Nonlinear increase of pain in distance-based and area-based spatial summation

Pain distribution can be determined by classical conditioning

ABSTRACT

Chronic widespread pain (CWP)-as in many other clinical presentations-manifests in ongoing pain without identifiable structural cause, with pain that spreads over multiple body areas. The development and maintenance of symptoms may involve learning mechanisms. Ninety-four healthy volunteers participated in this study and were randomly distributed to 4 groups. In the classical conditioning combined with the verbal suggestion group, US- (small pain distribution) and US+ (large pain distribution) were paired with visual stimuli (CS+ and CS-), and participants were told about this association. In the verbal suggestion group, the conditioning was not performed, whereas in the classical conditioning-only group, learning was not combined with suggestion. In the control group, conditioning and suggestion did not take place. Ratings of perceived pain distribution were collected after each trial and ratings of pain intensity after each block of trials. During the testing phase, participants were exposed to electrocutaneous stimuli corresponding to only the small (US-) pain distribution. The results showed significant differences between CS+ and CS- pain distribution ratings across the experimental groups: conditioning + verbal suggestion (P < 0.01), conditioning-only group (P < 0.05), and verbal suggestion-only group (P < 0.05), but not in the control group (P > 0.05). Furthermore, significant differences in the perceived pain distribution were found between the control group and all experimental groups. This result supports our main hypothesis that the perceived pain distribution can be influenced by classical conditioning as well as verbal suggestion, although the effect is stronger when both are combined.

Does the distribution of musculoskeletal pain shape the fate of long-term sick leave? A prospective cohort study with register follow-up

ABSTRACT

Although multisite pain can markedly reduce work ability, the relevance of the bodily pain distribution as a predictor of long-term sick leave is still unknown. This study aimed to investigate the association between musculoskeletal pain distributions and long-term sick leave in the general working population of Denmark and included 66,177 currently employed wage earners without long-term sick leave during the prior 52 weeks. Participants reported whether they had pain in the lower extremity (hips/knees), upper extremity (neck/shoulders), or the low back. The analysis controlled for age, sex, year of survey reply, educational level, occupational group, psychosocial work factors, body max index, smoking, leisure-time physical activity, and mental health confounders. The results demonstrated that the risk of long-term sick leave increased with the number of pain sites. Compared with no pain, localized pain in any body region increased the risk/hazard by 25% to 29% (HR [95% CI]: 1.29 [1.07-1.54] for pain only in the low back), whereas pain in 2 regions increased the risk by 39% to 44% (HR [95% CI]: 1.41 [1.18-1.69] for pain in the low back + hips/knees). Workers reporting pain in all 3 regions experienced a 72% increased risk (HR [95% CI]: 1.72 [1.55-1.91]). Thus, the number of pain regions seems to matter more than the exact pain location. The spatial extension of musculoskeletal pain in workers functions as a gradient system, where pain spread throughout the body is an independent indicator of the high risk of long-term sick leave.

Effects of virtual reality on psychophysical measures of pain: superiority to imagination and nonimmersive conditions

ABSTRACT

Virtual reality (VR) has been shown to be effective in pain management. However, to date, little is known about the mechanisms by which immersive experiences influence pain processing. The aim of this study was to investigate the direct effects of an immersive VR environment on the perception of experimental pain in individuals with chronic pain and pain-free controls. The immersion in a VR landscape was compared with mental imagery and a nonimmersive control condition. Using a randomized within-crossover design, pressure pain detection and tolerance thresholds, spatial and temporal summation (SSP, TSP), and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) were measured in 28 individuals with chronic pain and 31 pain-free controls using phasic cuff pressure on the legs. Direct comparison between the groups showed that although individuals with pain had significantly lower pain thresholds, reduced CPM effects, and increased TSP, the VR condition had the same pain-inhibitory effect on pain thresholds as in pain-free controls. Conditioned pain modulation effects were reduced by all conditions compared with baseline. There were no significant differences between conditions and baseline for TSP and SSP. Overall, pain modulatory effects were largest for VR and smallest for imagery. These results demonstrate that immersion in a VR environment has an increasing effect on pain thresholds, reduces pain inhibition in a CPM paradigm, and has no effects on TSP. This applies for participants with chronic pain and pain-free controls. These VR effects exceeded the effects of mental imagery on the nonimmersive control condition. This indicates that VR effectively modulates pain perception in both patients and controls irrespective of differences in pain perception.

