Irina Kirillova

Publications (2)9.09 Total impact

• Article: Effect of local and intravenous lidocaine on ongoing activity in injured afferent nerve fibers.

  Irina Kirillova, Alina Teliban, Natalia Gorodetskaya, Lydia Grossmann, Fabian Bartsch, Vanessa H Rausch, Marek Struck, Jan Tode, Ralf Baron, Wilfrid Jänig
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Lidocaine applied systemically or locally attenuates neuropathic pain in patients. Here we tested the hypothesis that ectopic activity in injured afferent A- or C-fibers is suppressed by lidocaine. In rats the sural nerve (skin nerve) or lateral gastrocnemius-soleus nerve (muscle nerve) was crushed. Four to 11 days after crush lesion afferent fibers were isolated from the lesioned nerves in bundles rostral to the injury site. Ongoing ectopic activity was recorded from 75 A-fibers (muscle N=43, skin N=32) and 69 C-fibers (muscle N=30, skin N=39). Most afferent fibers were functionally characterized by their responses to mechanical and thermal (mostly heat) stimuli applied at or distal to the nerve injury site. Low-threshold cold-sensitive cutaneous C-fibers were excluded from the analysis. Lidocaine was either applied to the nerve at or distal to the injury site in concentrations of 1 to 1000 μg/mL or injected i.v. in doses of 0.09 to 9 mg/kg (skin) or 0.047 to 4.7 mg/kg (muscle). Local application of lidocaine depressed ectopic activity in A- and C-fibers dose-dependently. Depression was weaker in C- than in A-fibers. Intravenous application of lidocaine depressed ongoing ectopic activity in A- and C-fibers dose-dependently. Responses to heat or mechanical stimulation of the injured nerve were not suppressed at the highest concentrations of lidocaine. The results support the hypothesis that decrease of neuropathic pain following local or systemic application of a local anesthetic is related to decrease of ectopic ongoing activity in injured afferent nerve fibers.
  Pain 07/2011; 152(7):1562-71. · 5.78 Impact Factor
• Article: Mechano- and thermosensitivity of injured muscle afferents.

  Irina Kirillova, Vanessa H Rausch, Jan Tode, Ralf Baron, Wilfrid Jänig
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Injury of limb nerves leading to neuropathic pain mostly affects deep somatic nerves including muscle nerves. Here, we investigated the functional properties of injured afferent fibers innervating the lateral gastrocnemius-soleus muscle 4-13 h [time period (TP) I] and 4-7 days (TP II) after nerve crush in anesthetized rats using neurophysiological recordings from either the sciatic nerve (165 A-, 137 C-fibers) or the dorsal root L(5) (43 A-, 28 C-fibers). Ongoing activity and responses to mechanical or thermal stimulation of the injury site of the nerve were studied quantitatively. Of the electrically identified A- and C-fibers, 5 and 38% exhibited ectopic activity, respectively, in TP I and 51 and 61%, respectively, in TP II. Thus all afferent fibers in an injured muscle nerve developed ectopic activity since ∼ 50% of the fibers in a muscle nerve are somatomotor or sympathetic postganglionic. Ongoing activity was present in 50% of the afferent A-fibers (TP II) and in 53-56% of the afferent C-fibers (TP I and II). In TP II, mechanical, cold, and heat sensitivity were present in 91, 63, and 52% of the afferent A-fibers and in 50, 40, and 66% of the afferent C-fibers. The cold and heat activation thresholds were 5-27 and 35-48°C, respectively, covering the noxious and innocuous range. Most afferent fibers showed combinations of these sensitivities. Mechano- and cold sensitivity had a significantly higher representation in A- than in C-fibers, but heat sensitivity had a significantly higher representation in C- than in A-fibers. These functional differences between A- and C-fibers applied to large- as well as small-diameter A-fibers. Comparing the functional properties of injured muscle A- and C-afferents with those of injured cutaneous A- and C-afferents shows that both populations of injured afferent neurons behave differently in several aspects.
  Journal of Neurophysiology 02/2011; 105(5):2058-73. · 3.32 Impact Factor