Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Free access
Research article
First published online December 30, 2013

Assessment of Spinothalamic Tract Function Beyond Pinprick in Spinal Cord Lesions: A Contact Heat Evoked Potential Study

Jenny Haefeli, PhD, John L. K. Kramer, PhD, Julia Blum, PhD, and Armin Curt, MDView all authors and affiliations
Volume 28, Issue 5
https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968313517755

Abstract

Background. Although a mainstay of clinical sensory examination after damage in the spinal cord, pinprick sensation represents only one afferent modality conveyed in the spinothalamic tract. As an objective outcome, complementary information regarding spinothalamic tract conduction may be elucidated by measuring contact heat evoked potentials (CHEPs). Objective. To assess the value of CHEPs to measure spinothalamic tract function in spinal cord disorders compared with pinprick scoring. Methods. CHEPs were examined using a standard (35°C) and increased baseline (42°C) contact heat temperature. Pinprick sensation was rated as absent, impaired, or normal according to the International Standards for the Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury. Results. Fifty-nine dermatomes above, at, and below the sensory level of impairment were analyzed in 37 patients with defined spinal cord disorder. In dermatomes with absent or impaired pinprick sensation, CHEPs using a standard baseline temperature were mainly abolished (3/16 and 8/35, respectively). However, when applying an increased baseline temperature, CHEPs became recordable (absent: 11/16; impaired: 31/35). Furthermore, CHEPs with increased baseline temperature allowed discerning between dermatomes with absent, impaired, and normal pinprick sensation when using an objective measure (ie, N2P2 amplitude). In contrast, the pain perception to contact heat stimulation was independent of pinprick scores. Conclusion. Applying pinprick testing is of limited sensitivity to assess spinothalamic tract function in spinal cord disorders. The application of CHEPs (using standard and increased baseline temperatures) as an objective readout provides complementary information of spinothalamic tract functional integrity beyond pinprick testing.

Introduction

Based on the somatotopic distribution of epicritic and protopathic sensations into anatomically distinct pathways (ie, dorsal columns and spinothalamic tract), sensory testing can be used to obtain considerable detail regarding the extent and location of damage in the spinal cord.1 As a surrogate marker of functional integrity in these pathways, sensation is routinely examined by testing light touch and pinprick perception.2-4 These bedside sensory testing methods provide valuable insight about the function of the sensory system, yet the ordinal scale used to classify sensation does not account for the spectrum of deficits occurring after spinal cord disorders. Hence, there is emerging interest in developing tools that provide complementary information regarding the pathophysiology underlying sensory deficits.5
As a complementary approach to light touch and pinprick scores, objective and quantitative information concerning the integrity of conduction in afferent fibers can be achieved by recording sensory evoked potentials using electroencephalography. The adoption of sensory evoked potentials to characterize spinal cord injury (SCI) in neurophysiological terms has primarily focused on measuring deficits in large diameter fibers conveying light touch sensation in the dorsal columns—so termed somatosensory evoked potentials.6,7
To examine conduction deficits in small diameter afferents ascending in the spinothalamic tract, noxious laser and contact heat pulses represent the most viable stimulation modalities for the acquisition of sensory evoked potentials.8-10 A major obstacle for SCI applications involving nociceptive evoked potentials (ie, laser evoked potentials and contact heat evoked potential [CHEPs]) is the need to balance high stimulation energies sufficient for the detection of afferent sparing in areas with reduced sensation, with the requirement for the duration of the event potential stimuli to be brief (ie, high rate of temperature change to induce a phase-locked cortical response) and restrictions on the absolute peak temperature to avoid skin burns. One recent technique shown to be effective in improving the acquisition of CHEPs has been increasing the baseline stimulation temperature from 35°C to 42-45°C.11 In SCI, increasing the baseline temperature of contact heat stimulation has shown to be effective in demonstrating preserved cortical responses in dermatomes with “impaired” clinical pinprick sensation.11,12
The primary objective of this study was to assess the value of CHEPs to improve the examination of spinothalamic tract function in individuals with sensory deficits due to spinal cord disorders. More specifically, we aimed to examine if a novel stimulating protocol (ie, increasing the baseline temperature to 42°C) would improve the overall interpretation of spinothalamic tract deficits. A secondary objective was to determine the relationship between clinical pinprick scores (ie, absent, impaired, normal) and outcomes from CHEP stimulation.

Methods

Subjects

A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 37 patients with a spinal cord disorder was conducted. All study procedures conformed to the standards set by the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the institutional research ethics board of the University of Zurich.

