Free
Meeting Abstracts  |   January 1998
Comparison of the Effects of Treatment with Intrathecal Lidocaine Given before and after Formalin on Both Nociception and Fos Expression in the Spinal Cord Dorsal Horn 
Author Notes
  • (Yashpal, Mason) Research Associate, Pain Mechanisms Laboratory, Clinical Research Institute of Montreal.
  • (Mason) Senior Scientist, Operational Technologies Corporation, San Antonio, Texas.
  • (McKenna) Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Psychology, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.
  • (Sharma) Research Associate, Department of Physiology, McGill University, Montreal.
  • (Henry) Professor, Departments of Physiology and Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal.
  • (Coderre) Director, Pain Mechanisms Laboratory, Clinical Research Institute of Montreal; Associate Member, Psychology Department, McGill University; Chercheur Adjoint, Centre de Recherche en Sciences Neurologiques et Departement de Medecine, Universite de Montreal.
Article Information
Meeting Abstracts   |   January 1998
Comparison of the Effects of Treatment with Intrathecal Lidocaine Given before and after Formalin on Both Nociception and Fos Expression in the Spinal Cord Dorsal Horn 
Anesthesiology 1 1998, Vol.88, 157-164. doi:
Anesthesiology 1 1998, Vol.88, 157-164. doi:
There is a growing body of basic and clinical evidence demonstrating that noxious peripheral stimulation produces sustained changes in central nervous system excitability that may contribute to pathologic pain processes, [1] and that central nervous system hyperexcitability is more effectively attenuated by analgesic pretreatments than by post-treatments. [2] Preemptive analgesia refers to clinical situations in which analgesic or local anesthetic treatments are given before surgery to reduce postoperative pain by preventing or minimizing central nervous system hyperexcitability. The formalin test [3] has been used as an animal model of injury-induced central nervous system hyperexcitability [4,5] and to test the potential of treatments for preemptive analgesia. [6–11] Several investigations indicate that various treatments, including intrathecal [4,5] and systemic [6] lidocaine or opiates [7,12] or N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor [13–18] and neurokinin-1 receptor [19–22] antagonists, are often more effective at reducing nociceptive responses to formalin when given as pretreatments compared with when given as post-treatments. Together these findings suggest that central hyperexcitability that occurs early after formalin injection contributes to the persistent nociceptive responses to formalin, and that various treatments can preempt the development of hyperexcitability and reduce persistent nociceptive behaviors.
Sensory inputs, [23] particularly nociceptive inputs, [24] have been reported to produce increased expression of c-fos in the mammalian spinal dorsal horn. Investigators have studied the levels of the immediate early gene c-fos and its protein product Fos. Increases in c-fos mRNA, or Fos protein-like immunoreactivity, have been reported after high-intensity electrical stimulation, [24] noxious mechanical stimulation, [25] and either noxious heat [26] or cold [27] stimulation of the rat hind paw. Fos expression is also enhanced after chemical irritation of cutaneous tissue with formalin [28–32] and mustard oil, [33] and in response to chronic inflammation produced by hind paw injections of complete Freund's adjuvant [34] or carrageenan. [35] It has been suggested there may be a parallel between the ability of anesthetic and analgesic agents to preemptively inhibit nociceptive behaviors and to suppress Fos expression in the spinal cord dorsal horn. [36] The objective of the present study was to test this hypothesis by determining whether there is a parallel between the effects of intrathecal lidocaine pretreatment and post-treatment on nociceptive scores and Fos expression after formalin injection in rats.
Materials and Methods
The following experiments were done under protocols approved by the Institutional Animal Care Committee of the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal. The experiments were performed on Long Evans male rats (weight, 250–300 g) from Charles River, Quebec. Efforts were made to minimize animal suffering and reduce the numbers of animals used. Two approaches were taken to detect Fos-like immunoreactivity after the noxious stimulus was applied. The first approach was taken to measure Fos-like immunoreactivity quantitatively by immunoprecipitation. The second approach was taken by using immunocytochemical methods to demonstrate qualitative differences in Fos-like immunoreactivity among various groups.
Experimental Protocol
In all the studies, the peripheral noxious stimulus consisted of injecting 50 micro liter 2.5% formalin into the plantar surface of one hind paw of the rat. To study the effect of spinal anesthesia on nociceptive behavior in the formalin test, 50 micro liter 2% lidocaine was given intrathecally by lumbar puncture between the L5 and L6 vertebrae using a 27-gauge needle. Rats were briefly anesthetized with 3% halothane during the lumbar punctures, which normally took 2–3 min. Typically, rats recovered from the halothane anesthesia within 1 min after completion of the lumbar puncture. The spinal lidocaine produced a complete anesthetic blockade (as measured by the loss of all responses, including an orienting response, to hind paw pinch) between 1 and 7 min, with partial effects lasting until 20 min after treatment. We found that the same dose of intrathecal lidocaine used in the present study produces a complete block of a pressor response to hindpaw injection of 10% formalin, without affecting increases in mean arterial pressure in response to forepaw injection of 10% formalin. For behavioral studies, each of 13 rats in each group received either lidocaine 3 min before formalin (lidocaine + formalin), lidocaine 5 min after formalin (formalin + lidocaine), saline 3 min before formalin (saline + formalin), or saline 5 min after formalin (formalin + saline). For Fos-like immunoreactivity and Fos immunoprecipitation (Fos-IP), three or four animals in each group received either no lidocaine and no formalin (control), formalin but no lidocaine (formalin), lidocaine 3 min before formalin (lidocaine + formalin), or lidocaine 5 min after formalin (formalin + lidocaine), and were compared with a group that received only lidocaine. In the lidocaine pretreatment group, when rats received intrathecal lidocaine 3 min before formalin, all rats had fully recovered from the halothane anesthesia when the formalin was given. However, at this time the intrathecal lidocaine was fully active, so that rats had a sensory and motor block of the hindlimbs and did not respond in any way to the formalin injection. In the lidocaine post-treatment group, when rats received lidocaine 5 min after formalin, rats were completely unanesthetized at the time of formalin injection, but they were briefly anesthetized with halothane when the lumbar puncture was performed to inject lidocaine 5 min after formalin. All rats, in the pretreatment and post-treatment groups, had fully recovered from the spinal anesthesia when behavioral assessment of formalin nociception began 30 min after formalin injection.
