2009
DOI: 10.1007/s10286-009-0010-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Input–output relationships of a somatosympathetic reflex in human spinal injury

Abstract: We conclude that there is a non-linear relationship between somatic inputs and sympathetic vasoconstrictor outputs, and argue that a sustained vasoconstriction need not imply continuous sensory input to the spinal cord.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
12
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
2
12
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…While each of these studies found that a complete spinal lesion abolishes sudomotor responses in the lower limbs to electrical stimulation above lesion, Cariga et al (2002) concluded that the isolated spinal cord cannot generate cutaneous sympathetic responses, as demonstrated by the absence of electrodermal responses in the lower limbs to stimuli delivered below lesion. While sudomotor responses to electrical stimulation below the lesion have occasionally been found (Fuhrer, 1975; Reitz et al, 2003), in our experience sudomotor responses in SCI are very unreliable markers of increases in cutaneous sympathetic outflow (Brown et al, 2007, 2009a,b; Brown and Macefield, 2008). …”
Section: Assessing Sympathetic Outflow Below Lesion Following Human Smentioning
confidence: 49%
“…While each of these studies found that a complete spinal lesion abolishes sudomotor responses in the lower limbs to electrical stimulation above lesion, Cariga et al (2002) concluded that the isolated spinal cord cannot generate cutaneous sympathetic responses, as demonstrated by the absence of electrodermal responses in the lower limbs to stimuli delivered below lesion. While sudomotor responses to electrical stimulation below the lesion have occasionally been found (Fuhrer, 1975; Reitz et al, 2003), in our experience sudomotor responses in SCI are very unreliable markers of increases in cutaneous sympathetic outflow (Brown et al, 2007, 2009a,b; Brown and Macefield, 2008). …”
Section: Assessing Sympathetic Outflow Below Lesion Following Human Smentioning
confidence: 49%
“…Waveform averages of SNA or dorsal root potentials (DRPs) to 50 cycles of SN or TN stimulation (0.2 ms duration, 1-80 V, 0.5, or 1 Hz) were generated. Voltage intensity was increased incrementally from 1 V (subthreshold) to 80 V (supramaximal) at intervals: 1,2,4,6,8,10,12,15,20,25,30,40,50,60, 80 V, and the stimulus was repeated twice at each voltage. The threshold voltage for SSR responses was ϳ3-4 V. Stimulus intensities between 4 and 12 V activated A-fiber afferents and were classed as low intensity; Ͼ 30 V activated A-and C-fiber afferents and was classed as high intensity (see Fig.…”
Section: Electrophysiological Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sympathetic activation generated by SSR originates from both spinal and supraspinal levels (4,45). In anesthetized animals, the shortlatency spinal SSR is rarely observed due to tonic suppression by descending supraspinal inputs from several sources, including the RVLM and A5 and A6 regions (10,11,19,55).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the absence of central modulation, reflexly evoked vasoconstriction elicited by distension of visceral organs, or by some other unheeded afferent input from caudal to the lesion, is exaggerated (21). In SCI patients, spinal reflex-evoked vasoconstriction is most readily studied in the skin (e.g., 7,8,34), where modified neural control of blood flow results in poor thermoregulation (21) and may contribute to increasing the risk of pressure sores and impair wound healing (11,37).…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%