Data Source

The data for this study were retrieved from the inpatient and outpatient clinic of the University Hospital Balgrist (Zurich, Switzerland). The clinical examination of spinothalamic tract function was performed in dermatomes defined by the International Standards for the Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI).2

Assessments

In accordance with the ISNCSCI, sensory level was defined as the most caudal intact dermatome for both light touch and pinprick sensation.2 Pinprick examination serves as a surrogate marker for the spinothalamic tract function, based on the ability to discriminate sharp and dull sensation. As a reference, pinprick testing is first performed on the face. Pinprick sensation is scored according to a 3-point ordinal scale (absent, impaired, and normal). Absent sensation indicates a lack of ability to discriminate sharp–dull sensation (pinprick score = 0). Comparatively, impaired sensation implies sharp–dull discrimination remains intact (ie, patient reliably reports sharp and dull stimulation), but that sensation is considerably affected (pinprick score = 1). Importantly, sensation can be either decreased or increased compared with the reference area. If pinprick stimuli are perceived as similar to the reference area, sensation is defined as normal (pinprick score = 2). Light touch sensation was classified as normal (light touch score = 2), impaired (light touch score = 1), and absent (light touch score = 0) by comparing the skin area to be examined with an area in the face. The ISNCSCI assessment was performed by a trained examiner.

Contact Heat Evoked Potentials

Contact heat stimuli were delivered using a contact heat stimulator (PATHWAY Pain & Sensory Evaluation System, Medoc, Ramat Yishai, Israel). The device has been described previously.8,13 Briefly, the device is capable of heating from a controlled baseline temperature (30-45°C) at a rate of 70°C/s up to a maximum of 55°C. After reaching a peak stimulation temperature, the skin is rapidly cooled (40°C/s). About 15 to 20 contact heat stimuli were applied with an interstimulus interval of 8 to 12 seconds. The stimulation was applied in an area (approximately 16 cm2) surrounding the dermatomal sensory keypoints according to the ISNCSCI.2 The thermode (27 mm diameter) was variably repositioned after each stimulus, within the boundaries of the respective dermatome. In response to an audio cue, perceived intensity was rated according to a 0 to 10 visual analog scale (VAS) 4 seconds after each stimulus. Subjects were instructed to keep their eyes open and were asked to blink, only after hearing the audio cue.
Contact heat stimulation was applied according to the patients’ level of lesion in dermatomes above, at, and below the level of injury. Stimuli were delivered from standard baseline temperature (35°C) to a peak temperature of 52°C. Dermatomes (absent, impaired, normal) that demonstrated small, unreliable CHEPs (amplitudes <10 µV) with standard stimulation were further assessed with increased baseline stimulation (42°C) to a peak temperature of 52°C. The threshold of 10 µV was chosen based on experience allowing to visually distinguish CHEPs from ongoing background activity. To specifically address the primary aim of this study, only dermatomes with both standard and increased baseline stimulation were included in the analysis. Standard baseline temperature stimulation always preceded increased baseline stimulation. The stimulations used in the present study are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Contact heat stimulation parameters.
In standard stimulation condition, the baseline temperature was 35°C, and the peak temperature was 52°C (black line). In the increased baseline stimulation, the baseline temperature was increased to 42°C, and the peak temperature remained at 52°C (gray line). In both conditions, the heating rate was 70°C/s and the cooling rate 40°C/s.
For the recording of CHEPs, scalp recording sites were prepared with Nuprep (D.O. Weaver & Co, Aurora, CO) and alcohol. Silver–silver disc recording electrodes were positioned according to the 10-20 electrode configuration system with the active electrode at the Cz position and referenced to the linked earlobes (A1-A2). A wet ground strap was attached to the subjects forearm. The impedance of scalp electrodes was kept below 5 kΩ. CHEPs were sampled at a sampling rate of 2000 Hz using a preamplifier (20 000×, bandpass filter 0.25-300 Hz, ALEA Solutions, Zurich, Switzerland). Data were recorded in a LabView-based program (V1.43 CHEP, ALEA Solutions, Zurich, Switzerland) with a 100-millisecond period pretrigger and 1 second posttrigger. Electroencephalography raw data were bandpass filtered offline from 0.5 to 30 Hz. After filtering, the single trial waveforms were averaged (15-20 trials) for each location and subject. To confirm the N2P2 response, odd/even trial averaging was visually analyzed within 200 to 600 ms poststimulus.14,15

Data Analysis

A q-q plot of the residuals was examined to test for normal distribution of the N2P2 amplitude and pain rating to contact heat stimulation. Based on pinprick classification, the proportion of dermatomes with recordable CHEPs (standard and increased baseline stimulation) was examined with Fischer’s exact test. Furthermore, a linear mixed model was used to assess the main effect of stimulation (ie, standard stimulation and increased baseline stimulation) and pinprick score, and the interaction of these 2 factors on the N2P2 amplitude and the rating.
All multiple comparisons were Bonferroni corrected. Statistical significance was set at α = .05. All statistical analyses were performed in SPSS v.19 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL).