Behavioral Studies
In behavioral studies, the rats were assessed for their nociceptive scores in the formalin test. These observations were taken 30 to 60 min after the formalin injection. A nociceptive score was determined for each 5-min block by measuring the amount of time spent in each of the four behavioral categories: 0, the injected paw is not favored; 1, the injected paw has little or no weight on it; 2, the injected paw is elevated and is not in contact with any surface; and 3, the injected paw is licked, bitten, or shaken. A weighted average nociceptive score ranging from 0 to 3 was calculated according to the method of Dubuisson and Dennis [3] by multiplying the time spent in each category by the category weight, summing these products, and then dividing by the total time for each 5-min period.
Immunoprecipitation
It is well established that Fos-like immunoreactivity in the spinal cord peaks approximately 2 h after formalin injection. [30] Thus 2 h after the formalin injection, the rats were anesthetized with sodium pentobarbital (75 mg/kg), decapitated, and the spinal cords removed rapidly by pressure ejection using cold phosphate-buffered saline (PBS; 0.15 M, pH 7.4). The lumbar segment was separated from the spinal cord and cut into approximately 1-mm-thick slices. The dorsal and ventral horns were isolated under the microscope, weighed, and homogenized in PBS. After homogenization, 100 micro liter tissue homogenate containing 10 micro Ci35S-methionine was incubated at 37 [degree sign] Celsius for 45 min. The reaction was stopped using 100 micro liter PBS-thiamine disulfide on ice for 15 min. The homogenate was again centrifuged for 45 min at 11,200 rpm in a cold room. The supernatant was removed and reacted with Fos monoclonal primary antibody (Ab-1, 1:3,000 dilution; Oncogene Science, Manhassett, NY) for 48 h at 4 [degree sign] Celsius. Protein A agarose (100 micro liter) was added to precipitate the antigen-antibody complex. The amino precipitate was constructed in 100 micro liter 1:1 nitric acid:perchloric acid solution, vortex mixed, and counted in a liquid scintillation counter (Beckman B Scintillation spectrometer, Fullerton, CA) using a scintiverse II cocktail. The protein concentration was measured using Bradford's [37] method. Quantification of Fos immunoreactivity was based on this completely objective immunoprecipitation technique.
Immunocytochemical Analysis
Although Fos-like immunoreactivity was quantified using immunoprecipitation, spinal cord sections were also taken from some rats for immunocytochemical analysis. This allowed us to determine the laminar distribution of Fos-like immunoreactivity and to compare our findings with those of previous investigations that used immunocytochemical analysis. Two hours after the formalin injection, rats were killed with sodium pentobarbitol (60 mg/kg given intraperitoneally) and given an intracardiac perfusion of heparin-prepared saline followed by 4% paraformaldehyde in 0.1 M phosphate buffer with 0.01% thimersol. The spinal cord was rapidly removed by pressure ejection using cold PBS, and the lumbar segment of the spinal cord was postfixed in the paraformaldehyde solution for 12 h and then cryoprotected by soaking in 30% sucrose in 0.1 M phosphate buffer for 48 h. The spinal cords were frozen with dry ice and 30-micro meter transverse sections were cut using a refrigerated Leica cryostat. These slides were stored in 0.1 M PBS until the sections were immunocytochemically stained for Fos protein. For immunostaining, we used the methods of Dragunow and Robertson, [38] as described in the guidelines produced by Oncogene Science (Uniondale, NY). This method incorporates the avidin-biotin-peroxidase method of Hsu et al., [39,40] using a commercial kit (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA). Briefly, staining consisted of incubating sections in a solution of 1% horse serum, 0.01 M PBS, and 0.2% Triton X-100 for 20 min followed by washing with 0.01 M PBS. Sections were incubated in 1.0 micro gram/ml Fos primary antibody (polyclonal primary antibody, Ab-2, 1:100 dilution; Oncogene Science) for 24 h at 4 [degree sign] Celsius. Negative control sections were not incubated in the primary antibody. All sections were then rinsed in 0.01 M PBS and incubated in biotinylated secondary antibody (rabbit IgG, PK-4001; Vector Laboratories) for 60 min at room temperature. After rinsing with 0.01 M PBS, sections were incubated in the Vectastin avidin-biotin-peroxidase mixture from these kits for 60 min at room temperature. A 0.03% 3,3 diamino-benzidine tetrahydrochloric/0.0015% hydrogen peroxide solution was placed on the sections for 1–3 min. Sections were rinsed in distilled water and mounted on gelatin-coated slides. After mounting, sections were dehydrated in 70% and 90% alcohol and 100% 2-propanol for 1 min each. Sections were soaked in AmeriClear (Baxter Scientific) and mounted with coverslips using Permount (Fisher Scientific). These slides were visually scanned and photographed using a light microscope (Vanox; Olympus Corp., Tokyo, Japan).
