Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Dose-dependent effects of high intensity focused ultrasound on compound action potentials in an ex vivo rodent peripheral nerve model: comparison to local anesthetics
  1. Thomas Anthony Anderson1,
  2. Jorge Delgado2,
  3. Sharon Sun3,
  4. Negin Behzadian4,
  5. Jose Vilches-Moure5,
  6. Robert B Szlavik6,
  7. Kim Butts-Pauly7 and
  8. David Yeomans1
  1. 1 Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
  2. 2 University of Texas McGovern Medical School, Houston, Texas, USA
  3. 3 Anesthesiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
  4. 4 Abbott Laboratories, Sylmar, California, USA
  5. 5 Comparative Medicine, Stanford Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
  6. 6 College of Engineering, Department of Biomedical Engineering, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California, USA
  7. 7 Radiology, Stanford Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Thomas Anthony Anderson, Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford Medicine, Stanford, California, USA; tanders0{at}stanford.edu

Abstract

Background In animal models, focused ultrasound can reversibly or permanently inhibit nerve conduction, suggesting a potential role in managing pain. We hypothesized focused ultrasound’s effects on action potential parameters may be similar to those of local anesthetics.

Methods In an ex vivo rat sciatic nerve model, action potential amplitude, area under the curve, latency to 10% peak, latency to 100% peak, rate of rise, and half peak width changes were assessed after separately applying increasing focused ultrasound pressures or concentrations of bupivacaine and ropivacaine. Focused ultrasound’s effects on nerve structure were examined histologically.

Results Increasing focused ultrasound pressures decreased action potential amplitude, area under the curve, and rate of rise, increased latency to 10% peak, and did not change latency to 100% peak or half peak width. Increasing local anesthetic concentrations decreased action potential amplitude, area under the curve, and rate of rise and increased latency to 10% peak, latency to 100% peak, and half peak width. At the highest focused ultrasound pressures, nerve architecture was altered compared with controls.

Discussion While some action potential parameters were altered comparably by focused ultrasound and local anesthetics, there were small but notable differences. It is not evident if these differences may lead to differences in clinical pain effects when focused ultrasound is applied in vivo or if focused ultrasound pressures that result in clinically relevant changes damage nerve structures. Given the potential advantages of a non-invasive technique for managing pain conditions, further investigation may be warranted in an in vivo pain model.

  • analgesia
  • pain management
  • pain
  • postoperative
  • regional anesthesia
  • technology

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request.

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors JD, SS and NB: This author helped with data collection, data analysis, writing and final approval of the manuscript. JV-M, RBS, KB-P and DY: This author helped with research conceptualization, data analysis, data interpretation, writing and final approval of the manuscript. TAA: This author helped with research conceptualization and design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing and final approval of the manuscript and is the guarantor of the overall content.

  • Funding TAA and RBS received funding from a Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research Mentored Research Training Grant (Washington D.C.). DY is supported by DOD CDMRP grant 13113162, NIH grant UG3NS11563701, and NIH grant R21NS08884102. All additional support was provided from institutional and/or departmental sources.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.