Results

Patient Characteristics

Patient characteristics are listed in Table 1. The average age of subjects with a spinal cord disorder was 48.8 ± 14.6 years. In total, 59 dermatomes were included in this examination. Sixteen, 35, and 8 dermatomes were classified according to ISNCSCI as absent, impaired, and normal pinprick sensation, respectively. Of the 16 dermatomes with absent pinprick, only 2 demonstrated complete loss of light touch sensation, with the remaining 14 either impaired (n = 12) or normal (n = 2). Impaired pinprick was associated with impaired light touch 74% of the time (n = 26); the remaining dermatomes with impaired pinprick having normal light touch sensation (n = 9). In 100% of dermatomes with normal pinprick sensation (n = 8), light touch was perceived normally.
Table 1. Clinical Characteristics of Patients With a Spinal Cord Disorder.
       CHEPs
AgeGenderEtiologyTime Since Injury/Detection (Months)Sensory Level of LesionStimulation LocationISNCSCI Pinprick ScoreStandard CHEPsIncreased Baseline CHEPs
22MaleTraumatic incomplete tetraplegia24C4C6lAbsentNo responseNo response
C6rImpairedNo responseNo response
70MaleTraumatic incomplete tetraplegia3C4C8lAbsentNo responseResponse
39FemaleMyelitis6C7T10lAbsentNo responseResponse
48MalePosttraumatic syringomyelia384C3C6rAbsentNo responseNo response
C4rAbsentNo responseNo response
C8rAbsentNo responseNo response
64MalePosttraumatic cervical myelopathy2C3C6lImpairedResponseResponse
30MalePosttraumatic syringomyelia12C3C8lAbsentNo responseNo response
C6rAbsentNo responseResponse
C6lImpairedNo responseResponse
48FemalePosttraumatic syringomyelia288C3C4rAbsentResponseResponse
30MaleTraumatic incomplete tetraplegia6C4C6lImpairedResponseResponse
C8lImpairedNo responseResponse
69FemaleHematoma/incomplete paraplegia9T4T7rImpairedNo responseResponse
T10rImpairedNo responseResponse
50MaleTraumatic incomplete tetraplegia156C4C8lImpairedNo responseResponse
62MalePosttraumatic syringomyelia372T2T10rAbsentNo responseResponse
T10lImpairedResponseResponse
63MaleHematoma36C3C8lImpairedNo responseResponse
70MaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy12C2C5rImpairedNo responseResponse
36FemaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy62C4C8rImpairedResponseResponse
52MaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy108C4C8lImpairedNo responseResponse
C8rImpairedNo responseResponse
46MaleTraumatic incomplete tetraplegia6C4C6rImpairedResponseResponse
C6lImpairedNo responseResponse
57MaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy11C4C8rAbsentResponseResponse
T4rImpairedResponseResponse
48MaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy3C6C8lImpairedNo responseResponse
C8rImpairedNo responseResponse
C6lNormalResponseResponse
28FemaleNontraumatic thoracic myelopathy2No levelT10lNormalNo responseResponse
54MaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy2No levelC6lNormalNo responseResponse
36MaleNontraumatic syringomyelia12C4C6lImpairedNo responseResponse
20MaleTraumatic incomplete tetraplegia6C5C6lImpairedNo responseResponse
C8lImpairedNo responseNo response
56MaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy11C3C6lImpairedNo responseResponse
C6rImpairedNo responseNo response
55MaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy7C3C6rAbsentNo responseResponse
C6lImpairedNo responseResponse
C8lImpairedNo responseResponse
65MaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy6C3C6lImpairedNo responseResponse
59MaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy48No levelC8lNormalNo responseResponse
53FemaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy6C3C8lImpairedNo responseResponse
61FemaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy72C4C8lImpairedNo responseResponse
C4lNormalResponseResponse
50MalePosttraumatic cervical myelopathy36C4C8lImpairedNo responseResponse
C8rImpairedNo responseNo response
58MaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy13C5C6lImpairedResponseResponse
C8rImpairedNo responseResponse
C8lNormalResponseResponse
21MalePosttraumatic cervical myelopathy17C3C6lNormalNo responseResponse
37MalePosttraumatic syringomyelia48C5C8lAbsentNo responseResponse
51FemaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy12C4C6lAbsentNo responseResponse
43MaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy48C5C6rImpairedResponseResponse
C8rNormalNo responseResponse
32MaleTraumatic incomplete tetraplegia10T11T12rAbsentResponseResponse
48MaleNontraumatic cervical myelopathy2C6C8lImpairedNo responseResponse
74MaleAnterior spinal artery syndrome5T4T10lAbsentNo responseResponse
Abbreviations: CHEPs, contact heat evoked potentials; ISNCSCI, International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury.

