High frequency electrical stimulation concurrently induces central sensitization and ipsilateral inhibitory pain modulation

Anticipating noxious stimulation rather than afferent nociceptive input may evoke pupil asymmetry

Unilateral nociceptive stimulation is associated with subtle signs of pupil asymmetry that may reflect lateralized activity in the locus coeruleus. To explore drivers of this pupil asymmetry, electrical stimuli, delivered alone or 200 ms before or after an acoustic startle stimulus, were administered to one ankle under four experimental conditions: with or without a 1.6 s anticipatory period, or while the forearm ipsilateral or contralateral to the electrical stimulus was heated tonically to induce moderate pain (15 healthy participants in each condition). Pupil diameter was measured at the start of each trial, at stimulus delivery, and each second for 5 s after stimulus delivery. At the start of the first trial, the pupil ipsilateral to the side on which electric shocks were later delivered was larger than the contralateral pupil. Both pupils dilated robustly during the anticipatory period and dilated further during single- and dual-stimulus trials. However, pupil asymmetry persisted throughout the experiment. Tonically-applied forearm heat-pain modulated the pupillary response to phasic electrical stimuli, with a slight trend for dilatation to be greater contralateral to the forearm being heated. Together, these findings suggest that focusing anxiously on the expected site of noxious stimulation was associated with dilatation of the ipsilateral pupil whereas phasic nociceptive stimuli and psychological arousal triggered bilateral pupillary dilatation. It was concluded that preparatory cognitive activity rather than phasic afferent nociceptive input is associated with pupillary signs of lateralized activity in the locus coeruleus.

Measuring pain and nociception: Through the glasses of a computational scientist. Transdisciplinary overview of methods

In a healthy state, pain plays an important role in natural biofeedback loops and helps to detect and prevent potentially harmful stimuli and situations. However, pain can become chronic and as such a pathological condition, losing its informative and adaptive function. Efficient pain treatment remains a largely unmet clinical need. One promising route to improve the characterization of pain, and with that the potential for more effective pain therapies, is the integration of different data modalities through cutting edge computational methods. Using these methods, multiscale, complex, and network models of pain signaling can be created and utilized for the benefit of patients. Such models require collaborative work of experts from different research domains such as medicine, biology, physiology, psychology as well as mathematics and data science. Efficient work of collaborative teams requires developing of a common language and common level of understanding as a prerequisite. One of ways to meet this need is to provide easy to comprehend overviews of certain topics within the pain research domain. Here, we propose such an overview on the topic of pain assessment in humans for computational researchers. Quantifications related to pain are necessary for building computational models. However, as defined by the International Association of the Study of Pain (IASP), pain is a sensory and emotional experience and thus, it cannot be measured and quantified objectively. This results in a need for clear distinctions between nociception, pain and correlates of pain. Therefore, here we review methods to assess pain as a percept and nociception as a biological basis for this percept in humans, with the goal of creating a roadmap of modelling options.

Chronic temporomandibular disorders are associated with higher propensity to develop central sensitization: a case-control study

ABSTRACT

Temporomandibular disorders (TMD) include a group of musculoskeletal disorders that may involve increased responsiveness of nociceptive neurons in the central nervous system (ie, central sensitization). To test this hypothesis further, this study examined whether, as compared with healthy subjects, patients with chronic TMD have a greater propensity to develop secondary mechanical hyperalgesia-a phenomenon that can be confidently attributed to central sensitization. In this case-control study, we assessed the area of secondary mechanical hyperalgesia induced experimentally by delivering high-frequency electrical stimulation (HFS) to the volar forearm skin in 20 participants with chronic TMD and 20 matched healthy controls. High-frequency electrical stimulation consisted in 12 trains of constant-current electrical pulses (5 mA) delivered at 42 Hz. The area of secondary mechanical hyperalgesia was evaluated 30 minutes after applying HFS. The area of secondary mechanical hyperalgesia induced by HFS was on average 76% larger in the chronic TMD group (M = 67.7 cm 2 , SD = 28.2) than in the healthy control group (M = 38.4 cm 2 , SD = 14.9; P = 0.0003). Regarding secondary outcomes, there was no group difference in the intensity of secondary mechanical hyperalgesia, but allodynia to cotton after HFS was more frequent in the chronic TMD group. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to show that individuals with chronic TMD have an increased propensity to develop secondary hyperalgesia in a site innervated extratrigeminally. Our results contribute to a better understanding of the pathophysiology of chronic TMD.

Anodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Reduces Secondary Hyperalgesia Induced by low Frequency Electrical Stimulation in Healthy Volunteers

The aim of the study was to determine whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) reduced pain and signs of central sensitization induced by low frequency electrical stimulation in healthy volunteers. Thirty-nine participants received tDCS stimulation under 4 different conditions: anodal tDCS of the primary motor cortex (M1), anodal tDCS of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), anodal tDCS over M1 and DLPFC concurrently, and sham tDCS. Participants were blind to the tDCS condition. The order of the conditions was randomized among participants. Pain ratings to pinpricks, the current level that evoked moderate pain, and pain induced by low frequency electrical stimulation were assessed in the forearm by an experimenter who was blind to the tDCS conditions. Anodal tDCS at M1 increased the current level that evoked moderate pain compared to sham and other conditions. Anodal tDCS of DLPFC completely abolished secondary hyperalgesia. Unexpectedly, however, concurrent anodal tDCS over M1 and DLPFC did not reduce pain or hyperalgesia more than M1 alone or DLPFC alone. Overall, these findings suggest that anodal tDCS over M1 suppresses pain, and that anodal tDCS over DLPFC modulates secondary hyperalgesia (a sign of central sensitization) in healthy participants. PERSPECTIVE: Anodal transcranial current stimulation (atDCS) at the left motor cortex and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex increased the electrically-evoked pain threshold and reduced secondary hyperalgesia in healthy participants. Replication of this study in chronic pain populations may open more avenues for chronic pain treatment.

"Big girls don't cry": the effect of the experimenter's sex and pain catastrophising on pain

OBJECTIVES

The expression of pain in males and females involves complex socio-psychological mechanisms. Males may report lower pain to a female experimenter to appear strong, whereas females may report higher pain to a male experimenter to appear weak and to seek protection. However, evidence to support these stereotypes is inconclusive. Individuals who catastrophise about pain rate higher pain than those who do not. How pain catastrophising interacts with the effect of the experimenter's sex on pain reports is yet to be explored. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine whether pain catastrophising moderated the effect of the experimenter's sex on pain reports in healthy males and females.

METHODS

Participants (n=60, 30 males) were assigned to one of four experimental conditions: males tested by male experimenters, males tested by female experimenters, females tested by male experimenters, and females tested by female experimenters. Participants completed the Pain Catastrophising Scale, and then sensitivity to heat and to blunt (pressure-pain threshold) and sharp stimuli was assessed on both forearms, and to high frequency electrical stimulation (HFS) administered to one forearm.

RESULTS

Females reported lower pressure-pain thresholds than males irrespective of the experimenters' sex. Females reported lower sharpness ratings to male than female experimenters only when the test stimuli were moderately or intensely sharp. Higher pain catastrophising scores were associated with higher sharpness ratings in females but not males. Additionally, higher pain catastrophising scores were associated with greater temporal summation of pain to HFS, and with lower pressure-pain thresholds in females who were tested by male experimenters.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that the experimenters' sex and the participant's pain catastrophising score influence pain reports, particularly in females. Awareness of these psychosocial factors is important in order to interpret pain responses in a meaningful way, especially when females are tested by male experimenters. A greater awareness of sex/gender role biases and their potential interaction with pain catastrophising may help researchers and clinicians to interpret pain reports in meaningful ways. In turn, this may help to improve delivery of treatments for patients with chronic pain.

