1 / 57

Chetan Phadke

Pre-synaptic and Reciprocal Inhibition in the Hemiparetic UE: Mechanisms and Functional Implications. Chetan Phadke. Summary. Types of spinal inhibition Underlying mechanisms Functional significance Special Case of the wrist muscles Effect of therapeutic interventions Future studies.

theola
Download Presentation

Chetan Phadke

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pre-synaptic and Reciprocal Inhibition in the Hemiparetic UE: Mechanisms and Functional Implications Chetan Phadke

  2. Summary • Types of spinal inhibition • Underlying mechanisms • Functional significance • Special Case of the wrist muscles • Effect of therapeutic interventions • Future studies Need for inhibition

  3. Continuous Sensory Flow • Periphery  Spinal cord • Sensory fibers entering spinal cord have ascending and descending fibers (Cajal 1899) • Exceeds the information processing ability of the CNS • Sensory flow needs to be regulated • Inhibition or dis-facilitation • Inhibitory/Facilitatory interneurons Knikou (2008), Eccles (1960), Rudomin (1999), and For Review – Hultborn (2006)

  4. Sir John Carew Eccles • Joint Nobel award (John C. Eccles, Alan Hodgkin, Andrew Huxley - 1963) • ‘‘for discoveries concerning the ionic mechanism in the excitation and inhibition of the peripheral and central membranous sections of nerve cells’’ Where to inhibit? Willis (2006), Burke (2006)

  5. Site of Inhibition • Three potential sites: • sensory receptor, primary afferent terminal, and second-order cell • Receptors: No sensory feedback • Second-order cell: Afferents have already affected other systems • Ia afferent terminal: Most economical Rudomin (1999), Knikou (2008)

  6. Descending Ia Ia pre-synaptic Ia Post-synaptic Renshaw Antagonist Types of inhibition • Presnaptic • Reciprocal • Recurrent • Post-synaptic Agonist

  7. Presynaptic Inhibition (PSI) • Before the synapse • Frank and Fuortes (1957) • Decrease in EPSP (no change in membrane potential or excitability of post-synaptic cells) Frank & Fuortes (1957) ref. in Willis (2006)

  8. Presynaptic Inhibition How does it really work? • Further evidence presynaptic nature of depression • Strychnine did not change this depression • Strychnine blocks postsynaptic depression Eccles (1963), Devanandan (1965), Rudomin (1999)

  9. PAD GABA

  10. PSI characteristics • PSI accompanied by primary afferent depolarization • Axo-axonal gamma-aminobutyric (GABA) synapses • Reduction in the size of the presynaptic impulse • Decrease in the monosynaptic transmission of the Ia excitatory effects Rudomin (1999)

  11. PSI testing methods • Test reflex (e.g. soleus H-reflex) • Conditioning impulse provided before test reflex stimulation • Conditioning impulse could be either tendon vibration, cutaneous afferent stimulation, or muscle afferent stimulation of the synergist or antagonist muscle • Upper and lower limb origin Rudomin (1999), Aimonetti (1999), Fujiwara (2008), Nakashima (1990), Zehr (2001)

  12. Inhibition Knikou 2008

  13. Dis-facilitation Knikou 2008

  14. Sources of PSI • Supraspinal • Ia afferents from homonymous or heteronymous muscles • Ia afferents from antagonists and agonists • Ia afferents from synergistic muscles • Ib afferents • Cutaneous afferents (upper or lower limb) Rudomin (1999), Zehr (2007), Fujiwara (2008)

  15. Cutaneous + median Cutaneous + radial +median Radial + median So how does PSI help us? Release of inhibition Nakashima et al (1990)

  16. Task-specific PSI • Upper limb and lower limb • Onset of muscle contraction, PSI decreases in the target muscle Ia afferents • Allows the Ia excitation on the motor neuron (stretch reflex) to contribute to muscle activity • PSI is increased in the non-contracting muscle afferents • This decrease in PSI in the target muscle has been attributed to supraspinal mechanisms Hultborn (1987), Collins (1998), Morita (1995)

  17. Aimonetti et al (1999)

  18. PSI: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon • Posture, phase of walking, walking post-SCI, walking environment • PSI increased during standing without a change in background EMG level • Current intensity change did not affect PSI Goulart (2000), Koceja (1993), Capaday (1987), Yang (1993), Llewelleyn (1990), Phadke (2007), Stein (1995), Iles (1996), Jankowska (1976), Iles (1992), Nielsen (1993), Capaday (1995)

  19. Reciprocal Inhibition (RI) • Inhibition of Ia afferents by antagonist large group I muscle afferents • Disynaptic pathway (1 inhibitory interneuron) • Pathway different than PSI • Modulates alpha motor neuron activity • Concomitant test and conditioning stimuli Day (1984)