N2P2 Amplitudes and Pain Rating in Relation to Pinprick Scores

The results of Fisher’s exact test of the proportion of recordable CHEPs (yes/no) using standard and increased baseline stimulation are summarized in Table 2. In 16 dermatomes with absent pinprick sensation (n = 13), contact heat stimulation with standard baseline temperature (35°C) evoked a cortical response in 3 sites (3/16). In contrast, an evoked potential was recorded with an increased baseline temperature (42°C) in 11 dermatomes with “absent” pinprick sensation (11/16). Four representative examples of CHEPs from standard and increased baseline stimulation in dermatomes with absent pinprick sensation are shown in Figure 2. In 35 dermatomes with impaired pinprick sensation (n = 25), normal baseline temperature stimulation evoked a response in 8 sites (8/35). Using increased baseline stimulation, CHEPs were recordable in 31 dermatomes (31/35). Out of 8 dermatomes with normal pinprick sensation (n = 8), a CHEP was recordable in 3 sites. Comparatively, a CHEP could be recorded from all normal dermatomes using increased baseline stimulation.
Table 2. Summary of Number of Recordable Contact Heat Evoked Potentials.
ISNCSCI Pinprick ScoreNormal CHEPsIncreased Baseline CHEPsTotal Number of Dermatomes AssessedFisher’s Exact Test P Value
Absent31116.011
Impaired83135.000
Normal388.026
Abbreviations: CHEPs, contact heat evoked potentials; ISNCSCI, International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury.
Figure 2. CHEPs with pinprick score zero.
CHEPs of dermatomes rated as having absent pinprick sensation of 4 different subjects. In the first example, CHEPs cannot be recorded using either the standard or increased baseline stimulation. In the second, third, and fourth examples, increased baseline stimulation was necessary to visually detect a CHEP. The N2P2 amplitude is indicated by a dashed square.
Abbreviation: CHEP, contact heat evoked potential.
In Figure 3, CHEPs to both standard and increased baseline stimulation according to the extent of pinprick preservation (ie, absent, impaired, and normal) are displayed. Compared with standard baseline, N2P2 amplitudes were significantly higher when the baseline temperature was increased to 42°C (F = 74.669, P = .000). Changes in the amplitudes from standard to increased baseline stimulation significantly depended on the scoring of the dermatomes (F = 4.348, P = .018). Pair-wise comparisons between the pinprick scores of the increased baseline stimulation showed significant differences between normal and absent pinprick score (normal > absent, P = .006), meaning that N2P2 amplitude was significantly higher in the dermatomes with normal than in the dermatomes with absent pinprick score. Comparison to impaired pinprick score did not reach significance (normal > impaired, P = .150; impaired > absent = .137). None of the pair-wise comparisons were significant for the standard stimulation temperature (normal > absent, P = .915; normal > impaired, P = .868; impaired > absent, P = 1.000). The increased baseline stimulation caused higher pain ratings than the standard stimulation (F = 28.653, P = .000). However, the increase in VAS rating from standard to increased baseline stimulation did not significantly depend on the pinprick score (F = 2.526, P = .089).
Figure 3. Overview of CHEPs amplitude divided into pinprick scores.
N2P2 amplitudes for the dermatomes with absent, impaired, or normal pinprick sensation (upper panel). Each gray line indicates a single dermatomal response and the black line is the average ± standard error. In the standard stimulation condition, all the responses are below 10 µV as only in the dermatomes with an original small amplitude increased baseline stimulation was applied. In dermatomes with absent pinprick sensation, using increased baseline temperature stimulation, 11 dermatomes had a recordable N2P2 response indicating subclinical spinothalamic sparing. Aggregate results of both N2P2 amplitude and rating are shown in the lower panel. Note that increasing the baseline temperature revealed significant differences between dermatomes with normal and absent pinprick sensation.
Abbreviations: CHEPs, contact heat evoked potentials; ISNCSCI, International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury; VAS, visual analog scale.