Perceptual correlates of homosynaptic long-term potentiation in human nociceptive pathways: a replication study

Animal studies have shown that high-frequency stimulation (HFS) of peripheral C-fibres induces long-term potentiation (LTP) within spinal nociceptive pathways. The aim of this replication study was to assess if a perceptual correlate of LTP can be observed in humans. In 20 healthy volunteers, we applied HFS to the left or right volar forearm. Before and after applying HFS, we delivered single electrical test stimuli through the HFS electrode while a second electrode at the contra-lateral arm served as a control condition. Moreover, to test the efficacy of the HFS protocol, we quantified changes in mechanical pinprick sensitivity before and after HFS of the skin surrounding both electrodes. The perceived intensity was collected for both electrical and mechanical stimuli. After HFS, the perceived pain intensity elicited by the mechanical pinprick stimuli applied on the skin surrounding the HFS-treated site was significantly higher compared to control site (heterotopic effect). Furthermore, we found a higher perceived pain intensity for single electrical stimuli delivered to the HFS-treated site compared to the control site (homotopic effect). Whether the homotopic effect reflects a perceptual correlate of homosynaptic LTP remains to be elucidated.

Central sensitization of nociceptive pathways demonstrated by robot-controlled pinprick-evoked brain potentials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of central sensitization, induced by high frequency electrical stimulation of the skin (HFS), on pinprick-evoked brain potentials (PEPs) using robot-controlled mechanical pinprick stimulation and a stimulus evaluation task.

METHODS

In 16 healthy volunteers HFS was applied to the right volar forearm. Robot- controlled pinprick stimuli (64 mN) were applied before and 20 minutes after HFS to the skin surrounding the area onto which HFS was applied. During pinprick stimulation, the EEG was recorded and the quality of perception and perceived intensity of the pinprick stimuli was collected.

RESULTS

After HFS, the skin surrounding the site at which HFS was delivered showed increased mechanical pinprick sensitivity. Both the early-latency negative peak of PEPs and the later-latency peak were significantly increased after HFS.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows increased PEPs after HFS when they are elicited by a robot-controlled mechanical pinprick stimulator and participants are engaged in a stimulus evaluation task during pinprick stimulation.

SIGNIFICANCE

This is the first study that shows a significant increase of both PEP peaks, and therefore, it provides a preferred setup for assessing the function of mechanical nociceptive pathways in the context of central sensitization.

Heterosynaptic facilitation of mechanical nociceptive input is dependent on the frequency of conditioning stimulation

High-frequency burstlike electrical conditioning stimulation (HFS) applied to human skin induces an increase in mechanical pinprick sensitivity of the surrounding unconditioned skin (a phenomenon known as secondary hyperalgesia). The present study assessed the effect of frequency of conditioning stimulation on the development of this increased pinprick sensitivity in humans. In a first experiment, we compared the increase in pinprick sensitivity induced by HFS, using monophasic non-charge-compensated pulses and biphasic charge-compensated pulses. High-frequency stimulation, traditionally delivered with non-charge-compensated square-wave pulses, may induce a cumulative depolarization of primary afferents and/or changes in pH at the electrode-tissue interface due to the accumulation of a net residue charge after each pulse. Both could contribute to the development of the increased pinprick sensitivity in a frequency-dependent fashion. We found no significant difference in the increase in pinprick sensitivity between HFS delivered with charge-compensated and non-charge-compensated pulses, indicating that the possible contribution of charge accumulation when non-charge-compensated pulses are used is negligible. In a second experiment, we assessed the effect of different frequencies of conditioning stimulation (5, 20, 42, and 100 Hz) using charge-compensated pulses on the development of increased pinprick sensitivity. The maximal increase in pinprick sensitivity was observed at intermediate frequencies of stimulation (20 and 42 Hz). It is hypothesized that the stronger increase in pinprick sensitivity at intermediate frequencies may be related to the stronger release of substance P and/or neurokinin-1 receptor activation expressed at lamina I neurons after C-fiber stimulation.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Burstlike electrical conditioning stimulation applied to human skin induces an increase in pinprick sensitivity in the surrounding unconditioned skin (a phenomenon referred to as secondary hyperalgesia). Here we show that the development of the increase in pinprick sensitivity is dependent on the frequency of the burstlike electrical conditioning stimulation.

No evidence of widespread mechanical pressure hyperalgesia after experimentally induced central sensitization through skin nociceptors

High-frequency stimulation of the skin induces secondary pinprick hyperalgesia but does not affect pressure pain thresholds either locally or at more distant body sites.

