PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Rolf Detlef Treede

Publications and source records attributed to Rolf Detlef Treede.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Different neuronal contribution to N20 somatosensory evoked potential and to CO2 laser evoked potentials: an intracerebral recording study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the possible contribution of the primary somatosensory area (SI) to pain sensation. METHODS: Depth recordings of CO2 laser evoked potentials (LEPs) and somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) were performed in an epileptic patient with a stereotactically implanted electrode (Talairach coordinates y=-23, z=40) that passed about 10 mm below the hand representation in her left SI area, as assessed by the source of the N20 SEP component. RESULTS: The intracerebral electrode was able to record the N20 SEP component after non-painful electrical stimulation of her right median nerve. The N20 potential showed a phase reversal in the bipolar montage (at about 31 mm from the midline), which confirms that the electrode was located near its generator in area 3b. In contrast, no reliable response was recorded from the SI electrode after painful CO2 laser stimulation of the right hand. An N2-P2 response was evoked at the vertex electrode (Cz), thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the delivered CO2 laser stimuli. CONCLUSIONS: Since the N20 SEP component originates from the anterior bank of the post-central gyrus (area 3b), our result suggests that this part of SI does not participate in LEP generation. In fact, the previously published LEP sources in the SI area estimated from scalp recordings are about 10-17 mm posterior of the electrode in our patient, suggesting that they are more likely located in area 1, 2 or posterior parietal cortex.

Adult↗

Sensitivity of laser-evoked potentials versus somatosensory evoked potentials in patients with multiple sclerosis.

OBJECTIVE: Somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) play a less important role in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) than visually evoked potentials. Since standard SEPs only reflect the dorsal column function, we now investigated spinothalamic tract function in patients with MS using laser-evoked potentials (LEPs). METHODS: LEPs to thulium laser stimuli (3ms, 540 mJ, 5mm diameter) were recorded from 3 midline positions (Fz, Cz, Pz) in 20 patients with MS, and 6 patients with possible but unconfirmed MS. Peak latencies and peak-to-peak amplitude of the vertex potential negativity (N2) and positivity (P2) were evaluated and compared with normative values from 22 healthy control subjects. Median and tibial nerve SEPs were recorded with standard methods. Depending on the results of sensory testing, two skin areas (both hands, both feet, or one hand and foot of the same body side) were assessed in each patient. RESULTS: In group comparisons, LEPs in patients with MS were significantly delayed and reduced in amplitude compared with healthy subjects (P<0.001) or patients with suspected but unconfirmed MS (P<0.05). In intraindividual comparisons within the patients with MS, LEP amplitude was significantly lower (P<0.01) and latencies were significantly longer (N2: P<0.01; P2: P<0.05) for a clinically hypoalgesic skin area than an unaffected control area. On a single case basis, LEPs were abnormal in 12 (60%) and SEPs in 8 (40%) of the patients with MS; combined analysis of LEPs and SEPs raised sensitivity to 75% (15 patients). LEPs were also abnormal for 7 skin areas with clinically normal nociception and thermal sensitivity, indicating subclinical lesions. Standard SEPs detected subclinical lesions in 5 areas with normal tactile sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multiple sclerosis, spinothalamic tract function and LEPs were impaired more often than dorsal column function and SEPs. LEPs also detected subclinical lesions. Combined assessment of LEPs and SEPs can help to document dissemination of demyelinating CNS lesions and thus contribute to the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis.

Adult↗

Neurogenic hyperalgesia versus painful hypoalgesia: two distinct mechanisms of neuropathic pain.

Patients with sensory disturbances of painful and non-painful character show distinct changes in touch and/or pain sensitivity. The patterns of sensory changes were compared to those of human surrogate models of neuropathic pain to assess the underlying mechanisms. We investigated 30 consecutive in-patients with dysaesthesia of various origins (peripheral, spinal, and brainstem lesions) and 15 healthy subjects. Tactile thresholds were determined with calibrated von Frey hairs (1.1mm). Thresholds and stimulus-response functions for pricking pain were determined with a series of calibrated punctate mechanical stimulators (0.2mm). Allodynia was tested by light stroking with a brush, Q-tip, and cotton wisp. Perceptual wind-up was tested by trains of punctate stimuli at 0.2 or 1Hz. Intradermal injection of capsaicin (n=7) and A-fiber conduction blockade (n=8) served as human surrogate models for neurogenic hyperalgesia and partial nociceptive deafferentation, respectively. Patients without pain (18/30) showed a continuous distribution of threshold shifts in the dysaesthetic skin area with a low to moderate increase in pain threshold (by 1.52+/-0.45 log2 units). Patients with painful dysaesthesia presented as two separate groups (six patients each): one showing lowered pain thresholds (by -1.94+/-0.46 log2 units, hyperalgesia) and the other elevated pain thresholds (by 3.02+/-0.48 log2 units, hypoalgesia). The human surrogate model of neurogenic hyperalgesia revealed nearly identical leftward shifts in stimulus-response function for pricking pain as patients with spontaneous pain and hyperalgesia (by a factor of about 5 each). The sensory changes in the human surrogate model of deafferentation were similar to patients with hypoalgesia and spontaneous pain (rightward shift of the stimulus-response function with a decrease in slope). Perceptual wind-up did not differ between symptomatic and control areas. There was no exclusive association of any parameter obtained by quantitative sensory testing with a particular disease (of either peripheral or central origin). Our findings suggest that neuropathic pain is based on two distinct mechanisms: (I) central sensitization (neurogenic hyperalgesia; in patients with minor sensory impairment) and (II) partial nociceptive deafferentation (painful hypoalgesia; in patients with major sensory deficit). This distinction as previously postulated for postherpetic neuralgia, is obviously valid also for other conditions. Our findings emphasize the significance of a mechanism-based classification of neuropathic pain.

Adult↗