Discussion

Complementary to pinprick sensation, the present study has shown that CHEPs improve the assessment of spinothalamic tract function in patients with spinal cord disorders. The value of increasing the baseline temperature preceding CHEP stimulation was clearly demonstrated—most notably to reveal residual spinothalamic tract function in individuals with absent pinprick sensation and abolished CHEPs based on standard stimulation techniques. In comparison to pain rating, changes in N2P2 amplitudes induced by going from standard to increased baseline stimulation temperature was able to discriminate between dermatomes with normal and absent pinprick sensation. In general, these findings support that CHEPs provide information regarding the integrity of the spinothalamic tract beyond the examination of pinprick sensation.

Spinothalamic Tract Function in Spinal Disorders

In simple terms, the use of advanced sensory testing methods, including CHEPs, could play a complementary role to clinical techniques (eg, pinprick) in diagnosis and prognosis of spinal cord disorders. Indeed, an accurate assessment of sensation is important for determining neurological level of impairment and severity and predicting long-term neurological and functional outcomes.16-18 To fully characterize the extent of damage in spinothalamic pathways, examining different sensory modalities, such as heat, in conjunction with sharp–dull discrimination may be of clinical value. It should also be considered, by testing discrimination between sharp and dull (ie, ISNCSCI), not only is spinothalamic tract function examined (ie, sharp sensation) but also the dorsal column pathway (ie, detection of dull sensation). However, CHEPs represent a functional measure of spinothalamic tract integrity8,10; thus, CHEPs were only compared with pinprick sensation. Recent studies have also demonstrated the use of advanced sensory testing (eg, quantitative sensory testing) to elucidate mechanisms of neuropathic pain after SCI.19-22 While the underlying mechanism remains unknown, studies support that damage of the spinothalamic tract is requisite for the development of neuropathic pain.20-23 To confirm the presence of a lesion in the spinothalamic tract, as well as better assess the severity of damage, the methods presented here (ie, acquiring CHEPs from an increased baseline temperature) may also be useful for characterizing neuropathic pain.

Mechanism of Increased Baseline Contact Heat Evoked Potentials

The effect of increasing the baseline temperature on the acquisition of CHEPs is 2-fold. First, using a 42°C baseline reduces the discrepancy between the theoretical and actual peak temperature achieved at the level of the nociceptor.11,12 Thus, improved acquisition of CHEPs using an increased baseline temperature is akin to increasing the peak temperature, which in turn results in higher pain ratings and larger amplitude waveforms.24-26 In individuals with sensory deficits, adopting an increased baseline stimulation protocol may be important to increase the magnitude of stimulation and determine afferent sparing in areas with reduced sensation, while maintaining a safe peak temperature. Second, increasing the baseline temperature shortens the overall stimulation duration, thus yielding a more synchronized afferent volley and reduced trial-by-trial jitter.12 Importantly, such an effect can be observed in absence of increasing the rating of perceived intensity if the peak temperature is adapted to balance the perception between standard and increased baseline stimulation.12 In patients, improved synchronization of the afferent volley may also have attributed to a higher probability of detecting a CHEP using a 42°C baseline in dermatomes with diminished pinprick sensation (ie, impaired or absent). Indeed, in a subset of dermatomes (ie, 29 dermatomes), pain rating changed nominally (<1 point on the VAS) but was accompanied by large change in N2P2 amplitude in response to stimulation from an increased baseline temperature compared with standard baseline (Figure 4). In contrast, in healthy subjects going from standard to increased baseline stimulation, there is a clear increase in pain rating.11 Interestingly, this finding would suggest that sensory deficits associated with spinal cord disorders may be related to a combination of reduced overall quality (ie, diminished sensation) and reduced synchrony of afferent volley along the neural axes.
Figure 4. Dissociation of CHEPs and VAS rating.
A representative single-subject CHEP using standard and increased baseline stimulation condition (upper panel). The gray lines are single trials and the superimposed black line represents the averaged CHEP. By applying the increased baseline stimulation, synchronization of the afferent volleys is improved and leads to larger single trail amplitudes. Note that in this case, a marked increase in N2P2 amplitude occurs without a corresponding change in pain rating (standard stimulation, VAS rating: 7.2; increased baseline, VAS rating: 7.0). Average N2P2 amplitude using standard and increased baseline stimulation in a subgroup of dermatomes (n = 29) that demonstrate no or nominal pain rating increase between the 2 conditions (ie, VAS rating <1, lower panel). The majority of these dermatomes had impaired or absent pinprick sensation (26/29).
Abbreviations: CHEPs, contact heat evoked potentials; VAS, visual analog scale.