Introduction:

An increasing number of clinical studies involving a range of chronic pain conditions report widespread mechanical pressure pain hypersensitivity, which is commonly interpreted as resulting from central sensitization (CS). Secondary hyperalgesia (increased pinprick sensitivity surrounding the site of injury) is considered to be a manifestation of CS. However, it has not been rigorously tested whether CS induced by peripheral nociceptive input involves widespread mechanical pressure pain hypersensitivity.

Objectives:

The aim of this study was to assess whether high-frequency electrical stimulation (HFS), which induces a robust secondary hyperalgesia, also induces a widespread decrease of pressure pain thresholds (PPTs).

Methods:

We measured PPTs bilaterally on the temples (temporalis muscles), on the legs (tibialis anterior muscles), and on the ventral forearm (flexor carpi radialis muscles) before, 20 minutes after, and 45 minutes after applying HFS on the ventral forearm of sixteen healthy young volunteers. To evaluate the presence of secondary hyperalgesia, mechanical pinprick sensitivity was assessed on the skin surrounding the site where HFS was applied and also on the contralateral arm.

Results:

HFS induced a significant increase in mechanical pinprick sensitivity on the HFS-treated arm. However, HFS did not decrease PPTs neither in the area of increased pinprick sensitivity nor at more distant sites.

Conclusion:

This study provides no evidence for the hypothesis that CS, induced after intense activation of skin nociceptors, involves a widespread decrease of PPTs.

Painful stimulation of a sensitized site in the forearm inhibits ipsilateral trigeminal nociceptive blink reflexes

Exposure to moderate levels of ultraviolet B radiation (UVB) is painless but nevertheless induces an inflammatory response that sensitizes primary afferent nociceptors. Subsequently, heating the UVB-treated site can sensitize spinal nociceptors. We used a repeated-measures design to determine whether heating the UVB-treated site also triggers ipsilateral inhibitory controls. Specifically, a 2-cm diameter site on the forearm of 20 participants was exposed to UVB at twice the minimum erythema dose. 48 h later mechanical and thermal sensitivity had increased at the UVB-treated site, indicating primary hyperalgesia. In addition, sensitivity to blunt pressure had increased in the ipsilateral forehead, implying activation of an ipsilateral supra-spinal pro-nociceptive mechanism. Despite this, the area under the curve of the ipsilateral nociceptive blink reflex decreased when the UVB-treated site was heated to induce moderate pain. Together, these findings suggest that the UVB treatment sensitized primary nociceptive afferents and generated an ipsilateral supra-spinal pro-nociceptive mechanism. In addition, sensitization to heat induced by the UVB treatment strengthened an ipsilateral anti-nociceptive process elicited by heat-pain. Infrequent but enduring discharge of sensitized primary nociceptive afferents, driven by inflammation after UVB exposure, might initiate a lateralized supra-spinal pro-nociceptive influence that heightens awareness of impending harm on the sensitized side of the body. In addition, a lateralized anti-nociceptive response triggered by an intense barrage of nociceptive signals may help to differentiate stronger from weaker sources of pain.

Effect of combined opioid receptor and α2-adrenoceptor blockade on anxiety and electrically evoked startle responses

The R3 component of the electrically evoked blink reflex may form part of a startle reaction. Acoustic startle responses are augmented by yohimbine, an α₂-adrenoceptor antagonist that blocks α₂-autoreceptors, and are potentiated by opioid receptor blockade. To investigate these influences on electrically evoked startle responses, 16 mg yohimbine, with (16 participants) or without 50 mg naltrexone (23 participants), was administered in separate double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over experiments. In each experiment, R3 (a probable component of the startle response) was examined before and after high-frequency electrical stimulation of the forearm, a procedure that initiates inhibitory pain controls. Anxiety and somatic symptoms were greater after yohimbine than placebo, and were potentiated by naltrexone. Pain ratings for the electrically evoked startle stimuli decreased after high-frequency electrical stimulation in the placebo session but remained stable after drug administration. Yohimbine with naltrexone, but not yohimbine alone, also blocked an inhibitory effect of high-frequency electrical stimulation on electrically evoked sharp sensations and R3. Together, the findings suggest that adding naltrexone to yohimbine potentiated anxiety and blocked inhibitory influences of high-frequency electrical stimulation on electrically evoked sensations and startle responses. Thus, opioid peptides could reduce activity in nociceptive and startle-reflex pathways, or inhibit crosstalk between these pathways. Failure of this inhibitory opioid influence might be important in chronically painful conditions that are aggravated by startle stimuli.

Effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on local and remote pressure pain threshold and pinprick sensitivity in asymptomatic individuals: a randomised trial

BACKGROUND

The mechanisms of clinical pain relief associated with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) are poorly understood. Our objective was to determine whether lumbar high-velocity low-amplitude SMT altered pressure pain threshold (PPT) and pinprick sensitivity (PPS) locally and remotely, how long any change lasted (up to 30 min), and whether changes related to the side of SMT.

METHODS

Thirty-four asymptomatic participants (mean age 22.6 years ±4.0) received a right- or left-sided lumbar SMT. PPT and PPS were measured bilaterally at the calf, lumbar spine, scapula, and forehead before and immediately, 10, 20, and 30 min after intervention. Data were collected between October 2014 and June 2015.

RESULTS

Bilateral calf and lumbar spine PPT increased significantly after 10 - 20 min and was maintained at 30 min (7.2-11.8 % increase). PPS decreased significantly in all locations at various times (9.8 - 22.5 % decrease). At the calf and lumbar spine, PPT increased slightly more ipsilateral to the SMT than contralateral.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar SMT reduced deep pressure sensitivity locally and in the lower limbs for at least 30 min, whereas sensitivity to pinprick was reduced systemically. These findings suggest that SMT specifically inhibits deep pressure sensitivity distally. These findings are novel compared to other lumbar SMT studies, and may reflect a local spinal or complex supraspinal analgesic mechanism.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000682640).

Ultraviolet Radiation on the Skin: A Painful Experience?

Excessive exposure of skin to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) has dramatic clinical effects in humans, and it is a significant public health concern. Discomfort and sensory changes caused by skin sunburn are the main common features experienced by many of us, a phenomena triggered by the combination of long and short wavelengths radiation (UVA and UVB, respectively). Although the biological processes underlying UVR exposure are not fully understood, in the last few years many studies have made significant progress in characterizing sunburn at the cellular and molecular levels, making use of both humans and laboratory animal models. Here we review and reason that UVR can be used as an excellent model of sensitization and inflammation for pain research. UVR, particularly UVB, produces a controllable and sterile inflammation that causes a robust dose‐dependent hypersensitivity with minimal confounding effects. Importantly, we show that UVR animal models precisely recapitulate the sensory, cellular, and molecular changes observed in human skin, giving it great confidence as a translational model. Furthermore, in this article, we give an overview of the pharmacology underlying UVB inflammation, the latest advances in the field, and potential new targets for inflammatory pain.

Human psychophysics and rodent spinal neurones exhibit peripheral and central mechanisms of inflammatory pain in the UVB and UVB heat rekindling models

Translational research is key to bridging the gaps between preclinical findings and the patients, and a translational model of inflammatory pain will ideally induce both peripheral and central sensitisation, more effectively mimicking clinical pathophysiology in some chronic inflammatory conditions. We conducted a parallel investigation of two models of inflammatory pain, using ultraviolet B (UVB) irradiation alone and UVB irradiation with heat rekindling. We used rodent electrophysiology and human quantitative sensory testing to characterise nociceptive processing in the peripheral and central nervous systems in both models. In both species, UVB irradiation produces peripheral sensitisation measured as augmented evoked activity of rat dorsal horn neurones and increased perceptual responses of human subjects to mechanical and thermal stimuli. In both species, UVB with heat rekindling produces central sensitisation. UVB irradiation alone and UVB with heat rekindling are translational models of inflammation that produce peripheral and central sensitisation, respectively. The predictive value of laboratory models for human pain processing is crucial for improving translational research. The discrepancy between peripheral and central mechanisms of pain is an important consideration for drug targets, and here we describe two models of inflammatory pain that involve ultraviolet B (UVB) irradiation, which can employ peripheral and central sensitisation to produce mechanical and thermal hyperalgesia in rats and humans. We use electrophysiology in rats to measure the mechanically- and thermally-evoked activity of rat spinal neurones and quantitative sensory testing to assess human psychophysical responses to mechanical and thermal stimulation in a model of UVB irradiation and in a model of UVB irradiation with heat rekindling. Our results demonstrate peripheral sensitisation in both species driven by UVB irradiation, with a clear mechanical and thermal hypersensitivity of rat dorsal horn neurones and enhanced perceptual responses of human subjects to both mechanical and thermal stimulation. Additional heat rekindling produces markers of central sensitisation in both species, including enhanced receptive field sizes. Importantly, we also showed a correlation in the evoked activity of rat spinal neurones to human thermal pain thresholds. The parallel results in rats and humans validate the translational use of both models and the potential for such models for preclinical assessment of prospective analgesics in inflammatory pain states.

