Cargando…

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in Experimental Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Burst vs. Conventional Stimulation Paradigm

OBJECTIVES: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is a long‐term complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation (DRGS) has recently emerged as a neuromodulation modality in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. The objective of this study was to compare the eff...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Franken, Glenn, Debets, Jacques, Joosten, Elbert A.J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7027839/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30570187
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ner.12908
_version_ 1783498916078026752
author Franken, Glenn
Debets, Jacques
Joosten, Elbert A.J.
author_facet Franken, Glenn
Debets, Jacques
Joosten, Elbert A.J.
author_sort Franken, Glenn
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is a long‐term complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation (DRGS) has recently emerged as a neuromodulation modality in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of burst DRGS (Burst‐DRGS) and conventional DRGS (Con‐DRGS) in an experimental model of PDPN. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DM was induced in female Sprague–Dawley rats by intraperitoneal injection of streptozotocin (STZ, n = 48). Animals were tested for mechanical hypersensitivity (50% hind paw withdrawal threshold on Von Frey test) before, and 4 weeks after STZ injection. PDPN rats were then implanted with a unilateral bipolar lead at the L5 DRG (n = 22) and were stimulated for 30 min at days 2 and 3 postimplantation. Animals received Con‐DRGS and Burst‐DRGS in a randomized crossover design (n = 10), or received Sham‐DRGS (n = 7) for 30 min, and were tested for mechanical hypersensitivity at baseline, 15 and 30 min during DRGS, and 15 and 30 min following DRGS. Five animals were withdrawn from the study due to electrode‐related technical problems. RESULTS: Con‐DRGS and Burst‐DRGS normalized STZ‐induced mechanical hypersensitivity at 15 and 30 min during stimulation. A significant difference in terms of mechanical hypersensitivity was observed between both of the stimulated groups and the Sham‐DRGS group at 15 and 30 min during stimulation. Interestingly, Burst‐DRGS showed signs of a residual effect at 15 min after cessation of stimulation, while this was not the case for Con‐DRGS. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions tested, Con‐DRGS and Burst‐DRGS are equally effective in attenuating STZ‐induced mechanical hypersensitivity in an animal model of PDPN. Burst‐DRGS showed signs of a residual effect at 15 min after cessation of stimulation, which requires further investigation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7027839
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70278392020-02-24 Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in Experimental Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Burst vs. Conventional Stimulation Paradigm Franken, Glenn Debets, Jacques Joosten, Elbert A.J. Neuromodulation Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation OBJECTIVES: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is a long‐term complication of diabetes mellitus (DM). Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation (DRGS) has recently emerged as a neuromodulation modality in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of burst DRGS (Burst‐DRGS) and conventional DRGS (Con‐DRGS) in an experimental model of PDPN. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DM was induced in female Sprague–Dawley rats by intraperitoneal injection of streptozotocin (STZ, n = 48). Animals were tested for mechanical hypersensitivity (50% hind paw withdrawal threshold on Von Frey test) before, and 4 weeks after STZ injection. PDPN rats were then implanted with a unilateral bipolar lead at the L5 DRG (n = 22) and were stimulated for 30 min at days 2 and 3 postimplantation. Animals received Con‐DRGS and Burst‐DRGS in a randomized crossover design (n = 10), or received Sham‐DRGS (n = 7) for 30 min, and were tested for mechanical hypersensitivity at baseline, 15 and 30 min during DRGS, and 15 and 30 min following DRGS. Five animals were withdrawn from the study due to electrode‐related technical problems. RESULTS: Con‐DRGS and Burst‐DRGS normalized STZ‐induced mechanical hypersensitivity at 15 and 30 min during stimulation. A significant difference in terms of mechanical hypersensitivity was observed between both of the stimulated groups and the Sham‐DRGS group at 15 and 30 min during stimulation. Interestingly, Burst‐DRGS showed signs of a residual effect at 15 min after cessation of stimulation, while this was not the case for Con‐DRGS. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions tested, Con‐DRGS and Burst‐DRGS are equally effective in attenuating STZ‐induced mechanical hypersensitivity in an animal model of PDPN. Burst‐DRGS showed signs of a residual effect at 15 min after cessation of stimulation, which requires further investigation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2018-12-20 2019-12 /pmc/articles/PMC7027839/ /pubmed/30570187 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ner.12908 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Neuromodulation Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation
Franken, Glenn
Debets, Jacques
Joosten, Elbert A.J.
Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in Experimental Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Burst vs. Conventional Stimulation Paradigm
title Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in Experimental Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Burst vs. Conventional Stimulation Paradigm
title_full Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in Experimental Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Burst vs. Conventional Stimulation Paradigm
title_fullStr Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in Experimental Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Burst vs. Conventional Stimulation Paradigm
title_full_unstemmed Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in Experimental Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Burst vs. Conventional Stimulation Paradigm
title_short Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in Experimental Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: Burst vs. Conventional Stimulation Paradigm
title_sort dorsal root ganglion stimulation in experimental painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: burst vs. conventional stimulation paradigm
topic Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7027839/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30570187
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ner.12908
work_keys_str_mv AT frankenglenn dorsalrootganglionstimulationinexperimentalpainfuldiabeticperipheralneuropathyburstvsconventionalstimulationparadigm
AT debetsjacques dorsalrootganglionstimulationinexperimentalpainfuldiabeticperipheralneuropathyburstvsconventionalstimulationparadigm
AT joostenelbertaj dorsalrootganglionstimulationinexperimentalpainfuldiabeticperipheralneuropathyburstvsconventionalstimulationparadigm