  20. Knikou (2008)

  21. Aymard (1995)

  22. Two phases of RI • 1) ISI = -1 to 3 ms and 2) +5 to +30 ms • First is disynaptic reciprocal inhibition between radial Ia afferents and flexor alpha motoneurones • Second is presynaptic inhibition of flexor Ia afferents Nakashima (1990), Huang (2006)

  23. Inhibition of H-reflex in arm • Mechanical stimulation of finger tips decreased PSI and RI (ECR) • Hand anesthesia increased PSI by 10% and decreased RI by 20% (ECR) • Superficial radial nerve (wrist) stimulation decreased inhibition by 20% (FCR) • Finger or superficial radial stimulation decreased PSI induced by radial nerve conditioning (up to 20% decrease; FCR) • Cutaneous stimulation by itself produced no PSI • RI did not change Aimonetti (1997 and 1999), Berardelli (1987), Nakashima (1990)

  24. Effect of hand anesthesia RI PSI Before During After anesthesia Cutaneous afferents exert a tonic influence on presynaptic pathways Nakashima et al (1990)

  25. Grip induced changes in PSI • Similar levels of ECR reflex facilitation seen during hand clenching and cutaneous afferent stimulation without hand clenching • ECR H-reflex was larger during hand clenching compared to isometric ECR contraction • The cutaneous afferents may play a major role controlling reflex loops during hand motor activities • Presynaptic inhibition might be depressed as the result of the large-scale activation of palm and finger cutaneous afferents liable to occur during hand clenching Aimonetti (1997 and 1999), Schmied (1997)

  26. Aimonetti et al (1999)

  27. Transcranial conditioning • TES given 4.5 ms after test stimulus strongly facilitated FCR H-reflex • TES decreased both RI and PSI • Sub-threshold TMS given induced facilitation of FCR H-reflex • TMS decreased both RI and PSI Mercuri (1997), Cowan (1986)

  28. Disynaptic inhibition in elbow muscles • Disynaptic RI is seen between elbow flexors and extensors • Conditioning stimulus of tendon tap activates Renshaw cells and RI induced by disynaptic inhibition is depressed • Similar protocol used for wrist muscles, but RI level remained unchanged Katz (1991), Aymard (1995)

  29. Inhibition in the wrist muscles • Ia afferents from antagonistic elbow muscles were found to facilitate actions of interneurons mediating inhibition between wrist flexors and extensors • RI seen between flexors and extensors may not be disynaptic, but non-reciprocal group I inhibition • 20 minutes of tendon vibration did not change RI between wrist flexors and extensors • The dominant group I peripheral input to the interneurones mediating reciprocal inhibition between wrist muscles is not Ia, but Ib in origin Wargon (2006), Aymard (1995)

  30. Unique case of the wrist • Wrist flexors and extensors are not truly antagonistic muscles because they work synergistically during hand clenching and work together to produce radial/ulnar deviation • Wrist has movements in two planes and the complex movement of circumduction Does inhibition change post-stroke? Wargon (2006), Aymard (1995)

  31. Impaired inhibition post-stroke • PSI and RI are impaired post-stroke (inhibition decreases) • Inhibition replaced by facilitation • Loss of normal facilitation • Several pathways could be impaired leading to functional impairments Lamy (2008), Aymard (2000), Artieda (1991), Dietz (1992), Crone (1994, 2001, and 2003), Faist (1992), Morita (2001), Yanigasawa (1973), Kagamihara (2005), Nielsen (2007), Okuma (1996), Harburn (1995), Levin (1992)

  32. Pathways potentially related to impairment post-stroke Nielsen et al (2007)

  33. Spinal inhibition : Clinical manifestations • No correlation between PSI/RI and spasticity post-stroke • Acute stroke has more loss of inhibition compared to chronic stroke • More affected side post-stroke shows more loss of inhibition compared to less-affected side • Strong correlation between spasticity and paired-reflex depression Lamy (2008), Aymard (2000)

  34. Post-stroke: Lamy (2008)

  35. Lamy et al (2008)

  36. Lamy et al (2008)

  37. Similar trends in lower limbs • Disynaptic Ia inhibition from peroneal nerve afferents to soleus motoneurones was tested • RI increased in patients who showed good recovery of function with mild spasticity • No change in patients who made a poor recovery and had more marked extensor spasticity • In patients where serial recordings were obtained there was an increase in Ia inhibition during the recovery period following stroke Okuma (1996), Lamy (2008)

