4.5 Article

High-voltage long-duration pulsed radiofrequency attenuates neuropathic pain in CCI rats by inhibiting Cav2.2 in spinal dorsal horn and dorsal root ganglion

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1785, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2022.147892

关键词

Neuropathic pain; Pulsed radiofrequency treatment; Cav2.2 ; Spinal dorsal horn; Dorsal root ganglion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the mechanism of high-voltage, long-duration pulsed radiofrequency (HL-PRF) in treating neuropathic pain. The results suggest that HL-PRF may alleviate pain symptoms by reducing the expression of Cav2.2 channels.
In clinical practice, high-voltage, long-duration pulsed radiofrequency (HL-PRF) is effective for several types of intractable neuropathic pain (NP), but the mechanisms have not been well explored. Cav2.2 channels could increase neuronal excitability and neurotransmission accompanying NP. This study investigated the relationship of the efficacy of HL-PRF on NP with the levels of Cav2.2 in the spinal dorsal horn (SDH) and dorsal root ganglions (DRGs) of chronic constriction injury (CCI) in rats. Sham HL-PRF, GVIA (a specific Cav2.2 channel blocker), HL-PRF, or GVIA + HL-PRF was applied to CCI rats. The results showed: compared with the sham group, the PWT and PWL of CCI rats decreased significantly (P < 0.05), and Cav2.2 expression was elevated significantly in the SDH and DRGs (P < 0.05). Compared with the CCI group, both HL-PRF and omega-conotoxin GVIA treatment reversed the increased PWT and PWL (P < 0.05) and downregulated the overexpression of Cav2.2 in the SDH and DRGs (P < 0.05). Furthermore, PWT, PWL, and the expression of Cav2.2 in the SDH and DRGs were not significantly different among the 3 treatment groups. HL-PRF on L5 DRG reversed the hyperalgesia behavior of NP and reduced the levels of Cav2.2 in the ipsilateral SDH and DRGs in CCI rats. Moreover, the underlying mechanism may be related to the downregulation of CaV2.2 protein levels in both SDH and DRG.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据