Spatial summation of pain is associated with pain expectations: Results from a home-based paradigm

The purpose of this study was to reproduce the previously observed spatial summation of pain effect (SSp) using non-laboratory procedures and commercial equipment. An additional aim was to explore the association between expectations and SSp. The Cold Pressor Task (CPT) was used to induce SSp. Healthy participants (N = 68) immersed their non-dominant hands (divided into 5 segments) into cold water (CPT). Two conditions were used 1) gradual hand immersion (ascending condition) and 2) gradual hand withdrawal (descending condition). Pain intensity was measured on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Psychological factors, such as the participants' expectations of pain intensity were also measured on a VAS. Results showed significant SSp (χ2(4) = 116.90, p < 0.001), reproduced with non-laboratory equipment in a home-based set-up. Furthermore, two novel findings were observed: i) there was a significant correlation between expectations and perceived pain, indicating a link between pain expectations and SSp, ii) spatial summation increased with the increase in duration exposure to the noxious stimulus (Wald χ2(8) = 80.80, p < 0.001). This study suggests that SSp is associated with pain expectations and can be formed by a mixture of excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms potentially driven by temporal characteristics of neural excitation. Moreover, this study proposes a new feasible way to induce SSp using a home-based set-up.

Psychophysics of Pain: A Methodological Introduction

For over 100 years, psychophysics ..÷ the scientific study between physical stimuli and sensation ... has been successfully employed in numerous scientific and healthcare disciplines, as an objective measure of sensory phenomena. This manuscript provides an overview of fundamental psychophysical concepts, emphasizing pain and research application..÷defining common terms, methods, and procedures.Psychophysics can provide systematic and objective measures of sensory perception that can be used by nursing scientists to explore complex, subjective phenomena..÷such as pain perception. While there needs to be improved standardization of terms and techniques, psychophysical approaches are diverse and may be tailored to address or augment current research paradigms. The interdisciplinary nature of psychophysics..÷like nursing..÷provides a unique lens for understanding how our perceptions are influenced by measurable sensations. While the quest to understand human perception is far from complete, nursing science has an opportunity to contribute to pain research by using the techniques and methods available through psychophysical procedures.

Analgesic effect of oral paracetamol 1000 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg, paracetamol 1000 mg/codeine 60 mg, paracetamol 1000 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg/codeine 60 mg, or placebo on acute postoperative pain: a single-dose, randomized, and double-blind study

PURPOSE

Combining analgesics with different mechanisms of action may increase the analgesic efficacy. The multidimensional pharmacodynamic profiles of ibuprofen 400 mg/paracetamol 1000 mg, ibuprofen 400 mg/paracetamol 1000 mg/codeine 60 mg, and paracetamol 1000 mg/codeine 60 mg and placebo were compared.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, single-centre, outpatient, and single-dose study used 200 patients of both sexes and homogenous ethnicity after third molar surgery (mean age 24 years, range 19-30 years). Primary outcome was sum pain intensity over 6 h (SPI). Secondary outcomes were time to analgesic onset, duration of analgesia, time to rescue drug intake, number of patients taking rescue drug, sum pain intensity difference (SPID), maximum pain intensity difference, time to maximum pain intensity difference, number needed to treat, prevent remedication and harm values, adverse effects, and patient-reported outcome measure (PROM).

