Electrical stimulation vs. pulsed and continuous-wave optical stimulation of the rat prostate cavernous nerves, in vivo

William C. Perkins; Gwen A. Lagoda; Arthur Burnett M.D.; Nathaniel M. Fried

doi:10.1117/12.2183779

15 July 2015 Electrical stimulation vs. pulsed and continuous-wave optical stimulation of the rat prostate cavernous nerves, in vivo

William C. Perkins, Gwen A. Lagoda, Arthur Burnett M.D., Nathaniel M. Fried

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 9542, Medical Laser Applications and Laser-Tissue Interactions VII; 954217 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2183779
Event: European Conferences on Biomedical Optics, 2015, Munich, Germany

Abstract

Identification and preservation of the cavernous nerves (CNs) during prostate cancer surgery is critical for post-operative sexual function. Electrical nerve stimulation (ENS) mapping has previously been tested as an intraoperative tool for CN identification, but was found to be unreliable. ENS is limited by the need for electrode-tissue contact, poor spatial precision from electrical current spreading, and stimulation artifacts interfering with detection. Alternatively, optical nerve stimulation (ONS) provides noncontact stimulation, improved spatial selectivity, and elimination of stimulation artifacts. This study compares ENS to pulsed/CW ONS to explore the ONS mechanism. A total of eighty stimulations were performed in 5 rats, in vivo. ENS (4 V, 5 ms, 10 Hz) was compared to ONS using a pulsed diode laser nerve stimulator (1873 nm, 5 ms, 10 Hz) or CW diode laser nerve stimulator (1455 nm). Intracavernous pressure (ICP) response and nerve compound action potentials (nCAPs) were measured. All three stimulation modes (ENS, ONS-CW, ONS-P) produced comparable ICP magnitudes. However, ENS demonstrated more rapid ICP response times and well defined nCAPs compared to unmeasurable nCAPs for ONS. Further experiments measuring single action potentials during ENS and ONS are warranted to further understand differences in the ENS and ONS mechanisms.

Citation Download Citation

William C. Perkins, Gwen A. Lagoda, Arthur Burnett M.D., and Nathaniel M. Fried "Electrical stimulation vs. pulsed and continuous-wave optical stimulation of the rat prostate cavernous nerves, in vivo", Proc. SPIE 9542, Medical Laser Applications and Laser-Tissue Interactions VII, 954217 (15 July 2015); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2183779

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available