Nociceptive stimulation, at an intensity that elicits pain-related behavior, attenuates recovery of locomotor and bladder functions, and increases tissue loss after a contusion injury. These data imply that nociceptive input (e.g., from tissue damage) can enhance the loss of function after injury, and that potential clinical treatments, such pretreatment with an analgesic, may protect the damaged system from further secondary injury. The current study examined this hypothesis and showed that a potential treatment (morphine) did not have a protective effect. In fact, morphine appeared to exacerbate the effects of nociceptive stimulation. Experiment 1 showed that after spinal cord injury 20 mg/kg of systemic morphine was necessary to induce strong antinociception and block behavioral reactivity to shock treatment, a dose that was much higher than that needed for sham controls. In Experiment 2, contused rats were given one of three doses of morphine (Vehicle, 10, 20 mg/kg) prior to exposure to uncontrollable electrical stimulation or restraint alone. Despite decreasing nociceptive reactivity, morphine did not attenuate the long-term consequences of shock. Rats treated with morphine and shock had higher mortality rates, and displayed allodynic responses to innocuous sensory stimuli three weeks later. Independent of shock, morphine per se undermined recovery of sensory function. Rats treated with morphine alone also had significantly larger lesions than those treated with saline. These results suggest that nociceptive stimulation affects recovery despite a blockade of pain-elicited behavior. The results are clinically important because they suggest that opiate treatment may adversely affect the recovery of function after injury.

Following spinal transection of the upper thoracic spinal cord, male Sprague-Dawley rats given legshock whenever a hindlimb is extended learn to maintain the leg in a flexed position. The region of the cord that mediates this instrumental learning was isolated using neuroanatomical tracing, localized infusion of lidocaine, and surgical transections. DiI and Fluoro-Gold microinjection at the site of shock application labeled motor neuron bodies of lamina IX in the lower lumbar region. Local application of the Na-super++ channel blocker lidocaine disrupted learning when it was applied over a region extending from the lower lumbar (L3) to upper sacral (S2) cord. The drug had no effect rostral or caudal to this region. Surgical transections as low as L4 had no effect on learning. Learning also survived a dual transection at L4 and S3, but not L4 and S2. The results suggest that the essential neural circuit lies between L4 and S3.