Involvement of α2-adrenoceptors in inhibitory and facilitatory pain modulation processes

BACKGROUND

In healthy humans, high-frequency electrical stimulation (HFS) of the forearm not only produces hyperalgesia at the site of stimulation but also reduces sensitivity to pressure-pain on the ipsilateral side of the forehead. In addition, HFS augments the ipsilateral trigeminal nociceptive blink reflex and intensifies the ipsilateral component of conditioned pain modulation. The aim of this study was to determine whether α2-adrenoceptors mediate these ipsilateral nociceptive influences.

METHODS

The α2-adrenoceptor antagonist yohimbine was administered to 22 participants in a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. In each session, thermal and mechanical sensitivity in the forearms and forehead was assessed before and after HFS. In addition, the combined effect of HFS and yohimbine on the nociceptive blink reflex and on conditioned pain modulation was explored. In this paradigm, the conditioning stimulus was cold pain in the ipsilateral or contralateral temple, and the test stimulus was electrically evoked pain in the forearm.

RESULTS

Blood pressure and electrodermal activity increased for several hours after yohimbine administration, consistent with blockade of central α2-adrenoceptors. Yohimbine not only augmented the nociceptive blink reflex ipsilateral to HFS but also intensified the inhibitory influence of ipsilateral temple cooling on electrically evoked pain at the HFS-treated site in the forearm. Yohimbine had no consistent effect on primary or secondary hyperalgesia in the forearm or on pressure-pain in the ipsilateral forehead.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings imply involvement of α2-adrenoceptors both in ipsilateral antinociceptive and pronociceptive pain modulation processes. However, a mechanism not involving α2-adrenoceptors appears to mediate analgesia in the ipsilateral forehead after HFS.

Therapeutic Basis of Clinical Pain Modulation

Pain is a hallmark of almost all bodily ailments and can be modulated by agents, including analgesics and anesthetics that suppress pain signals in the central nervous system. Defects in the modulatory systems, including the endogenous pain-inhibitory pathways, are a major factor in the initiation and chronicity of pain. Thus, pain modulation is particularly applicable to the practice of medicine. This review summarizes the existing literature on pain modulation. Here, we critically reviewed the literature from PubMed on pain modulation published primarily within the past 5 years in high impact journals. Specifically, we have discussed important anatomical landmarks of pain modulation and outlined the endogenous networks and underlying mechanisms of clinically relevant pain modulatory methods. The Gate Control Theory is briefly presented with discussion on the capacity of pain modulation to cause both hyper- and hypoalgesia. An emphasis has been given to highlight key areas in pain research that, because of unanswered questions or therapeutic potential, merit additional scientific scrutiny. The information presented in this paper would be helpful in developing novel therapies, metrics, and interventions for improved patient management.

Movement restriction does not modulate sensory and perceptual effects of exercise-induced arm pain

BACKGROUND

Movement restriction has been proposed as an important modulator of changes in sensory and perceptual function and motor imagery performance that are observed in musculoskeletal pain syndromes. There are no empirical data to support this view.

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this experiment was to determine the effects of movement restriction on local and widespread sensory, perceptual and motor imagery changes after exercise-induced muscular pain. Further objectives were to investigate whether changes in sensory perception are correlated with pain intensity and tactile acuity or motor imagery performance.

METHODS

In forty healthy volunteers, delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) of the non-dominant elbow flexors was induced using eccentric contractions until exhaustion. Participants were then randomised into two groups: a movement restriction group (wearing a sling) or a control group (not wearing a sling). Sensory and perceptual functions were measured using a range of sensory tests and a motor imagery performance task (left/right limb judgements).