RESULTS

Analgesia following ibuprofen and paracetamol combination with or without codeine was comparable. Both were better than paracetamol combined with codeine. Secondary variables supported this finding. Post hoc analysis of SPI and SPID revealed a sex/drug interaction trend in the codeine-containing groups where females experienced less analgesia. PROM showed a significant sex/drug interaction in the paracetamol and codeine group, but not in the other codeine-containing group. Especially females reported known and mild side effects in the codeine-containing groups.

CONCLUSION

Codeine added to ibuprofen/paracetamol does not seem to add analgesia in a sex-mixed study population. Sex may be a confounding factor when testing weak opioid analgesics such as codeine. PROM seems to be more sensitive than traditional outcome measures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov June 2009 NCT00921700.

Spatial Tuning in Nociceptive Processing Is Driven by Attention

When the source of nociception expands across a body area, the experience of pain increases due to the spatial integration of nociceptive information. This well-established effect is called spatial summation of pain (SSp) and has been the subject of multiple investigations. Here, we used cold-induced SSp to investigate the effect of attention on the spatial tuning of nociceptive processing. Forty pain-free volunteers (N = 40, 20 females) participated in this experiment. They took part in an SSp paradigm based on three hand immersions into cold water (5°C): Participants either immersed the radial segment ("a"), ulnar segment ("b") or both hand segments ("a+b") and provided overall pain ratings. In some trials based on "a+b" immersions, they were also asked to provide divided (ie, first pain in "a" then in "b"; or reversed) and directed attention ratings (ie, pain only in "a" or "b"). Results confirmed a clear SSp effect in which reported pain during immersions of "a" or "b" was less intense than pain during immersions of "a+b" (P < .001). Data also confirmed that spatial tuning was altered. SSp was abolished when participants provided two ratings in a divided fashion (P < .001). Furthermore, pain was significantly lower when attention was directed only to one segment ("a" OR "b") during "a+b" immersion (P < .001). We conclude that spatial tuning is dynamically driven by attention as reflected in abolished SSp. Directed attention was sufficient to focus spatial tuning and abolish SSp. Results support the role of cognitive processes such as attention in spatial tuning. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents experimental investigation of spatial tuning in pain and offers mechanistic insights of contiguous spatial summation of pain in healthy volunteers. Depending on how pain is evaluated in terms of attentional derivative (overall pain, directed, divided attention) the pain is reduced and spatial summation abolished.

To Calibrate or not to Calibrate? A Methodological Dilemma in Experimental Pain Research

To calibrate or not to calibrate? This question is raised by almost everyone designing an experimental pain study with supra-threshold stimulation. The dilemma is whether to individualize stimulus intensity to the pain threshold / supra-threshold pain level of each participant or whether to provide the noxious stimulus at a fixed intensity so that everyone receives the identical input. Each approach has unique pros and cons which need to be considered to i) accurately design an experiment, ii) enhance statistical inference in the given data and, iii) reduce bias and the influence of confounding factors in the individual study e.g., body composition, differences in energy absorption and previous experience. Individualization requires calibration, a procedure already irritating the nociceptive system but allowing to match the pain level across individuals. It leads to a higher variability of the stimulus intensity, thereby influencing the encoding of "noxiousness" by the central nervous system. Results might be less influenced by statistical phenomena such as ceiling/floor effects and the approach does not seem to rise ethical concerns. On the other hand, applying a fixed (standardized) intensity reduces the problem of intensity encoding leading to a large between-subjects variability in pain responses. Fixed stimulation intensities do not require pre-exposure. It can be proposed that one method is not preferable over another, however the choice depends on the study aim and the desired level of external validity. This paper discusses considerations for choosing the optimal approach for experimental pain studies and provides recommendations for different study designs. PERSPECTIVE: To calibrate pain or not? This dilemma is related to almost every experimental pain research. The decision is a trade-off between statistical power and greater control of stimulus encoding. The article decomposes both approaches and presents the pros and cons of either approach supported by data and simulation experiment.