Research and progress on the mechanism of lower urinary tract neuromodulation: a literature review.

The storage and periodic voiding of urine in the lower urinary tract are regulated by a complex neural control system that includes the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral autonomic ganglia. Investigating the neuromodulation mechanisms of the lower urinary tract helps to deepen our understanding of urine storage and voiding processes, reveal the mechanisms underlying lower urinary tract dysfunction, and provide new strategies and insights for the treatment and management of related diseases. However, the current understanding of the neuromodulation mechanisms of the lower urinary tract is still limited, and further research methods are needed to elucidate its mechanisms and potential pathological mechanisms. This article provides an overview of the research progress in the functional study of the lower urinary tract system, as well as the key neural regulatory mechanisms during the micturition process. In addition, the commonly used research methods for studying the regulatory mechanisms of the lower urinary tract and the methods for evaluating lower urinary tract function in rodents are discussed. Finally, the latest advances and prospects of artificial intelligence in the research of neuromodulation mechanisms of the lower urinary tract are discussed. This includes the potential roles of machine learning in the diagnosis of lower urinary tract diseases and intelligent-assisted surgical systems, as well as the application of data mining and pattern recognition techniques in advancing lower urinary tract research. Our aim is to provide researchers with novel strategies and insights for the treatment and management of lower urinary tract dysfunction by conducting in-depth research and gaining a comprehensive understanding of the latest advancements in the neural regulation mechanisms of the lower urinary tract.

Fiber Threshold Accommodation as a Mechanism of Burst and High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: Burst and high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS), in contrast to low-frequency stimulation (LFS, < 200 Hz), reduce neuropathic pain without the side effect of paresthesia, yet it is unknown whether these methods' mechanisms of action (MoA) overlap. We used empirically based computational models of fiber threshold accommodation to examine the three MoA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Waveforms used in SCS are composed of cathodic, anodic, and rest phases. Empirical studies of human peripheral sensory nerve fibers show different accommodation effects occurring in each phase. Notably, larger diameter fibers accommodate more than smaller fibers. We augmented our computational axon model to replicate fiber threshold accommodation behavior for diameters from 5 to 15 µm in each phase. We used the model to predict threshold change in variations of burst, high frequency, and LFS. RESULTS: The accommodation model showed that 1) inversion of larger and smaller diameter fiber thresholds produce a therapeutic window in which smaller fibers fire while larger ones do not and 2) the anodic pulses increase accommodation and perpetuate threshold inversion from burst to burst and between cathodic pulses in burst, high frequency, and variations, resulting in an amplitude "window" in which larger fibers are inactivated while smaller fibers fire. No threshold inversion was found for traditional LFS. CONCLUSIONS: The model, based on empirical data, predicts that, at clinical amplitudes, burst and high-frequency SCS do not activate large-diameter fibers that produce paresthesia while driving medium-diameter fibers, likely different from LFS, which produce analgesia via different populations of dorsal horn neural circuits.

Mechanism of dorsal column stimulation to treat neuropathic but not nociceptive pain: analysis with a computational model.

OBJECTIVE: Stimulation of axons within the dorsal columns of the human spinal cord has become a widely used therapy to treat refractory neuropathic pain. The mechanisms have yet to be fully elucidated and may even be contrary to standard "gate control theory." Our hypothesis is that a computational model provides a plausible description of the mechanism by which dorsal column stimulation (DCS) inhibits wide dynamic range (WDR) cell output in a neuropathic model but not in a nociceptive pain model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created a computational model of the human spinal cord involving approximately 360,000 individual neurons and dendritic processing of some 60 million synapses--the most elaborate dynamic computational model of the human spinal cord to date. Neuropathic and nociceptive "pain" signals were created by activating topographically isolated regions of excitatory interneurons and high-threshold nociceptive fiber inputs, driving analogous regions of WDR neurons. Dorsal column fiber activity was then added at clinically relevant levels (e.g., Aß firing rate between 0 and 110 Hz by using a 210-µsec pulse width, 50-150 Hz frequency, at 1-3 V amplitude). RESULTS: Analysis of the nociceptive pain, neuropathic pain, and modulated circuits shows that, in contradiction to gate control theory, 1) nociceptive and neuropathic pain signaling must be distinct, and 2) DCS neuromodulation predominantly affects the neuropathic signal only, inhibiting centrally sensitized pathological neuron groups and ultimately the WDR pain transmission cells. CONCLUSION: We offer a different set of necessary premises than gate control theory to explain neuropathic pain inhibition and the relative lack of nociceptive pain inhibition by using retrograde DCS. Hypotheses regarding not only the pain relief mechanisms of DCS were made but also regarding the circuitry of pain itself, both nociceptive and neuropathic. These hypotheses and further use of the model may lead to novel stimulation paradigms.