4.6 Article

The roles of pathways in the spinal cord lateral and dorsal funiculi in signaling nociceptive somatic and visceral stimuli in rats

期刊

PAIN
卷 96, 期 3, 页码 297-307

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00459-6

关键词

cancer pain; spinothalamic; dorsal columns; anterolateral cordotomy; midline myelotomy; exploratory activity; pain test

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS11255, NS09743] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The spinothalamic tract (STT) is a major ascending nociceptive pathway, interruption of which by cordotomy is used for pain relief, whereas the dorsal column (DC) pathway is usually not considered to be involved in pain transmission. However, recent clinical studies showed good relief of visceral pain in cancer patients after a DC lesion. Electrophysiological recordings in animals suggest that the analgesic effect is due to interruption of axons ascending from postsynaptic dorsal column (PSDC) neurons located in the vicinity of the central canal. In this behavioral study, we used a decrease in exploratory activity in rats after a noxious stimulus as an indicator of perceived pain, independent of withdrawal reflexes. Intradermal capsaicin injection almost abolished exploratory activity in naive animals or in rats after a DC lesion, but did not change it in rats after ipsilateral dorsal rhizotomy or a lesion of the lateral funiculus on the side opposite to the injection. In contrast, a bilateral DC lesion counteracted the decrease in exploratory activity induced by noxious visceral stimuli for at least 180 days after the surgery. Although neurons projecting in both the STT and the PSDC path can be activated by noxious stimuli of cutaneous or visceral origin, our results suggest that the STT plays a crucial role in the perception of acute cutaneous pain and that the DC pathway is important for transmission of visceral pain. (C) 2002 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.6
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