4.6 Article

Hyperalgesia by low doses of the local anesthetic lidocaine involves cannabinoid signaling: An fMRI study in mice

Journal

PAIN
Volume 153, Issue 7, Pages 1450-1458

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.04.001

Keywords

Functional magnetic resonance imaging; Mice; Lidocaine; Hyperalgesia; Cannabinoid receptor CB1

Funding

  1. National Center of Competence in Research (NCCR), Switzerland
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [126029]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lidocaine is clinically widely used as a local anesthetic inhibiting propagation of action potentials in peripheral nerve fibers. Correspondingly, the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) response in mouse brain to peripheral noxious input is largely suppressed by local lidocaine administered at doses used in a clinical setting. We observed, however, that local administration of lidocaine at doses 100 x lower than that used clinically led to a significantly increased sensitivity of mice to noxious forepaw stimulation as revealed by fMRI. This hyperalgesic response could be confirmed by behavioral readouts using the von Frey filament test. The increased sensitivity was found to involve a type 1 cannabinoid (CB1) receptor-dependent pathway as global CB1 knockout mice, as well as wild-type mice pretreated systemically with the CB1 receptor blocker rimonabant, did not display any hyperalgesic effects after low-dose lidocaine. Additional experiments with nociceptor-specific CB1 receptor knockout mice indicated an involvement of the CB1 receptors located on the nociceptors. We conclude that low concentrations of lidocaine leads to a sensitization of the nociceptors through a CB1 receptor-dependent process. This lidocaine-induced sensitization might contribute to postoperative hyperalgesia. (C) 2012 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available