tonic and burst stimulation. Paresthesia was scored as present or not present. Burst stimulation was significantly better for pain suppression, by both the visual analog scale score and the McGill Short Form score. Paresthesia was present in 92% of patients during tonic stimulation, and in only 17% during burst stimulation. Average follow-up was 20.5 months. CONCLUSION The authors present a new method of spinal cord stimulation using bursts that suppress neuropathic pain without the mandatory paresthesia. Pain suppression seems as good as or potentially better than that achieved with the currently used stimulation. Average follow-up after nearly 2 years (20.5 months) suggests that this stimulation design is stable.

Download Full-text