Beyond Pinprick Sensation

The observation of small amplitude or nonrecordable CHEPs in dermatomes with “normal pinprick” sensation warrants consideration. On one hand, such an observation may indicate subclinical afferent deficits, that is, damage missed according to the clinical exam. Given the limitations of pinprick testing (eg, subjective), and that the majority of “normal” dermatomes were examined close to the level of spinal disorder, the presence of subclinical deficits would not be surprising. On the other hand, it is important to consider that difficulties acquiring CHEPs from conventional baseline temperatures (eg, 32°C to 35°C) have been reported in neurologically healthy subjects.27 In such an event, evidence of impairment in normal dermatomes may be a function of testing error. Based on our experience,11,12 increasing the baseline stimulation to 42°C overcomes acquisition problems in neurologically healthy subjects. Indeed, none of the neurologically intact subjects examined in Kramer et al12 demonstrate peak-to-peak amplitudes <10 µV. In the context of the present findings, dermatomes with normal pinprick sensation coupled with low-amplitude CHEPs (<10 µV) in response to both normal and increased baseline temperature stimulations could be interpreted as robust evidence of subclinical deficits in the spinothalamic tract.
In dermatomes with low-amplitude CHEPs and impaired pinprick sensation, applying increased baseline CHEP stimulation revealed a wide array of outcomes. In a subset of these dermatomes, N2P2 remained <10 µV or nonrecordable, while in others, amplitudes increased comparable to dermatomes with normal pinprick sensation. Furthermore, the vast majority of dermatomes with “absent” pinprick sensation, in individuals with incomplete sensory deficits, demonstrate recordable CHEPs after increased baseline stimulation.
These observations underscore 2 important limitations of the clinical sensory examination: (a) classification of impairment provides no indication as to varying levels of afferent deficit (ie, cannot distinguish severely and mildly impaired) and (b) the absence of sharp–dull discrimination does not reflect complete disruption of afferents in the spinothalamic tract.

Limitations

While we have highlighted an advantage of adopting CHEPs, interpretation of these findings beyond that increasing the baseline temperature improves the probability of detecting residual spinothalamic tract function in individuals with spinal cord disorders warrants caution. Specifically, our observations only apply to dermatomes that demonstrate reduced amplitude CHEPs using standard contact heat stimulation techniques, and in patients with incomplete lesions (ie, all subjects had sensation preserved according to light touch or pinprick below the level of lesion). Because of these limitations, we cannot determine the true sensitivity of CHEPs to measure deficits in the spinothalamic tract in dermatomes with absent, impaired, and normal pinprick sensation. Indeed, our findings likely underestimate the value of CHEPs recorded from standard stimulation to distinguish between classifications of impairment.
Here, we have shown in a subset of dermatomes dissociation between large changes in N2P2 amplitude after increased baseline stimulation accompanied by a small change in the perceived pain intensities (Figure 4). As in the current patient population no pain status was assessed, it remains to be defined if this specific dissociation of recorded nociceptive response and pain perception can be explained by underlying neuropathic pain states.
A general limitation of cortical evoked potentials in repose to nociceptive stimulation (including laser evoked potentials) is that the cortical response is not reflecting the early arrival of incoming neural activity but is rather a processed response; their generation, however, relies on the functional integrity of the spinothalamic tract.

Conclusion/Implications

In the present retrospective study, we have shown that using increased baseline CHEP allows assessing the spinothalamic tract beyond pinprick sensation, revealing subclinical afferent sparing. Increased baseline stimulation should be considered in future studies to complement standard pinprick testing to objectively evaluate the functional integrity of the nociceptive system.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Center of Competence in Research (NCCR) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). JK was funded by the International Foundation for Research in Paraplegia, Zurich.

