Cui Ping Mao1, Quan Xin Yang1, Qiu Juan Zhang1, Hong Hong Sun1, Hua Juan Yang1, Xiao Qian Zhou1, and Gui Rong Zhang1
1Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
Synopsis
It is important
to determine and distinguish the mechanisms underlying different types of pain
because different drug targets are useful in pain of different origins.
Specific low back pain (SLBP) with a recognizable pathology and nonspecific low
back pain (NSLBP) are different pain conditions. The amygdala has been linked
with the pathophysiology of chronic LBP. However, it is not known whether the
amygdala is differentially affected in both conditions. Our study suggested
that the amygdala morphology, resting-state functional connectivity and
effective connectivity are differentially affected in subjects with SLBP and
NSLBP, indicating different brain mechanisms in SLBP and NSLBP.
Main Body
INTRODUCTION
Low back pain (LBP)
is the leading cause of disability worldwide and is a difficult condition to
effectively treat due to various etiologies [1].
Of all LBP, only a small portion of people have a specific pathological cause, the
majority of LBP patients (almost up to 90%) are not possible to identify a
specific nociceptive cause, which are classified as nonspecific LBP (NSLBP) [2].
It is important to determine and distinguish the mechanisms that account for
different types of pain, because different drug targets may be useful in pain
of different origins. The amygdala has been linked with the pathophysiology of
chronic LBP by presence of smaller volume [3, 4],
increased amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation [5],
exaggerated and abnormal connectivity [6, 7].
However, most earlier studies targeting amygdala role in LBP didn’t
differentiate NSLBP and SLBP. Little attention has been paid to that whether
the amygdala is differentially affected in specific LBP (SLBP) with a clear
cause and NSLBP.
METHODS
Thirty-three
subjects with NSLBP, 33 with SLBP, and 33 healthy controls (HCs) were examined.
The volume and surface morphology of amygdala were determined by FSL-FIRST
software. The resting-state functional connectivity (rsFC) of amygdala was
explored using seed-based connectivity in CONN toolbox. The effective connectivity of the amygdala were measured by
dynamic causal modelling.
RESULTS
Subjects with
SLBP had reduced normalized volumes of the bilateral amygdala when compared with
HCs; there was no significant
volume difference between NSLBP and HCs (Figure 1A). Connectivity analysis revealed
increased rsFCs of the right amygdala-parieto-occipital region in SLBP and increased
rsFC of the left amygdala-medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) in NSLBP as compared
to HCs. The amygdala rsFCs in NSLBP (left amygdala-mPFC) and SLBP (left amygdala-OFC,
left amygdala-insula) were negatively correlated with pain intensities (Figure
1B). NSLBP decreased effective connectivity from the
mPFC to the left amygdala, and SLBP decreased effective connectivity from mPFC
to the right amygdala when compared with HCs (Figure 1C) and both are negatively
associated with pain intensities.
DISCUSSION
These findings,
together with the negative correlations between pain intensities and amygdala
rsFCs in both the NSLBP and SLBP groups, might reflect a divergent
affective/cognitive processing via amygdala and pain-related maladaption of the
amygdala in these two LBP cohorts. A potential limitation of this study is that
this is a cross-sectional design while the progression of LBP is divergent. A
longitudinal study would be helpful to understand the causal relationships of
the amygdala alterations and pathogenesis of NSLBP and SLBP.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion,
we found that SLBP, but not NSLBP, is associated with amygdala morphological
changes although both NSLBP and SLBP are associated with altered amygdala rsFC
and effective connectivity. These findings may imply the divergent brain
pathogenesis underlying SLBP and NSLBP. Illucidating amygdala-cortical circuits
underlying LBP patient with different etiologies may shed light on the brain
pathophysiology of LBP, facilitate the development of individualized pain
managements and improve the care of chronic pain.Acknowledgements
This
research was supported by grants from China Scholarship Council (201806285075),
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81501455), and the Natural
Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province (2018SF-135).References
[1] Hartvigsen, J, Hancock, MJ, Kongsted,
A, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention[J]. The Lancet, 2018. 391(10137): 2356-2367.
[2] Maher,
C, Underwood, M, Buchbinder, R. Non-specific low back pain[J]. Lancet, 2017. 389(10070): 736-747.
[3] Mao,
CP and Yang, HJ. Smaller Amygdala Volumes in Patients With Chronic Low Back
Pain Compared With Healthy Control Individuals[J]. J Pain, 2015. 16(12): 1366-1376.
[4] Lin,
JC, Chu, LF, Stringer, EA, et al. One Month of Oral Morphine Decreases Gray
Matter Volume in the Right Amygdala of Individuals with Low Back Pain:
Confirmation of Previously Reported Magnetic Resonance Imaging Results[J]. Pain Med, 2016. 17(8): 1497-504.
[5] Zhang,
B, Jung, M, Tu, Y, et al. Identifying brain regions associated with the
neuropathology of chronic low back pain: a resting-state amplitude of
low-frequency fluctuation study[J].
Br J Anaesth, 2019. S0007-0912(19):
30143-30146.
[6] Jiang,
Y, Oathes, D, Hush, J, et al. Perturbed connectivity of the amygdala and its
subregions with the central executive and default mode networks in chronic
pain[J]. Pain, 2016. 157(9): 1970-8.
[7] Meier,
ML, Stampfli, P, Humphreys, BK, et al. The impact of pain-related fear on
neural pathways of pain modulation in chronic low back pain[J]. Pain Rep, 2017. 2(3): e601.
[8] Apkarian,
AV, Sosa, Y, Sonty, S, et al. Chronic back pain is associated with decreased
prefrontal and thalamic gray matter density[J]. J Neurosci, 2004. 24(46): 10410-5.
[9] Gustin,
SM, Peck, CC, Wilcox, SL, et al. Different pain, different brain: thalamic
anatomy in neuropathic and non-neuropathic chronic pain syndromes[J]. J Neurosci, 2011. 31(16): 5956-64.