Pathways and nerve densities in cerebrovascular innervation

It is gradually becoming clear that cerebrovascular nerves contribute to the control of the cerebral circulation although the knowledge of the functional mechanisms is far from complete. However, many aspects of the morphologic substrate have been identified. The basal cerebral arteries receive sympathetic, parasympathetic and sensory innervation, utilizing the superior cervical and stellate, the pterygopalatine and otic, and the trigeminal ganglia, respectively, as the main peripheral sources. Many of the neural pathways to the cerebral arteries have been elucidated. Those to the supratentorial arterial tree are distributed via the cavernous sinus and surrounding regions. Not only the "classical" neurotransmitters, but also many neuropeptides are found in cerebrovascular nerves. This will lead to new insights since the concepts of cotransmission and neuromodulation have been established now. In the arterial wall, a multilayered organization of nerves has been recognized, consisting of paravascular nerve bundles of passage, a superficial plexus and a terminal plexus located at the adventitial-medial border. Human basal cerebral arteries display a topographical heterogeneity of densities of terminal nerve plexuses. Highest nerve densities are found in arterial segments forming the circle of Willis, in the efferent part of the posterior cerebral artery and in the anterior choroidal artery. Nerve density appears to be determined by locality rather than vascular diameter. Furthermore, local decreases in nerve density are observed with ageing and disease in animals and humans.Biomedical Reviews 1995; 4: 35-46

Lumbar Percutaneous Facet Denervation

In this chapter, we summarize the pertinent anatomy and technique of the percutaneous facet denervation technique in the lumbar spine. We also review the current literature on the outcome of lumbar facet denervation.</p

Human assumed central sensitisation (HACS) in patients with chronic low back pain radiating to the leg (CLaSSICO study)

INTRODUCTION: Patients with chronic low back pain radiating to the leg (CLBPr) are sometimes referred to a specialised pain clinic for a precise diagnosis based, for example, on a diagnostic selective nerve root block. Possible interventions are therapeutic selective nerve root block or pulsed radiofrequency. Central pain sensitisation is not directly assessable in humans and therefore the term ‘human assumed central sensitisation’ (HACS) is proposed. The possible existence and degree of sensitisation associated with pain mechanisms assumed present in the human central nervous system, its role in the chronification of pain and its interaction with diagnostic and therapeutic interventions are largely unknown in patients with CLBPr. The aim of quantitative sensory testing (QST) is to estimate quantitatively the presence of HACS and accumulating evidence suggest that a subset of patients with CLBPr have facilitated responses to a range of QST tests. The aims of this study are to identify HACS in patients with CLBPr, to determine associations with the effect of selective nerve root blocks and compare outcomes of HACS in patients to healthy volunteers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective observational study including 50 patients with CLBPr. Measurements are performed before diagnostic and therapeutic nerve root block interventions and at 4 weeks follow-up. Data from patients will be compared with those of 50 sex-matched and age-matched healthy volunteers. The primary study parameters are the outcomes of QST and the Central Sensitisation Inventory. Statistical analyses to be performed will be analysis of variance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Medical Research Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, approved this study (dossier NL60439.042.17). The results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR NL6765

Inconsistent descriptions of lumbar multifidus morphology:A scoping review

Background Lumbar multifidus (LM) is regarded as the major stabilizing muscle of the spine. The effects of exercise therapy in low back pain (LBP) are attributed to this muscle. A current literature review is warranted, however, given the complexity of LM morphology and the inconsistency of anatomical descriptions in the literature. Methods Scoping review of studies on LM morphology including major anatomy atlases. All relevant studies were searched in PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE until June 2019. Anatomy atlases were retrieved from multiple university libraries and online. All studies and atlases were screened for the following LM parameters: location, imaging methods, spine levels, muscle trajectory, muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, and diameter. The quality of the studies and atlases was also assessed using a five-item evaluation system. Results In all, 303 studies and 19 anatomy atlases were included in this review. In most studies, LM morphology was determined by MRI, ultrasound imaging, or drawings - particularly for levels L4-S1. In 153 studies, LM is described as a superficial muscle only, in 72 studies as a deep muscle only, and in 35 studies as both superficial and deep. Anatomy atlases predominantly depict LM as a deep muscle covered by the erector spinae and thoracolumbar fascia. About 42% of the studies had high quality scores, with 39% having moderate scores and 19% having low scores. The quality of figures in anatomy atlases was ranked as high in one atlas, moderate in 15 atlases, and low in 3 atlases. Discussion Anatomical studies of LM exhibit inconsistent findings, describing its location as superficial (50%), deep (25%), or both (12%). This is in sharp contrast to anatomy atlases, which depict LM predominantly as deep muscle. Within the limitations of the self-developed quality-assessment tool, high-quality scores were identified in a majority of studies (42%), but in only one anatomy atlas. Conclusions We identified a lack of standardization in the depiction and description of LM morphology. This could affect the precise understanding of its role in background and therapy in LBP patients. Standardization of research methodology on LM morphology is recommended. Anatomy atlases should be updated on LM morphology

A guide for standardized interpretation of lumbar multifidus ultrasonography:an observational study

