4.7 Article

Suppression of neuropathic pain by peripheral electrical stimulation in rats:: μ-opioid receptor and NMDA receptor implicated

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL NEUROLOGY
卷 187, 期 1, 页码 23-29

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2003.12.011

关键词

peripheral electrical stimulation; neuropathic pain; ongoing pain; N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor; opioid receptor; analgesia

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [DA03983] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peripheral electrical stimulation (PES) has been utilized to manage chronic pain associated with nerve injury. However, the data on clinical effectiveness are conflicting and the neurophysiological mechanism is not well known. This study was designed to assess whether PES relieved neuropathic pain and its possible mechanisms. The neuropathic pain model was made with lumbar 5th (L5) and 6th (L6) spinal nerve ligations in rats. Nociceptive responses of the rats were assessed by the cold plate test (the number and duration of paw lifts that occurred in 5 min on a 5 +/- 1 degreesC cold plate). PES with a frequency of 2 Hz and at increasing strengths was given for 30 min via stainless-steel needles inserted into standard acupoints on the leg and back, respectively. Immunochemistry was used to examine the immunoreactivity of the NMDA receptor 1 (NR1) subunit in the spinal cord dorsal horn. The results are as follows: (1) PES relieved neuropathic pain and the effect was blocked by 1.0 mg/kg naloxone. (2) The effect of one session of PES lasted up to 12 h. (3) Repetitive PES showed a cumulative effect and no tolerance was observed. (4) There was a significant increase of NR1 immunoreactivity ill the superficial laminae of the spinal cord of neuropathic pain rats as compared with naive rats. This increase could be reversed by repetitive 2 Hz PES. These results suggest that PES can relieve neuropathic pain, and that p-opioid receptors and NMDA receptors are involved in the effect of PES. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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