References

1. Haefeli J, Curt A. Refined sensory measures of neural repair in human spinal cord injury: bridging preclinical findings to clinical value. Cell Tissue Res. 2012;349:397-404.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
2. Kirshblum SC, Burns SP, Biering-Sorensen F, et al. International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury (revised 2011). J Spinal Cord Med. 2011;34:535-546.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
3. Maynard FM Jr, Bracken MB, Creasey G, et al. International Standards for Neurological and Functional Classification of Spinal Cord Injury. American Spinal Injury Association. Spinal Cord. 1997;35:266-274.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
4. Vasquez N, Gall A, Ellaway PH, Craggs MD. Light touch and pin prick disparity in the International Standard for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury (ISNCSCI). Spinal Cord. 2013;51:375-378.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
5. Steeves JD, Lammertse D, Curt A, et al. Guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials for spinal cord injury (SCI) as developed by the ICCP panel: clinical trial outcome measures. Spinal Cord. 2007;45:206-221.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
6. Kramer JK, Taylor P, Steeves JD, Curt A. Dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials and electrical perception thresholds during recovery from cervical spinal cord injury. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24:309-317.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
7. Spiess M, Schubert M, Kliesch U, Halder P. Evolution of tibial SSEP after traumatic spinal cord injury: baseline for clinical trials. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008;119:1051-1061.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
8. Chen ACN, Niddam DM, Arendt-Nielsen L. Contact heat evoked potentials as a valid means to study nociceptive pathways in human subjects. Neurosci Lett. 2001;316:79-82.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
9. Treede RD, Lorenz J, Baumgärtner U. Clinical usefulness of laser-evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol. 2003;33:303-314.
Crossref
ISI
Google Scholar
10. Wydenkeller S, Wirz R, Halder P. Spinothalamic tract conduction velocity estimated using contact heat evoked potentials: what needs to be considered. Clin Neurophysiol. 2008;119:812-821.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
11. Kramer JLK, Haefeli J, Curt A, Steeves JD. Increased baseline temperature improves the acquisition of contact heat evoked potentials after spinal cord injury. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012;123:582-589.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
12. Kramer JLK, Haefeli J, Jutzeler CR, Steeves JD, Curt A. Improving the acquisition of nociceptive evoked potentials without causing more pain. Pain. 2013;154:235-241.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
13. Greffrath W, Baumgartner U, Treede RD. Peripheral and central components of habituation of heat pain perception and evoked potentials in humans. Pain. 2007;132:301-311.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
14. Haefeli J, Freund P, Kramer JLK, Blum J, Luechinger R, Curt A. Differences in cortical coding of heat evoked pain beyond the perceived intensity: an fMRI and EEG study [published online March 1, 2013]. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
15. Haefeli JS, Blum J, Steeves JD, Kramer JL, Curt AE. Differences in spinothalamic function of cervical and thoracic dermatomes: insights using contact heat evoked potentials. Clin Neurophysiol. 2013;30:291-298.
Crossref
ISI
Google Scholar
16. Crozier KS, Graziani V, Ditunno JF, Herbison GJ. Spinal cord injury: prognosis for ambulation based on sensory examination in patients who are initially motor complete. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1991;72:119-121.
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
17. Oleson CV, Burns AS, Ditunno JF, Geisler FH, Coleman WP. Prognostic value of pinprick preservation in motor complete, sensory incomplete spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86:988-992.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
18. Browne BJ, Jacobs SR, Herbison GJ, Ditunno JF. Pin sensation as a predictor of extensor carpi radialis recovery in spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:14-18.
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
19. Hatem SM, Attal N, Ducreux D, et al. Clinical, functional and structural determinants of central pain in syringomyelia. Brain. 2010;133:3409-3422.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
20. Wasner G, Lee BB, Engel S, McLachlan E. Residual spinothalamic tract pathways predict development of central pain after spinal cord injury. Brain. 2008;131:2387-2400.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
21. Finnerup NB, Johannesen IL, Fuglsang-Frederiksen A, Bach FW, Jensen TS. Sensory function in spinal cord injury patients with and without central pain. Brain. 2003;126:57-70.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
22. Cruz-Almeida Y, Felix ER, Martinez-Arizala A, Widerstrom-Noga EG. Decreased spinothalamic and dorsal column medial lemniscus-mediated function is associated with neuropathic pain after spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma. 2012;29:2706-2715.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
23. Defrin R, Ohry A, Blumen N, Urca G. Characterization of chronic pain and somatosensory function in spinal cord injury subjects. Pain. 2001;89:253-263.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
24. Granovsky Y, Granot M, Nir RR, Yarnitsky D. Objective correlate of subjective pain perception by contact heat-evoked potentials. J Pain. 2008;9:53-63.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
25. Ohara S, Crone NE, Weiss N, Treede RD, Lenz FA. Amplitudes of laser evoked potential recorded from primary somatosensory, parasylvian and medial frontal cortex are graded with stimulus intensity. Pain. 2004;110:318-328.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
26. Le Pera D, Valeriani M, Niddam D, Chen AN, Arendt-Nielsen L. Contact heat evoked potentials to painful and non-painful stimuli: effect of attention towards stimulus properties. Brain Topogr. 2002;15:115-123.
Crossref
PubMed
ISI
Google Scholar
27. Baumgärtner U, Greffrath W, Treede RD. Contact heat and cold, mechanical, electrical and chemical stimuli to elicit small fiber-evoked potentials: merits and limitations for basic science and clinical use. Clin Neurophysiol. 2012;42:267-280.
Crossref
ISI
Google Scholar