Statistical Analyses
Data are presented in text and figures as means +/- SD. Statistics are based on Newman-Keuls post hoc comparisons after one-way analysis of variance (across groups) for the behavioral study and two-way analysis of variance (across groups and spinal cord sites) for the immunoprecipitation study.
Results
As shown in Figure 1, nociceptive scores were significantly reduced compared with the saline/formalin control group (saline + formalin), when rats were given intrathecal lidocaine 3 min before injection of formalin (lidocaine + formalin; P < 0.01). However, when the same treatment was given 5 min after the formalin injection (formalin + lidocaine), or when saline was given 5 min after formalin (formalin + saline), the pain scores remained unaffected (P > 0.05).
Figure 1. Histograms representing the formalin pain scores (mean +/- SD) averaged over the 30-min test period for rats treated with lidocaine either before (lidocaine + formalin) or after (formalin + lidocaine) formalin injection. Saline (saline + formalin or formalin + saline) replaced the lidocaine in the two control groups. Lidocaine given before formalin (P < 0.01, Newman-Keuls test), but not after formalin (P > 0.05, Newman-Keuls test), produced a significant reduction in nociceptive scores compared with the two saline groups. No difference in nociceptive scores was found between saline given before (saline + formalin) or after (formalin + saline) the formalin injection (P > 0.05, Newman-Keuls test).
Figure 1. Histograms representing the formalin pain scores (mean +/- SD) averaged over the 30-min test period for rats treated with lidocaine either before (lidocaine + formalin) or after (formalin + lidocaine) formalin injection. Saline (saline + formalin or formalin + saline) replaced the lidocaine in the two control groups. Lidocaine given before formalin (P < 0.01, Newman-Keuls test), but not after formalin (P > 0.05, Newman-Keuls test), produced a significant reduction in nociceptive scores compared with the two saline groups. No difference in nociceptive scores was found between saline given before (saline + formalin) or after (formalin + saline) the formalin injection (P > 0.05, Newman-Keuls test).
Figure 1. Histograms representing the formalin pain scores (mean +/- SD) averaged over the 30-min test period for rats treated with lidocaine either before (lidocaine + formalin) or after (formalin + lidocaine) formalin injection. Saline (saline + formalin or formalin + saline) replaced the lidocaine in the two control groups. Lidocaine given before formalin (P < 0.01, Newman-Keuls test), but not after formalin (P > 0.05, Newman-Keuls test), produced a significant reduction in nociceptive scores compared with the two saline groups. No difference in nociceptive scores was found between saline given before (saline + formalin) or after (formalin + saline) the formalin injection (P > 0.05, Newman-Keuls test).
×
Fos-like immunoreactivity in response to formalin injection was restricted to the spinal cord ipsilateral to the injected hind paw. Fos-like immunoreactivity was maximal in the lumbar (L2-L6) spinal cord, predominantly in the superficial (lamina I) and deeper layers (lamina V-VI). Rats given formalin but no lidocaine (Figure 2(A)) had greater Fos-like immunoreactivity in the superficial spinal cord dorsal horn than control rats, which received neither formalin nor lidocaine (Figure 2(B)). The number of Fos-positive cells was also dramatically reduced in rats that received lidocaine before formalin (Figure 2(C)), and reduced to a lesser degree in rats that received lidocaine after formalin (Figure 2(D)).
Figure 2. The photomicrographs of the lumbar cord illustrating the differential distribution of immunoreactive Fos neurons in the dorsal horn with (A) injection of formalin alone, (B) control group (no formalin and no lidocaine), (C) lidocaine given before formalin, and (D) lidocaine given after formalin injection. The most prominent changes in Fos expression were observed in laminae I and II of the dorsal horn. The image is magnified x250 its original size, and images are oriented with the superficial layer of the spinal dorsal horn to the left of each photomicrograph.
Figure 2. The photomicrographs of the lumbar cord illustrating the differential distribution of immunoreactive Fos neurons in the dorsal horn with (A) injection of formalin alone, (B) control group (no formalin and no lidocaine), (C) lidocaine given before formalin, and (D) lidocaine given after formalin injection. The most prominent changes in Fos expression were observed in laminae I and II of the dorsal horn. The image is magnified x250 its original size, and images are oriented with the superficial layer of the spinal dorsal horn to the left of each photomicrograph.
Figure 2. The photomicrographs of the lumbar cord illustrating the differential distribution of immunoreactive Fos neurons in the dorsal horn with (A) injection of formalin alone, (B) control group (no formalin and no lidocaine), (C) lidocaine given before formalin, and (D) lidocaine given after formalin injection. The most prominent changes in Fos expression were observed in laminae I and II of the dorsal horn. The image is magnified x250 its original size, and images are oriented with the superficial layer of the spinal dorsal horn to the left of each photomicrograph.
