Non-invasive central nervous system assessment of a porcine model of neuropathic pain demonstrates increased latency of somatosensory-evoked potentials.
Chronic pain
Electroencephalography
Nerve injury
Peripheral neuritis trauma
Pigs
Somatosensory-evoked potentials
Journal
Journal of neuroscience methods
ISSN: 1872-678X
Titre abrégé: J Neurosci Methods
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7905558
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2023
01 08 2023
Historique:
received:
18
05
2023
revised:
01
07
2023
accepted:
28
07
2023
pmc-release:
01
08
2024
medline:
16
8
2023
pubmed:
1
8
2023
entrez:
31
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The study of chronic pain and its treatments requires a robust animal model with objective and quantifiable metrics. Porcine neuropathic pain models have been assessed with peripheral pain recordings and behavioral responses, but thus far central nervous system electrophysiology has not been investigated. This work aimed to record non-invasive, somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) via electroencephalography in order to quantitatively assess chronic neuropathic pain induced in a porcine model. Peripheral neuritis trauma (PNT) was induced unilaterally in the common peroneal nerve of domestic farm pigs, with the contralateral leg serving as the control for each animal. SEPs were generated by stimulation of the peripheral nerves distal to the PNT and were recorded non-invasively using transcranial electroencephalography (EEG). The P30 wave of the SEP was analyzed for latency changes. P30 SEPs were successfully recorded with non-invasive EEG. PNT resulted in significantly longer P30 SEP latencies (p < 0.01 [n = 8]) with a median latency increase of 14.3 [IQR 5.0 - 17.5] ms. Histological results confirmed perineural inflammatory response and nerve damage around the PNT nerves. Control P30 SEPs were similar in latency and amplitude to those previously recorded invasively in healthy pigs. Non-invasive recordings have numerous advantages over invasive measures. P30 SEP latency can serve as a quantifiable neurological measure that reflects central nervous system processing in a porcine model of chronic pain. Advancing the development of a porcine chronic pain model will facilitate the translation of experimental therapies into human clinical trials.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The study of chronic pain and its treatments requires a robust animal model with objective and quantifiable metrics. Porcine neuropathic pain models have been assessed with peripheral pain recordings and behavioral responses, but thus far central nervous system electrophysiology has not been investigated. This work aimed to record non-invasive, somatosensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) via electroencephalography in order to quantitatively assess chronic neuropathic pain induced in a porcine model.
NEW METHOD
Peripheral neuritis trauma (PNT) was induced unilaterally in the common peroneal nerve of domestic farm pigs, with the contralateral leg serving as the control for each animal. SEPs were generated by stimulation of the peripheral nerves distal to the PNT and were recorded non-invasively using transcranial electroencephalography (EEG). The P30 wave of the SEP was analyzed for latency changes.
RESULTS
P30 SEPs were successfully recorded with non-invasive EEG. PNT resulted in significantly longer P30 SEP latencies (p < 0.01 [n = 8]) with a median latency increase of 14.3 [IQR 5.0 - 17.5] ms. Histological results confirmed perineural inflammatory response and nerve damage around the PNT nerves.
COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S)
Control P30 SEPs were similar in latency and amplitude to those previously recorded invasively in healthy pigs. Non-invasive recordings have numerous advantages over invasive measures.
CONCLUSIONS
P30 SEP latency can serve as a quantifiable neurological measure that reflects central nervous system processing in a porcine model of chronic pain. Advancing the development of a porcine chronic pain model will facilitate the translation of experimental therapies into human clinical trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37524248
pii: S0165-0270(23)00153-X
doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2023.109934
pmc: PMC10530261
mid: NIHMS1922963
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
109934Subventions
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : UH2 AR076736
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
J Pain. 2016 Jan;17(1):36-49
pubmed: 26456763
J Pain Res. 2018 Oct 11;11:2279-2293
pubmed: 30349354
Neuron. 2006 Oct 5;52(1):77-92
pubmed: 17015228
Pain. 1999 Feb;79(2-3):105-11
pubmed: 10068155
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009 Apr;10(4):283-94
pubmed: 19259101
Pain. 2015 Jul;156(7):1184-1197
pubmed: 25887465
Lab Anim Res. 2022 Mar 24;38(1):9
pubmed: 35331342
Eur J Pain. 2014 Apr;18(4):496-505
pubmed: 24105754
J Comp Neurol. 1991 Apr 1;306(1):39-48
pubmed: 2040728
Science. 1992 Jan 10;255(5041):215-6
pubmed: 1553549
Eur J Pain. 2013 May;17(5):638-48
pubmed: 23042703
Pain. 2011 Aug;152(8):1856-1863
pubmed: 21546161
Neurosci Lett. 2010 Feb 19;470(3):175-9
pubmed: 19818831
Lab Anim (NY). 2021 Nov;50(11):313-326
pubmed: 34650279
Neurosci Lett. 2001 Jan 19;297(3):155-8
pubmed: 11137751
Eur J Neurosci. 2007 May;25(9):2705-12
pubmed: 17459107
Biomed Chromatogr. 2021 Apr;35(4):e5020
pubmed: 33159321
J Pain. 2013 Nov;14(11):1255-69
pubmed: 24035349
Neurophysiol Clin. 2003 Dec;33(6):303-14
pubmed: 14678844
Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2002 Oct;73(3):521-8
pubmed: 12151025
Eur J Pain. 2008 Feb;12(2):242-50
pubmed: 17611131
Pain. 2013 Nov;154(11):2500-2511
pubmed: 23891896
J Neurotrauma. 2017 Sep 15;34(18):2595-2608
pubmed: 27251314
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989 Jul;14(7):673-82
pubmed: 2772714
Brain. 1997 Apr;120 ( Pt 4):647-52
pubmed: 9153126
Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2014 Feb;24(1):49-65
pubmed: 24210312
J Comp Neurol. 1991 Apr 1;306(1):24-38
pubmed: 2040727
Neurobiol Pain. 2018 Jul 20;5:100021
pubmed: 31194066
Br J Pharmacol. 2014 Jun;171(12):2951-63
pubmed: 24527763
Clin Neurophysiol. 2002 Mar;113(3):317-35
pubmed: 11897532
Animal. 2009 Aug;3(8):1138-51
pubmed: 22444844
J Neurosurg. 2021 Apr 16;:1-8
pubmed: 33862596
Neurosurgery. 2020 Sep 15;87(4):833-846
pubmed: 32392341
Anesthesiology. 2003 Sep;99(3):716-37
pubmed: 12960558
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 8;13(10):e0205410
pubmed: 30296297
Science. 1991 Mar 15;251(4999):1355-8
pubmed: 2003220
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1998 Oct;107(4):227-53
pubmed: 9872441
Anesthesiology. 1987 Jan;66(1):29-35
pubmed: 3800031
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2001 Jul;28(3):126-131
pubmed: 28404442
Vet Pathol. 2012 Mar;49(2):344-56
pubmed: 21441112
Exp Brain Res. 1990;83(1):67-78
pubmed: 2073951
Brain Res Rev. 2009 Apr;60(1):243-54
pubmed: 19168094
Vet Anaesth Analg. 2005 Jan;32(1):1-9
pubmed: 15663733
J Neurosci Res. 2017 Jun;95(6):1242-1256
pubmed: 27376591
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 19;9(8):e103556
pubmed: 25136824