RESULTS

Movement restriction did not modulate any of the measures. We found concurrent mechanical hypoesthesia (p < 0.01), reduced tactile acuity (p = 0.02) and pressure hyperalgesia (p < 0.01) at the painful side. We found evidence of widespread pressure hyperalgesia. Impaired tactile acuity was associated with a decrease in pain threshold to pressure (r = -0.34, p = 0.03). Motor imagery performance was unchanged (p > 0.35) by pain or movement restriction.

CONCLUSION

Short-term movement restriction did not influence local and widespread sensory changes induced by experimentally induced muscular pain.

A disturbance in sensory processing on the affected side of the body increases limb pain in complex regional pain syndrome

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine whether a central disturbance in somatosensory processing contributes to limb pain in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS).

METHODS

In 37 patients with CRPS, the effect of cooling the ipsilateral forehead on pain in the affected limb was compared with the effect of cooling the contralateral forehead. In addition, symptoms associated with cold-evoked limb pain were explored.

RESULTS

Limb pain generally increased when the ipsilateral side of the forehead was cooled but did not change when the contralateral side of the forehead was cooled. Increases were greatest in patients with heightened sensitivity to cold, brushing, and pressure-pain in the ipsilateral forehead, in patients with heightened sensitivity to pressure-pain in the limbs, and in patients with chronic symptoms. In contrast, sensitivity to light touch was diminished in the CRPS-affected limb of patients whose limb pain remained unchanged or decreased during ipsilateral forehead cooling.

CONCLUSIONS

These preliminary findings suggest that a central disturbance in sensory processing and pain modulation, which extends beyond the affected limb to the ipsilateral forehead, contributes to symptoms in a subgroup of patients with CRPS.

Enhanced brain responses to C-fiber input in the area of secondary hyperalgesia induced by high-frequency electrical stimulation of the skin

High-frequency electrical stimulation (HFS) of the human skin induces an increase in both mechanical and heat pain sensitivity in the surrounding unconditioned skin. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of HFS on the intensity of perception and brain responses elicited by the selective activation of C fibers. HFS was applied to the ventral forearm of 15 healthy volunteers. Temperature-controlled CO2 laser stimulation was used to activate selectively low-threshold C-fiber afferents without concomitantly activating Aδ-fiber afferents. These stimuli were detected with reaction times compatible with the conduction velocity of C fibers. The intensity of perception and event-related brain potentials (ERPs) elicited by thermal stimuli delivered to the surrounding unconditioned skin were recorded before (T0) and after HFS (T1: 20 min after HFS; T2: 45 min after HFS). The contralateral forearm served as a control. Mechanical hyperalgesia following HFS was confirmed by measuring the change in the intensity of perception elicited by mechanical punctate stimuli. HFS resulted in increased intensity of perception to mechanical punctate stimulation and selective C-fiber thermal stimulation at both time points. In contrast, the N2 wave of the ERP elicited by C-fiber stimulation (679 ± 88 ms; means ± SD) was enhanced at T1 but not at T2. The P2 wave (808 ± 105 ms) was unaffected by HFS. Our results suggest that HFS enhances the sensitivity to thermal C-fiber input in the area of secondary hyperalgesia. However, there was no significant enhancement of the magnitude of the C-fiber ERPs at T2, suggesting that quickly adapting C fibers do not contribute to this enhancement.

An improved model of heat-induced hyperalgesia--repetitive phasic heat pain causing primary hyperalgesia to heat and secondary hyperalgesia to pinprick and light touch