×
The amount of Fos in the spinal cord was measured using immunoprecipitation of the monoclonal antibody (Ab-1). Kinetic studies on formalin-induced Fos expression (data not shown) exhibited a maximal induction at 2 h, with a greater enhancement in the dorsal horn compared with the ventral horn. The current results, shown in Figure 3, indicate that significantly higher counts of immunoprecipitated Fos were found in the group of animals injected with formalin compared with control animals (P < 0.05). Furthermore, Fos expression was significantly suppressed in rats that received intrathecal lidocaine before the formalin injection (lidocaine + formalin; P < 0.05) and suppressed to a lesser extent in rats that received lidocaine after the formalin injection (formalin + lidocaine; P < 0.05). The suppression of formalin-induced Fos expression by pretreatment or post-treatment with lidocaine may be underestimated because we also found that intrathecal lidocaine treatment alone produced a significant increase in Fos expression over untreated controls (counts of 1,253 +/- 8.1 and 677 +/- 8.2 for the dorsal and ventral horns, respectively). Regardless of the treatment condition, Fos expression was always greater in the dorsal horn compared with the ventral horn (P < 0.05).
Figure 3. Differential quantification of Fos expression in the dorsal and ventral horn of the lumbar spinal cord after various treatments as represented by the histograms (mean +/- SD). Compared with the saline control group, there was a significant increase in Fos expression in rats injected with formalin, with a greater increase in the dorsal horn compared with the ventral horn. Pre- and post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine produced significant reductions in Fos expression of formalin-injected rats. The reduction was significantly greater in the rats given pretreatment compared with post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine. *Significantly > than saline controls;[approximately] significantly < than formalin-injected rats;(section) significantly > than lidocaine pretreatment group (P < 0.05 for all comparisons by the Newman-Keuls test).
Figure 3. Differential quantification of Fos expression in the dorsal and ventral horn of the lumbar spinal cord after various treatments as represented by the histograms (mean +/- SD). Compared with the saline control group, there was a significant increase in Fos expression in rats injected with formalin, with a greater increase in the dorsal horn compared with the ventral horn. Pre- and post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine produced significant reductions in Fos expression of formalin-injected rats. The reduction was significantly greater in the rats given pretreatment compared with post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine. *Significantly > than saline controls;[approximately] significantly < than formalin-injected rats;(section) significantly > than lidocaine pretreatment group (P < 0.05 for all comparisons by the Newman-Keuls test).
Figure 3. Differential quantification of Fos expression in the dorsal and ventral horn of the lumbar spinal cord after various treatments as represented by the histograms (mean +/- SD). Compared with the saline control group, there was a significant increase in Fos expression in rats injected with formalin, with a greater increase in the dorsal horn compared with the ventral horn. Pre- and post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine produced significant reductions in Fos expression of formalin-injected rats. The reduction was significantly greater in the rats given pretreatment compared with post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine. *Significantly > than saline controls;[approximately] significantly < than formalin-injected rats;(section) significantly > than lidocaine pretreatment group (P < 0.05 for all comparisons by the Newman-Keuls test).
×
Discussion
The present results replicate our previous findings [4,5] that intrathecal administration of lidocaine to the lumbar spinal cord depresses the second-phase nociceptive response to hind paw formalin injection, only when it is given before the formalin and not shortly after formalin. They are also consistent with a previous report that second-phase nociceptive responses to formalin are reduced by systemic pretreatment but not by early post-treatment with local anesthetics. [6] Furthermore, they support previous data demonstrating that subcutaneous injection of formalin also produces an enhanced expression of Fos-like immunoreactivity in the spinal cord dorsal horn. [28–32] The present study also provides novel evidence for a formalin-induced enhancement of Fos expression in the spinal cord as measured by immunoprecipitation. This method allows for an easily quantifiable measure of changes in Fos expression that compliments the accurate localization, but less-objective quantitative assessment, provided by immunocytochemical analysis.
Recently investigators [36] have suggested that studies using Fos expression in the spinal cord may provide a rational basis for designing preemptive anesthetic regimens. This conclusion was based on the findings of Sun et al., [31] who examined the effects of inhalation anesthetics and fentanyl on nociceptive responses and Fos expression in spinal cord after hind paw injection of formalin. They observed that when inhalation anesthetics (2% halothane, 75% nitrous oxide, or both) are used to block nociceptive responses in the first phase of the formalin test, they produce very little effect on either nociceptive responses in the second phase of the formalin test or Fos expression in the spinal cord dorsal horn. However, when fentanyl (100 micro gram/kg given intraperitoneally) is used to reduce first-phase responses, second-phase nociceptive responses and spinal cord Fos expression to formalin are suppressed. Thus the persistent nociceptive responses and spinal cord Fos expression after formalin injection can be preempted by pretreatment with an opioid analgesic, but not with general anesthetics. The present results provide evidence that spinal anesthetics can also produce preemptive effects by demonstrating that pretreatment with intrathecal lidocaine suppresses second-phase nociceptive responses and Fos expression induced by formalin.
