Marco Lacerenza

Lidocaine test in neuralgia

&NA; Ten patients with organic nerve injury causing chronic neuropathic pain were tested for the effects of intravenous lidocaine versus saline upon psychophysical somatosensory variables. The variables assessed were the subjective magnitude of pain, area of mechanical hyperalgesia and presence and magnitude of thermal heat/cold hyperalgesia. The study methods applied to evaluate these conditions were the conventional testing of somatosensory submodalities with area mapping and the subjective magnitude estimation of spontaneous pain. It was found that spontaneous pain and mechanical hyperalgesia were consistently improved, transiently, by intravenous administration of lidocaine in all 10 patients; areas of hyperalgesia which extended beyond the territory of the nerve also improved transiently. Spontaneous pain and mechanical hyperalgesia, but not hypoesthesia, were transiently improved by injection of saline in only 1 of the 10 patients. This outcome is probably due to a placebo effect. This improvement is in keeping with the inhibition of anomalous neural impulses which can be generated anywhere along the sensory channels responsible for generating spontaneous pain and hyperalgesia. Thus, intravenous lidocaine is proposed as a diagnostic aid in the examination of patients complaining of complex sensory disorders associated with nerve injury. The transient pain relief may allow a fuller identification of the area of sensory loss.

Pre-injury lidocaine treatment prevents thermal hyperalgesia and cutaneous thermal abnormalities in a rat model of peripheral neuropathy

&NA; The effect of lidocaine pretreatment on thermal hyperalgesia and thermal skin asymmetries provoked by experimental mononeuropathy was investigated in rats. Forty anesthetized rats were given sciatic nerve ligatures according to the technique of Bennett and Xie. Rats were divided into 3 groups: 16 were ligated without lidocaine, 16 were ligated after lidocaine bathing of the nerve, and 8 were ligated after systemic lidocaine (6–8 mg/kg). Six sham‐operated rats for each group were also prepared. From the first postoperative day the responses to the hot‐plate test were assessed daily for 4 weeks by tracking the paw‐licking latency (PLL) for both hindpaws. Shorter or longer latencies on the operated side were respectively considered sign of hyperalgesia and hypoalgesia. Infrared thermographic images of plantar hindpaws were taken in 22 operated rats in the 2nd postoperative week. Thermographic images of 8 non‐operated rats were used as control. Animals operated without lidocaine exhibited shorter PLL (P < 0.001) and a decreased skin temperature on the operated side (P < 0.001). In the lidocaine‐pretreated rats, no paw‐licking reflex was present for a variable postoperative period (1 week or more) and afterwards there was a trend toward recovery of normal PLL values at the 4th week; the hindpaw skin temperature was symmetrical and normal. Sham‐operated rats had normal tests. It is postulated here that lidocaine prevents behavioral and thermal manifestation of mononeuropathy by blocking early afferent injury barrage.

Diverse modulation by systemic lidocaine of iontophoretic NMDA and quisqualic acid induced excitations on rat dorsal horn neurons

The effects of systemic lidocaine (3-4 mg/kg) on the responses of 60 wide dynamic range neurons (WDR) to iontophoretically applied N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) and quisqualic acid (QUIS) were studied in anesthetized, paralysed rats. The results show that lidocaine induced (i) potentiation of the NMDA excitation, reversible by 7-chloro-kynurenate (7-Cl-KYNA), a selective antagonist of the glycine binding site on the NMDA receptor; (ii) reduction of the QUIS excitation, reversible by strychnine (STRYCH), a glycine antagonist at its receptor. These findings, supporting a glycine-like action of lidocaine, are discussed together with data on the role of excitatory amino acids (EAAs) and the analgesic effect of lidocaine on neuropathic pain.

How to diagnose neuropathic pain? The contribution from clinical examination, pain questionnaires and diagnostic tests

Patients with peripheral and central nervous system diseases may suffer from different types of pain, namely nociceptive, neuropathic and mixed pain. Although in some cases, the distinction between these types of pain is clinically evident, yet in some patients an accurate differential diagnosis requires dedicated clinical examination, screening questionnaires and diagnostic techniques some of which are available only in specialized pain centres. This review briefly addresses the currently agreed definitions of the different types of pain and shows how clinical examination, pain questionnaires and diagnostic tests can help the clinicians in identifying neuropathic pain.

Injured nerve block alters adjacent nerves spinal interaction in neuropathic rats.

Baseline activity and responses to simultaneous saphenous stimulation of pairs of neurones recorded from sciatic (L5-6) and saphenous (L2) spinal cord segments, in rats with thermal hyperalgesia following sciatic constriction, were analysed before, during and after a sciatic nerve block with a local anaesthetic. In sciatic neurones, during the block, reductions of baseline activity (p < 0.001), increases in threshold of saphenous electrical stimulation (p < 0.01) and reductions of responses to electrical and to natural noxious saphenous stimuli (p < 0.001) were consistently found. The neuronal baseline and evoked activities remained unmodified in saphenous neurones. The contribution of input from injured periphery to central neurone circuitry mechanisms underlying the unmasking of improper afferents is discussed.

Diagnostic accuracy of laser-evoked potentials in diabetic neuropathy

Abstract Although the most widely agreed neurophysiological tool for investigating small fiber damage is laser-evoked potential (LEP) recording, no study has documented its diagnostic accuracy. In this clinical, neurophysiological, and skin biopsy study, we collected age-corrected LEP normative ranges, verified the association of LEPs with pinprick sensory disturbances in the typical diabetic mixed fiber polyneuropathy, and assessed the sensitivity and specificity of LEPs in diabetic small fiber neuropathy. From 288 LEP recordings from the face, hand, and foot in 73 healthy subjects, we collected age-corrected normative ranges for LEPs. We then selected 100 patients with mixed-fiber diabetic neuropathy and 25 patients with possible small-fiber diabetic neuropathy. In the 100 patients with mixed fiber neuropathy, we verified how LEP abnormalities were associated with clinically evident pinprick sensory disturbances. In the 25 patients with possible pure small fiber neuropathy, using the skin biopsy for assessing the intraepidermal nerve fiber density as a reference standard, we calculated LEP sensitivity and specificity. In healthy participants, age strongly influenced normative ranges for all LEP variables. By applying age-corrected normative ranges for LEPs, we found that LEPs were strongly associated with pinprick sensory disturbances. In relation to the skin biopsy findings, LEPs yielded 78% sensitivity and 81% specificity in the diagnosis of diabetic small fiber neuropathy. Our study, providing age-corrected normative ranges for the main LEP data and their diagnostic accuracy, helps to make LEPs more reliable as a clinical diagnostic tool, and proposes this technique as a less invasive alternative to skin biopsy for diagnosing diabetic small fiber neuropathy.