Measurement Error of a Simplified Protocol for Quantitative Sensory Tests in Chronic Pain Patients

Effects of conditioned pain modulation on Capsaicin-induced spreading muscle hyperalgesia in humans

OBJECTIVES

Muscle pain can be associated with hyperalgesia that may spread outside the area of primary injury due to both peripheral and central sensitization. However, the influence of endogenous pain inhibition is yet unknown. This study investigated how endogenous pain inhibition might influence spreading hyperalgesia in experimental muscle pain.

METHODS

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) was assessed in 30 male volunteers by cold pressor test at the non-dominant hand as conditioning and pressure pain thresholds (PPT) at the dominant 2nd toe as test stimuli. Subjects were classified as having inhibitory or facilitating CPM based on published reference values. Subsequently, muscle pain and hyperalgesia were induced by capsaicin injection into the non-dominant supraspinatus muscle. Before and 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 min later, PPTs were recorded at the supraspinatus, infraspinatus and deltoid muscle, ring finger and toe.

RESULTS

Compared to baseline, PPTs decreased at the supraspinatus, infraspinatus and deltoid muscle (p≤0.03), and increased at the finger and toe (p<0.001). In facilitating CPM (n=10), hyperalgesia occurred at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 40 min (p≤0.026). In inhibitory CPM (n=20), hyperalgesia only occurred after 10 and 15 min (p≤0.03). At the infraspinatus muscle, groups differed after 5 and 40 min (p≤0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that facilitating CPM is associated with more spreading hyperalgesia than inhibitory CPM. This implies that poor endogenous pain modulation may predispose to muscle pain and spreading hyperalgesia after injury, and suggest that strategies to enhance endogenous pain modulation may provide clinical benefits.

Pressure pain threshold mappings of the infraspinatus muscle in chronic unilateral shoulder pain patients do not reflect generalized hypersensitivity

OBJECTIVES

Increased mechanical sensitivity has been observed on the unaffected side in chronic pain conditions, suggesting generalized or widespread hypersensitivity. However, this cannot be considered as a universal response since this hypersensitivity is inconsistent across muscle pain pathologies. The aim of this study was to assess generalized hypersensitivity in chronic unilateral shoulder pain, using pressure pain threshold (PPT) mappings of the infraspinatus muscle. The proposed evaluation is based on the assessment of PPT on a limited subset of sites, reducing potential habituation or sensitization effects.

METHODS

Twenty-nine patients with unilateral shoulder pain (USP) and twenty-seven healthy volunteers were recruited. PPT was assessed using a manual pressure algometer. Six sites distributed over the infraspinatus muscle were assessed, and three repetitions were performed at each site. Mappings were derived using two-dimensional interpolation.

RESULTS

Lower PPT values were found in the symptomatic side in comparison with the asymptomatic side at all assessment sites (estimated difference: 1.42 ± 0.10 kgf/cm², p < 0.001), but there were no differences among the asymptomatic side of USP patients and any of the sides in healthy volunteers (largest estimated difference: 0.17 ± 0.28 kgf/cm², p = 0.927). Furthermore, the medial region of the infraspinatus muscle showed higher mechanical sensitivity in both healthy volunteers and USP patients.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that USP does not induce generalized hypersensitivity, in contrast with previously reported findings. Physiotherapists could take these results into account for the assessment and treatment of patients with USP.

Reference values of conditioned pain modulation

Background and aims Endogenous pain modulation can be studied in humans by conditioned pain modulation (CPM): pain induced by a test stimulus is attenuated by a distantly applied noxious conditioning stimulus. The detection of impaired CPM in individual patients is of potential importance to understand the pathophysiology and predict outcomes. However, it requires the availability of reference values. Methods We determined reference values of CPM in 146 pain-free subjects. Pressure and electrical stimulation were the test stimuli. For electrical stimuli, we recorded both pain threshold and threshold for the nociceptive withdrawal reflex. Cold pressor test was the conditioning stimulus. The 5th, 10th and 25th percentiles for the three tests were computed by quantile regression analyses. Results The average thresholds increased after the conditioning stimulus for all three tests. However, a subset of subjects displayed a decrease in thresholds during the conditioning stimulus. This produced negative values for most of the computed percentiles. Conclusions This study determined percentile reference values of CPM that can be used to better phenotype patients for clinical and research purposes. The negative value of percentiles suggests that a slightly negative CPM effect can be observed in pain-free volunteers. Implications Pain facilitation rather than inhibition during the conditioning stimulus occurs in some pain-free volunteers and may not necessarily represent an abnormal finding.