Although in the current study intrathecal lidocaine pretreatment reduced formalin-induced nociception and Fos expression, post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine reduced Fos expression but not nociceptive responses to formalin. The present results parallel those of Tokunaga et al., [32] who found that post-treatment with 3% prilocaine (given subcutaneously at the ankle) produced a similar suppression of formalin-induced Fos expression in the dorsal horn as did pretreatment with 4% lidocaine. Remarkably, despite differences in the formalin concentration (2.5% vs. 5%), the location of the anesthetic blockade (spinal cord vs. ankle) and the assessment method (immunoprecipitation vs. immunocytochemical analysis), our own study and that of Tokunaga et al. [32] found only a marginally greater (8% vs. 6%) reduction in formalin-induced Fos expression produced by pretreatment compared with that by post-treatment.
The finding that persistent nociceptive behaviors and Fos expression were suppressed by intrathecal lidocaine pretreatment supports the hypothesis that nociception in the second phase of the formalin test depends on increases in central hyperexcitability generated during the first phase. However, that Fos expression and second-phase nociceptive responses to formalin were not completely eliminated by intrathecal lidocaine pretreatment suggests that peripheral inputs also contribute to the expression of nociception in the second phase of the formalin test. Because intrathecal lidocaine pretreatment would substantially reduce spinal activation during the first phase, residual Fos expression and second-phase nociceptive behaviors are mostly likely explained by peripheral inputs during the second phase. However, this may also depend on the degree of anesthetic block obtained, because residual Fos expression could reflect an incomplete block. A contribution of ongoing peripheral inputs to second-phase formalin responses, however, is consistent with previous results indicating that behavioral, [4,41,42] spinal cord dorsal horn neuronal, [12] and reflex cardiovascular [42] responses to formalin are significantly reduced or eliminated by infiltration of the formalin-injected site with local anesthetics at the time of testing during the second phase. The importance of ongoing peripheral inputs is also suggested because formalin injections have been shown to produce biphasic activity in C- and A delta- primary afferent fibers, [43,44] although others [45] have suggested that primary afferent activity in the second phase is considerably less than in the first phase.
The finding that the intrathecal lidocaine post-treatment reduced Fos expression but not nociceptive responses was unexpected and reveals an uncoupling of the behavioral and Fos protein responses to formalin. It is perhaps not surprising that post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine would not reduce nociceptive behaviors, because by acting only for 5–10 min during the quiet intermediate phase of the formalin test, the lidocaine treatment would block neither the development of central hyperexcitability during the first phase nor ongoing inputs during the second phase. It is, however, unexpected that this same treatment would reduce overall Fos expression. It is possible that because Fos expression was measured only at a single time point after prolonged (2 h) exposure to the stimulus, the net Fos expression is more greatly influenced by activation that would normally occur in the earlier, rather than the later, periods of the second phase. Thus intrathecal lidocaine given early during the second phase would significantly reduce overall Fos expression, even though its effects on behavior are minor. It should be noted, however, that others [46] have also reported a dissociation of analgesics on pain behaviors and Fos expression in the spinal cord dorsal horn.
Although the Fos expression data do not correspond with the behavioral data in this study, the Fos results bare some resemblance to clinical observations. Thus, although clinical studies comparing preemptive versus no treatment are overwhelmingly suggestive of a beneficial effect in pretreated patients, the value of preemptive treatment becomes less obvious when compared with the same treatment initiated after surgery. As a result, studies comparing the effectiveness of pre- and postsurgical treatment with local or regional anesthesia, epidural anesthesia or analgesia, or systemic morphine have produced conflicting results, with some studies indicating a limited [47–50] or even no [51–54] advantage of pre- compared with postsurgical treatment. By demonstrating that Fos expression is similarly reduced by pre- or postformalin treatment with intrathecal lidocaine, the present study resembles those clinical studies in which there was no advantage to preemptive treatment. By the same token, it could be argued that behavioral assessments in the formalin test may not be reflective of clinical situations in which preemptive analgesia is not always demonstrated. However, as discussed at length in our previous article on this topic, [55] preemptive effects are also not always present in the formalin test and may depend on formalin concentration. Thus higher concentrations of formalin, which produce significant long-lasting peripheral inflammation (similar to that observed after many clinical surgeries), are more resistant to the preemptive effects of intrathecal lidocaine. [55] 
REFERENCES
Coderre TJ, Katz J, Vaccarino AL, Melzack R: Contribution of central neuroplasticity to pathological pain: Review of clinical and experimental evidence. Pain 1993; 52:259-85.
Woolf CJ, Wall PD: Morphine-sensitive and morphine-insensitive actions of C-fibre input on the rat spinal cord. Neurosci Lett 1986; 64:221-5.
Dubuisson D, Dennis SG: The formalin test: A quantitative study of the analgesic effects of morphine, meperidine, and brain stem stimulation in rats and cats. Pain 1977; 4:161-74.
Coderre TJ, Vaccarino AL, Melzack R: Central nervous system plasticity in the tonic pain response to subcutaneous formalin injection. Brain Res 1990; 535:155-8.
Coderre TJ, Yashpal K, Henry JL: Specific contribution of lumbar spinal mechanisms to persistent nociceptive responses in the formalin test. Neuroreport 1994; 5:1337-40.
Abram SE, Yaksh TL: Systemic lidocaine blocks nerve injury-induced hyperalgesia and nociceptor-driven spinal sensitization in the rat. Anesthesiology 1994; 80:383-91.