This study tested a modified experimental model of heat-induced hyperalgesia, which improves the efficacy to induce primary and secondary hyperalgesia and the efficacy-to-safety ratio reducing the risk of tissue damage seen in other heat pain models. Quantitative sensory testing was done in eighteen healthy volunteers before and after repetitive heat pain stimuli (60 stimuli of 48°C for 6 s) to assess the impact of repetitive heat on somatosensory function in conditioned skin (primary hyperalgesia area) and in adjacent skin (secondary hyperalgesia area) as compared to an unconditioned mirror image control site. Additionally, areas of flare and secondary hyperalgesia were mapped, and time course of hyperalgesia determined. After repetitive heat pain conditioning we found significant primary hyperalgesia to heat, and primary and secondary hyperalgesia to pinprick and to light touch (dynamic mechanical allodynia). Acetaminophen (800 mg) reduced pain to heat or pinpricks only marginally by 11% and 8%, respectively (n.s.), and had no effect on heat hyperalgesia. In contrast, the areas of flare (−31%) and in particular of secondary hyperalgesia (−59%) as well as the magnitude of hyperalgesia (−59%) were significantly reduced (all p<0.001). Thus, repetitive heat pain induces significant peripheral sensitization (primary hyperalgesia to heat) and central sensitization (punctate hyperalgesia and dynamic mechanical allodynia). These findings are relevant to further studies using this model of experimental heat pain as it combines pronounced peripheral and central sensitization, which makes a convenient model for combined pharmacological testing of analgesia and anti-hyperalgesia mechanisms related to thermal and mechanical input.

High-frequency electrical stimulation of the human skin induces heterotopical mechanical hyperalgesia, heat hyperalgesia, and enhanced responses to nonnociceptive vibrotactile input

High-frequency electrical stimulation (HFS) of the human skin induces increased pain sensitivity in the surrounding unconditioned skin. The aim of the present study was to characterize the relative contribution of the different types of nociceptive and nonnociceptive afferents to the heterotopical hyperalgesia induced by HFS. In 17 healthy volunteers (9 men and 8 women), we applied HFS to the ventral forearm. The intensity of perception and event-related brain potentials (ERPs) elicited by vibrotactile stimuli exclusively activating nonnociceptive low-threshold mechanoreceptors and thermonociceptive stimuli exclusively activating heat-sensitive nociceptive afferents were recorded before and after HFS. The previously described mechanical hyperalgesia following HFS was confirmed by measuring the changes in the intensity of perception elicited by mechanical punctate stimuli. HFS increased the perceived intensity of both mechanical punctate and thermonociceptive stimuli applied to the surrounding unconditioned skin. The time course of the effect of HFS on the perception of mechanical and thermal nociceptive stimuli was similar. This indicates that HFS does not only induce mechanical hyperalgesia, but also induces heat hyperalgesia in the heterotopical area. Vibrotactile ERPs were also enhanced after HFS, indicating that nonnociceptive somatosensory input could contribute to the enhanced responses to mechanical pinprick stimuli. Finally, the magnitude of thermonociceptive ERPs was unaffected by HFS, indicating that type II A-fiber mechano-heat nociceptors, thought to be the primary contributor to these brain responses, do not significantly contribute to the observed heat hyperalgesia.

Coexistence of ipsilateral pain-inhibitory and facilitatory processes after high-frequency electrical stimulation

BACKGROUND

High-frequency electrical stimulation (HFS) of the human forearm evokes analgesia to blunt pressure in the ipsilateral forehead, consistent with descending ipsilateral inhibitory pain modulation. The aim of the current study was to further delineate pain modulation processes evoked by HFS by examining sensory changes in the arm and forehead; investigating the effects of HFS on nociceptive blink reflexes elicited by supraorbital electrical stimulation; and assessing effects of counter-irritation (electrically evoked pain at the HFS-conditioned site in the forearm) on nociceptive blink reflexes before and after HFS.

METHODS

Before and after HFS conditioning, sensitivity to heat and to blunt and sharp stimuli was assessed at and adjacent to the conditioned site in the forearm and on each side of the forehead. Nociceptive blink reflexes were also assessed before and after HFS with and without counter-irritation of the forearm.

RESULTS

HFS triggered secondary hyperalgesia in the forearm (a sign of central sensitization) and analgesia to blunt pressure in the ipsilateral forehead. Under most conditions, both HFS conditioning and counter-irritation of the forearm suppressed electrically evoked pain in the forehead, and the amplitude of the blink reflex to supraorbital stimuli decreased. Importantly, however, in the absence of forearm counter-irritation, HFS conditioning facilitated ipsilateral blink reflex amplitude to supraorbital stimuli delivered ipsilateral to the HFS-conditioned site.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that HFS concurrently triggers hemilateral inhibitory and facilitatory influences on nociceptive processing over and above more general effects of counter-irritation. The inhibitory influence may help limit the spread of sensitization in central nociceptive pathways.