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Volume 28, Issue 5
Pages: 494 - 503
Article first published online: December 30, 2013
Issue published: June 2014

Keywords

  1. spinothalamic tract
  2. contact heat evoked potentials
  3. sensory assessment
  4. nociception
  5. pinprick

Rights and permissions

© The Author(s) 2013.
Request permissions for this article.
PubMed: 24379083

Authors

Affiliations

Jenny Haefeli, PhD
University Hospital Balgrist, Zurich, Switzerland
View all articles by this author
John L. K. Kramer, PhD
University Hospital Balgrist, Zurich, Switzerland
Crawford Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA
View all articles by this author
Julia Blum, PhD
University Hospital Balgrist, Zurich, Switzerland
View all articles by this author
Armin Curt, MD
University Hospital Balgrist, Zurich, Switzerland
View all articles by this author

Notes

Jenny Haefeli, Spinal Cord Injury Center, University Hospital Balgrist, Forchstrasse 340, CH 8008 Zurich, Switzerland. Email: [email protected]

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 4911

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016

Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores


Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 24 view articles Opens in new tab

Crossref: 28

  1. The use of an ice cube to assess spinothalamic tract integrity in pedi...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Improved acquisition of contact heat evoked potentials with increased ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. Indicators of central sensitization in chronic neuropathic pain after ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. Intra-epidermal evoked potentials: A promising tool for spinal disorde...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. Contact Heat Evoked Potentials in China: Normal Values and Reproducibi...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. Electrophysiological phenotyping of neuropathic pain following spinal ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. Identifying Discomplete Spinal Lesions: New Evidence from Pain-Autonom...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  8. An intensity matched comparison of laser- and contact heat evoked pote...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  9. Aerospace Medicine Clinic
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  10. Revisiting the Examination of Sharp/Dull Discrimination as Clinical Me...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  11. Single-trial averaging improves the physiological interpretation of co...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  12. Contact Heat Evoked Potentials Are Responsive to Peripheral Sensitizat...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  13. Contact heat evoked potentials in knowledge workers and unskilled labo...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  14. Application of electrophysiological measures in spinal cord injury cli...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  15. Cold evoked potentials: Acquisition from cervical dermatomes
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  16. Clinical neurophysiology of pain
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  17. Normative data of contact heat evoked potentials from the lower extrem...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  18. Autonomic Nervous System in Paralympic Athletes with Spinal Cord Injur...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  19. Contact heat evoked potentials: Reliable acquisition from lower extrem...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  20. A Virtual Instrument for Analysis of the Parameters of Somatosensory E...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  21. Increased Evoked Potentials and Behavioral Indices in Response to Pain...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  22. Spinal Cord Neurophysiology
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  23. Relationship between brainstem neurodegeneration and clinical impairme...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  24. Normative data for the segmental acquisition of contact heat evoked po...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  25. Normative data for Aδ contact heat evoked potentials in adult populati...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  26. Predicting the Risk for Central Pain Using the Sensory Components of t...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  27. Tracking sensory system atrophy and outcome prediction in spinal cord ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  28. Preserved Sensory-Motor Function Despite Large-Scale Morphological Alt...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

ASNR Member Access


Members must activate their accounts to access the journal. Please read the instructions on activating your account or signing in to an existing account for help.

Activate Account

ASNR Member Access


Members must activate their accounts to access the journal. Please read the instructions on activating your account or signing in to an existing account for help.

Activate Account

Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Subscribe to this journal

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

Start 2 week free trial
Need help?

Also from Sage