Abram SE, Yaksh TL: Morphine, but not inhalation anesthesia, blocks post-injury facilitation: The role of preemptive suppression of afferent transmission. Anesthesiology 1993; 78:713-21.
Abram SE, Olson EE: Systemic opioids do not suppress spinal sensitization after subcutaneous formalin in rats. Anesthesiology 1994; 80:1114-9.
Goto T, Marota JJA, Crosby G: Nitrous oxide induces preemptive analgesia in the rat that is antagonized by halothane. Anesthesiology 1994; 80:409-16.
Goto T, Marota JJA, Crosby G: Pentobarbitone, but not propofol, produces pre-emptive analgesia in the rat formalin model. Br J Anaesth 1994; 72:662-7.
O'Connor TC, Abram SE: Inhibition of nociception-induced spinal sensitization by anesthetic agents. Anesthesiology 1995; 82:259-66.
Dickenson AH, Sullivan AF: Subcutaneous formalin-induced activity of dorsal horn neurones in the rat: Differential response to an intrathecal opiate administered pre or post formalin. Pain 1987; 30:349-60.
Haley JE, Sullivan AF, Dickenson AH: Evidence for spinal N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor involvement in prolonged chemical nociception in the rat. Brain Res 1990; 518:218-26.
Coderre TJ, Melzack R: The contribution of excitatory amino acids to central sensitization and persistent nociception after formalin-induced tissue injury. J Neurosci 1992; 12:3665-70.
Yamamoto T, Yaksh TL: Comparison of the antinociceptive effects of pre- and posttreatment with intrathecal morphine and MK801, an NMDA antagonist, on the formalin test in the rat. Anesthesiology 1992; 77:757-63.
Vaccarino AL, Marek P, Kest B, Weber E, Keana JFW, Liebeskind JC: NMDA receptor antagonists, MK-801 and ACEA-1011, prevent the development of tonic pain following subcutaneous formalin. Brain Res 1993; 615:331-4.
Millan MJ, Seguin L: (+)-HA 966, a partial agonist at the glycine site coupled to NMDA receptors, blocks formalin-induced pain in mice. Eur J Pharmacol 1993; 238:445-7.
Eisenberg E, Vos BP, Strassman AM: The NMDA antagonist Memantine blocks pain behavior in a rat model of formalin-induced facial pain. Pain 1993; 54:301-7.
Yamamoto T, Yaksh TL: Stereospecific effects of a nonpeptidic NK1 selective antagonist, CP-96,345: Antinociception in the absence of motor dysfunction. Life Sci 1991; 49:1955-63.
Birch PJ, Harrison SM, Hayes AG, Rogers H, Tyers MB: The non-peptide NK1 receptor antagonist, (+/-)-CP-96,345, produces antinociceptive and anti-oedema effects in the rat. Br J Pharmacol 1992; 105:508-10.
Berge O-G, Stahlberg M: Is the selective non-peptide NK-1 receptor antagonist CP96,345 a peripherally acting analgesic. Regul Pept 1993; 46:430-2.
Yashpal K, Radhakrishnan V, Coderre TJ, Henry JL: CP-96,345, but not its stereoisomer, CP-96,344, blocks the nociceptive responses to intrathecally administered substance P and to noxious thermal and chemical stimuli in the rat. Neuroscience 1993; 52:1039-47.
Hunt SP, Pini A, Evan G: Induction of c-fos-like protein in spinal cord neurons following sensory stimulation. Nature 1987; 328:632-4.
Bullitt E: Induction of c-fos-like protein within the lumbar spinal cord and thalamus of the rat following peripheral stimulation. Brain Res 1989; 493:391-7.
Coimbra F, Coimbra A: Dental noxious input reaches the sub-nucleus caudalis of the trigeminal complex in the rat, as shown by c-fos expression upon thermal or mechanical stimulation. Neurosci Lett 1994; 173:201-4.
Strassman AM, Vos BP, Mineta Y, Naderi S, Borsook D, Burstein R: Fos-like immunoreactivity in the superficial medullary dorsal horn induced by noxious and innocuous thermal stimulation of facial skin in the rat. J Neurophysiol 1993; 70:1811-21.
Abbadie C, Honore P, Fournie-Zaluski M-C, Roques BP, Besson J-M: Effects of opioids and non-opioids on c-Fos-like immunoreactivity induced in rat lumbar spinal cord neurons by noxious heat stimulation. Eur J Pharmacol 1994; 258:215-27.
Gogas KR, Levine JD, Basbaum AI: Differential contribution of descending controls to the antinociceptive actions of kappa and mu opioids, an analysis of formalin-evoked c-fos expression. J Pharmacol Exper Ther 1996; 276:801-9.
Lima D, Avelino A, Coimbra A: Differential activation of c-fos in spinal neurones by distinct classes of noxious stimuli. Neuroreport 1993; 4:747-50.
Presley RW, Menetrey D, Levine JD, Basbaum AI: Systemic morphine suppresses noxious stimulus-evoked Fos protein-like immunoreactivity in the rat spinal cord. J Neurosci 1990; 10:323-35.