  38. TENS and lower limb trends • Two-week TENS decreased clinical spasticity and increased vibratory inhibition of the soleus H reflex • Substantial improvement in voluntary dorsiflexing force up to 820%, but not plantarflexing force • Reduction in the magnitude of stretch reflexes in the spastic ankle plantarflexor • Decrease in the EMG co-contraction ratios Levin MF (1992)

  39. Therapeutic Intervention and spinal excitability • HANDS (hybrid, assistive neuromuscular dynamic system) • EMG feedback based FES • 3 week training, 40 minutes/day, 5 days/week, wearing the system 8 hours per day • Decreased co-contraction (wrist flexor/extensor) • H-reflex amplitude did not change, in 8/20 patients • TMS could be evoked pre and post treatment (no change in MEPs, motor thresholds) • increased intracortical inhibition post-treatment • decreased MAS post-treatment • improved hand function (drinking with glass and turn over a page) post-training • increase in grip strength • and increase in RI and PSI post-treatment • Grip strength and drinking with glass increased 3 months f/u Fujiwara (2008)

  40. Figure 2 Reciprocal Inhibition Before and After the Hybrid Assistive Neuromuscular Dynamic Stimulation (HANDS) Therapy (Fujiwara 2008) Fujiwara (2008)

  41. Gap Analysis: Unknowns • Is there a correlation between PSI/RI and hand function? • Serial recovery post-stroke and change in PSI • Can the spinal inhibition increase post-conditioning? Can it be used as an intervention? FES? • Can r-TMS increase spinal inhibition? Wolpaw (2006)

  42. Unanswered Questions • Can arm bicycling improve reflex inhibition and function post-stroke? • Can the H-reflexes be down-trained by conditioning using Wolpaw’s protocol? • Is practice/therapy for hand movements performed with cutaneous stimulation better than without? • Does strengthening of muscles improve reflex inhibition?

  43. Future studies • Establish correlation between spinal inhibition and dexterity of hand movements, grip strength, and muscle tightness • Test single session effects of cutaneous stimulation during isokinetic movements of of the wrist joint in Biodex • Serial testing of PSI/RI during 1st year post-stroke

  44. Thank you

  45. Knikou 2008

  46. Basic Concepts in Neuroscience By Malcolm Slaughter, John Nyquist, Barbara E. Evans p.152

  47. Basic Concepts in Neuroscience By Malcolm Slaughter, John Nyquist, Barbara E. Evans p.150

  48. Knikou 2008

  49. Fig. 7. Homonymous recurrent inhibition in humans. (I) A stimulus S1 delivered to the posterior tibial nerve elicits anH1 reflex in the soleus muscle (A), while a supramaximal (SM) stimulus induces a maximal direct motor response (Mmax) (B) without an H-reflex to be present on the EMG because the antidromic motor volley collides with and eliminates the H-reflex evoked by the SM stimulus. When the stimulus S1 is delivered at an interval of 10ms before the SM stimulus, the H1 is no longer present but a new response called H (C) appears in the EMG. The diagrams II and III illustrate the different impulses, identified as arrows, propagating along the nerve fibres at C–T intervals of 5 and 12 ms. The Ia afferent volley induced by the SM test stimulus activates two motoneurons (E1 and E2). The white small arrow in diagram II represents the H1 reflex discharge in axon E1. White large arrows represent the Ia afferent test volley due to the test stimulus (II) and the following reflex discharge (III). Black arrows indicate the orthodromic motor volley evoking Mmax and the antidromic motor volley due to stimulation of motor axons by the SM test stimulus (II). Five milliseconds after the SM test stimulus, impulses travel both orthodromically in Ia fibres and antidromically inmotor axons. The H1 response, which runs along the E1 axon collideswith and eliminates the antidromic motor volley. Twelve milliseconds after the SM test stimulus, a reflex response develops in both motoneurons E1 and E2. This response is blocked in motoneuron E2 but not in motoneuron E1 because the antidromic impulse in motoneuron E1 was erased by the H1 response, as shown in diagram II. The diagram I was borrowed from Pierrot-Deseilligny et al. (1976), with permission, and diagrams II and III were adopted and modified from Hultborn and Pierrot-Deseilligny (1979a,b). Knikou 2008

  50. Fig. 6. Recurrent inhibition. Spinal circuit denotes the neuronal pathway ofRenshaw cells and their connections to - and -motoneurons, and Ia inhibitory interneurons between ankle flexors and extensors. Renshawcells depress the activity of – motoneurons, and Ia inhibitory interneurons. Broken lines indicate parallel control of-motoneurons, Ia inhibitory interneurons, andRenshawcells by the brain; closed circles: inhibition, closed triangles: facilitation. Knikou 2008

More Related