BACKGROUND: Inconsistent descriptions of Lumbar multifidus (LM) morphology were previously identified, especially in research applying ultrasonography (US), hampering its clinical applicability with regard to diagnosis and therapy. The aim of this study is to determine the LM-sonoanatomy by comparing high-resolution reconstructions from a 3-D digital spine compared to standard LM-ultrasonography. METHODS: An observational study was carried out. From three deeply frozen human tissue blocks of the lumbosacral spine, a large series of consecutive photographs at 78 μm interval were acquired and reformatted into 3-D blocks. This enabled the reconstruction of (semi-)oblique cross-sections that could match US-images obtained from a healthy volunteer. Transverse and oblique short-axis views were compared from the most caudal insertion of LM to L1. RESULTS: Based on the anatomical reconstructions, we could distinguish the LM from the adjacent erector spinae (ES) in the standard US imaging of the lower spine. At the lumbosacral junction, LM is the only dorsal muscle facing the surface. From L5 upwards, the ES progresses from lateral to medial. A clear distinction between deep and superficial LM could not be discerned. We were only able to identify five separate bands between every lumbar spinous processes and the dorsal part of the sacrum in the caudal anatomical cross-sections, but not in the standard US images. CONCLUSION: The detailed cross-sectional LM-sonoanatomy and reconstructions facilitate the interpretations of standard LM US-imaging, the position of the separate LM-bands, the details of deep interspinal muscles, and demarcation of the LM versus the ES. Guidelines for electrode positioning in EMG studies should be refined to establish reliable and verifiable findings. For clinical practice, this study can serve as a guide for a better characterisation of LM compared to ES and for a more reliable placement of US-probe in biofeedback

Functional and morphological lumbar multifidus characteristics in subgroups with low back pain in primary care

Background: Since the contribution of the lumbar multifidus(LM) is not well understood in relation to nonspecific low back pain(LBP), this may limit physiotherapists in choosing the most appropriate treatment strategy. Objectives: This study aims to compare clinical characteristics, in terms of LM function and morphology, between subacute and chronic LBP patients from a large clinical practice cohort compared to healthy controls. Design: Multicenter case control study. Method: Subacute and chronic LBP patients and healthy controls between 18 and 65 years of age were included. Several clinical tests were performed: primary outcomes were the LM thickness from ultrasound measurements, trunk range of motion(ROM) from 3D kinematic tests, and median frequency and root mean square values of LM by electromyography measurements. The secondary outcomes Numeric Rating Scale for Pain(NRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index(ODI) were administered. Comparisons between groups were made with ANOVA, pvalues< 0.05, with Tukey’s HSD post-hoc test were considered significant. Results: A total of 161 participants were included, 50 healthy controls, 59 chronic LBP patients, and 52 subacute LBP patients. Trunk ROM and LM thickness were significantly larger in healthy controls compared to all LBP patients(p < 0.01). A lower LM thickness was found between subacute and chronic LBP patients although not significant(p = 0.11–0.97). All between-group comparisons showed no statistically significant differences in electromyography outcomes (p = 0.10–0.32). NRS showed no significant differences between LBP subgroups(p = 0.21). Chronic LBP patients showed a significant higher ODI score compared to subacute LBP patients(p = 0.03). Conclusions: Trunk ROM and LM thickness show differences between LBP patients and healthy controls

Intramuscular EMG versus Surface EMG of Lumbar Multifidus and Erector Spinae in Healthy Participants

Study Design: Cross-sectional design. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between intramuscular EMG (iEMG) and surface EMG (sEMG) from lumbar multifidus and erector spinae muscles during (submaximal) voluntary contraction tests in healthy participants. Summary of Background Data: Low back muscle function is a key component in the stability of the lumbar spine in which an important role is attributed to the lumbar multifidus (LM). Impairments in this stabilization system are held responsible for (chronic) low back pain. LM function can be measured by iEMG and sEMG; however, in earlier studies, results from iEMG and sEMG were inconsistent. Methods: Fifteen healthy adults were included. The intervention consisted of five clinical tests: resting, submaximal contraction tests of the lower back, abdominal contraction, and a biofeedback test in which LM and erector spinae (ES) activities were compared by iEMG and sEMG. Correlations were calculated with regard to original signal, co-contraction ratio, and cross-talk ratio. Correlation coefficients for each combination of iEMG and sEMG signals were calculated, to identify original signal (i.e., activity of only the targeted muscle) and possible cross-talk. Correlations >0.75 were considered as good concurrent validity. Results: The original signals of LM showed fair to high correlation coefficients (r: 0.3–0.8). Co-contraction of LM and ES was observed during all tests, but iEMG shows more variation in the correlations (r: 0.1–0.8) compared to sEMG (r: 0.3–0.8). Significant cross-talk was observed in all tests, particularly during the biofeedback test of iEMGESversus sEMGLM and iEMGLMversus sEMGES (r = 0.8). Conclusion: Surface EMG of ES and LM are no adequate representation of LM and ES activity measured by iEMG because of moderate/high cross-talk and co-contractions. Clinical tests that aim to assess LM activity do not represent isolated LM activity. This should be taken into account in future clinical studies