Sun WZ, Shyu BC, Shieh JY: Nitrous oxide or halothane, or both, fail to suppress c-fos expression in rat spinal cord dorsal horn neurones after subcutaneous formalin. Br J Anaesth 1996; 76:99-105.
Tokunaga A, Doi M, Senba E: Effects of local anaesthesia on formalin-induced fos expression in the rat dorsal horn. Neuroreport 1995; 6:2301-4.
Soyguder Z, Schmidt HHHW, Morris R: Postnatal development of nitric oxide synthase type 1 expression in the lumbar spinal cord of the rat: a comparison with the induction of c-fos in response to peripheral application of mustard oil. Neurosci Lett 1994; 180:188-92.
Menetrey D, Gannon A, Levine JD, Basbaum AI: Expression of c-fos protein in interneurons and projection neurons of the rat spinal cord in response to noxious somatic, articular, and visceral stimulation. J Comp Neurol 1989; 285:177-95.
Honore P, Buritova J, Besson JM: Carrageenin-evoked c-Fos expression in rat lumbar spinal cord: The effects of indomethacin. Eur J Pharmacol 1995; 272:249-59.
Munglani R, Jones JG, Hunt S: Pre-emptive analgesia-Use of immediate early genes expression as markers of neuronal stimulation. Br J Anaesth 1993; 71:458.
Bradford MM: A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Analyt Biochem 1976; 72:248-54.
Dragunow M, Robertson HA: Localization and induction of c-fos protein-like immunoreactive material in the nuclei of adult mammalian neurons. Brain Res 1988; 440:252-60.
Hsu SM, Raine L, Fanger H: Use of avidin-biotin-peroxidase complex (ABC) in immunoperoxidase techniques: A comparison between ABC and unlabeled antibody (PAP) procedures. J Histochem Cytochem 1981; 29:577-80.
Hsu SM, Raine L, Fanger H: A comparative study of the peroxidase-antiperoxidase method and an avidin-biotin complex method for studying polypeptide hormones with radio-immunoassay antibodies. Am J Clin Pathol 1981; 75:734-8.
Dallel R, Raboisson P, Clavelou P, Saade M, Woda A: Evidence for a peripheral origin of the tonic nociceptive response to subcutaneous formalin. Pain 1995; 61:11-6.
Taylor BK, Peterson MA, Basbaum AI: Persistent cardiovascular and behavioral nociceptive responses to subcutaneous formalin require peripheral nerve input. J Neurosci 1995; 15:7575-84.
McCall WD, Tanner KD, Levine JD: Formalin induces biphasic activity in c-fibers in the rat. Neurosci Lett 1996; 208:45-8.
Puig S, Sorkin LS: Formalin-evoked activity in identified primary afferent fibers-systemic lidocaine suppresses phase-2 activity. Pain 1996; 64:345-55.
Abram SE, Dean C, O'Connor TC: Peroneal afferent nerve discharges underlying the behavioral response to the formalin test. Reg Anesth 1996; 21:226-33.
Hamalainen MM, Alila A, Johansson G, Pertovaara A: Cocaine-induced effects on pain behavior and c-fos expression in the spinal dorsal horn of the rat. Neurosci Res Commun 1996; 19:67-74.
Katz J, Clairoux M, Kavanagh BP, Roger S, Nierenberg H, Redahan C, Sandler AN: Preemptive lumbar epidural anaesthesia reduces postoperative PCA morphine consumption after lower abdominal surgery. Pain 1995; 59:395-403.
Richmond CE, Bromley LM, Woolf CJ: Preoperative morphine pre-empts postoperative pain. Lancet 1993; 342:73-5.
Ejlersen E, Bryde-Anderson H, Eliasen K, Mogensen T: A comparison between preincisional and postincisional lidocaine infiltration and postoperative pain. Anesth Analg 1992; 74:495-8.
Katz J, Kavanagh BP, Sandler AN, Nierenberg H, Boylan JF, Friedlander M, Shaw BF: Preemptive analgesia: Clinical evidence of neuroplasticity contributing to postoperative pain. Anesthesiology 1992; 77:439-46.
Dahl JB, Hansen BL, Hjortso NC, Erichsen CJ, Moiniche S, Kehlet H: Influence of timing on the effect of continuous extradural analgesia with bupivacaine and morphine after major abdominal surgery. Br J Anaesth 1992; 69:4-8.
Dierking GW, Dahl JB, Kanstrup J, Dahl A, Kehlet H: Effect of pre- vs postoperative inguinal field block on postoperative pain after herniorraphy. Br J Anaesth 1992; 68:344-8.
Pryle BJ, Vanner RG, Enriquez N, Reynolds F: Can pre-emptive lumbar epidural blockade reduce post-operative pain following lower abdominal surgery? Anaesthesia 1993; 48:120-3.
Rice LJ, Pudimat MA, Hannallah RS: Timing of caudal block placement in relation to surgery does not affect duration of postoperative analgesia in paediatric ambulatory patients. Can J Anaesth 1990; 37:429-31.
Yashpal K, Katz J, Coderre TJ: Effects of preemptive or postinjury intrathecal local anesthesia on persistent nociceptive responses in rats: confounding influences of peripheral inflammation and the general anesthetic regimen. Anesthesiology 1996; 84:1119-28.
Figure 1. Histograms representing the formalin pain scores (mean +/- SD) averaged over the 30-min test period for rats treated with lidocaine either before (lidocaine + formalin) or after (formalin + lidocaine) formalin injection. Saline (saline + formalin or formalin + saline) replaced the lidocaine in the two control groups. Lidocaine given before formalin (P < 0.01, Newman-Keuls test), but not after formalin (P > 0.05, Newman-Keuls test), produced a significant reduction in nociceptive scores compared with the two saline groups. No difference in nociceptive scores was found between saline given before (saline + formalin) or after (formalin + saline) the formalin injection (P > 0.05, Newman-Keuls test).
Figure 1. Histograms representing the formalin pain scores (mean +/- SD) averaged over the 30-min test period for rats treated with lidocaine either before (lidocaine + formalin) or after (formalin + lidocaine) formalin injection. Saline (saline + formalin or formalin + saline) replaced the lidocaine in the two control groups. Lidocaine given before formalin (P < 0.01, Newman-Keuls test), but not after formalin (P > 0.05, Newman-Keuls test), produced a significant reduction in nociceptive scores compared with the two saline groups. No difference in nociceptive scores was found between saline given before (saline + formalin) or after (formalin + saline) the formalin injection (P > 0.05, Newman-Keuls test).
Figure 1. Histograms representing the formalin pain scores (mean +/- SD) averaged over the 30-min test period for rats treated with lidocaine either before (lidocaine + formalin) or after (formalin + lidocaine) formalin injection. Saline (saline + formalin or formalin + saline) replaced the lidocaine in the two control groups. Lidocaine given before formalin (P < 0.01, Newman-Keuls test), but not after formalin (P > 0.05, Newman-Keuls test), produced a significant reduction in nociceptive scores compared with the two saline groups. No difference in nociceptive scores was found between saline given before (saline + formalin) or after (formalin + saline) the formalin injection (P > 0.05, Newman-Keuls test).
×
Figure 2. The photomicrographs of the lumbar cord illustrating the differential distribution of immunoreactive Fos neurons in the dorsal horn with (A) injection of formalin alone, (B) control group (no formalin and no lidocaine), (C) lidocaine given before formalin, and (D) lidocaine given after formalin injection. The most prominent changes in Fos expression were observed in laminae I and II of the dorsal horn. The image is magnified x250 its original size, and images are oriented with the superficial layer of the spinal dorsal horn to the left of each photomicrograph.
Figure 2. The photomicrographs of the lumbar cord illustrating the differential distribution of immunoreactive Fos neurons in the dorsal horn with (A) injection of formalin alone, (B) control group (no formalin and no lidocaine), (C) lidocaine given before formalin, and (D) lidocaine given after formalin injection. The most prominent changes in Fos expression were observed in laminae I and II of the dorsal horn. The image is magnified x250 its original size, and images are oriented with the superficial layer of the spinal dorsal horn to the left of each photomicrograph.
Figure 2. The photomicrographs of the lumbar cord illustrating the differential distribution of immunoreactive Fos neurons in the dorsal horn with (A) injection of formalin alone, (B) control group (no formalin and no lidocaine), (C) lidocaine given before formalin, and (D) lidocaine given after formalin injection. The most prominent changes in Fos expression were observed in laminae I and II of the dorsal horn. The image is magnified x250 its original size, and images are oriented with the superficial layer of the spinal dorsal horn to the left of each photomicrograph.
×
Figure 3. Differential quantification of Fos expression in the dorsal and ventral horn of the lumbar spinal cord after various treatments as represented by the histograms (mean +/- SD). Compared with the saline control group, there was a significant increase in Fos expression in rats injected with formalin, with a greater increase in the dorsal horn compared with the ventral horn. Pre- and post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine produced significant reductions in Fos expression of formalin-injected rats. The reduction was significantly greater in the rats given pretreatment compared with post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine. *Significantly > than saline controls;[approximately] significantly < than formalin-injected rats;(section) significantly > than lidocaine pretreatment group (P < 0.05 for all comparisons by the Newman-Keuls test).
Figure 3. Differential quantification of Fos expression in the dorsal and ventral horn of the lumbar spinal cord after various treatments as represented by the histograms (mean +/- SD). Compared with the saline control group, there was a significant increase in Fos expression in rats injected with formalin, with a greater increase in the dorsal horn compared with the ventral horn. Pre- and post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine produced significant reductions in Fos expression of formalin-injected rats. The reduction was significantly greater in the rats given pretreatment compared with post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine. *Significantly > than saline controls;[approximately] significantly < than formalin-injected rats;(section) significantly > than lidocaine pretreatment group (P < 0.05 for all comparisons by the Newman-Keuls test).
Figure 3. Differential quantification of Fos expression in the dorsal and ventral horn of the lumbar spinal cord after various treatments as represented by the histograms (mean +/- SD). Compared with the saline control group, there was a significant increase in Fos expression in rats injected with formalin, with a greater increase in the dorsal horn compared with the ventral horn. Pre- and post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine produced significant reductions in Fos expression of formalin-injected rats. The reduction was significantly greater in the rats given pretreatment compared with post-treatment with intrathecal lidocaine. *Significantly > than saline controls;[approximately] significantly < than formalin-injected rats;(section) significantly > than lidocaine pretreatment group (P < 0.05 for all comparisons by the Newman-Keuls test).
×