Amplitudes of Pain-Related Evoked Potentials Are Useful to Detect Small Fiber Involvement in Painful Mixed Fiber Neuropathies in Addition to Quantitative Sensory Testing - An Electrophysiological Study

Clinical neurophysiology of neuropathic pain

Timely and accurate diagnosis of neuropathic pain is critical for optimizing therapeutic outcomes and minimizing treatment delays. According to current standards, the diagnosis of definite neuropathic pain requires objective confirmation of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory nervous system. This can be provided by specialized neurophysiological techniques as conventional methods like nerve conduction studies and somatosensory evoked potentials may not be sufficient as they do not assess pain pathways. These specialized techniques apply various stimuli, such as thermal, electrical, or mechanical, alongside assessments of spinal/cortical potential or electromyographic reflex recordings. The selection of techniques is guided by the patient's clinical history and examination. The most common neurophysiological tests used in clinical practice are pain-related evoked potentials (PREPs) providing an objective evaluation of nociceptive pathways. Four types of PREPs are employed: laser evoked potentials, contact-heat evoked potentials, intra-epidermal electrical stimulation evoked potentials, and pinprick evoked potentials, with the two former ones being the most robust and reliable ones. These techniques investigate small-diameter fibers, primarily Aδ-fibers, and spinothalamic tracts allowing the identification of peripheral or central nervous system lesions. Yet, they are limited in capturing neuronal mechanisms underlying neuropathic pain or in providing objective quantification of pain sensation. Two neurophysiological measures which investigate the pain system beyond its integrity are the nociceptive withdrawal reflex and the N13 component of somatosensory evoked potentials. Both of these methods are more commonly used in research than clinical practice, but they pose interesting approaches to quantify central sensitization, a key underlying mechanism of neuropathic pain. Future investigations in neuropathic pain are therefore warranted.

Machines, mathematics, and modules: the potential to provide real-time metrics for pain under anesthesia

The brain-based assessments under anesthesia have provided the ability to evaluate pain/nociception during surgery and the potential to prevent long-term evolution of chronic pain. Prior studies have shown that the functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)-measured changes in cortical regions such as the primary somatosensory and the polar frontal cortices show consistent response to evoked and ongoing pain in awake, sedated, and anesthetized patients. We take this basic approach and integrate it into a potential framework that could provide real-time measures of pain/nociception during the peri-surgical period. This application could have significant implications for providing analgesia during surgery, a practice that currently lacks quantitative evidence to guide patient tailored pain management. Through a simple readout of "pain" or "no pain," the proposed system could diminish or eliminate levels of intraoperative, early post-operative, and potentially, the transition to chronic post-surgical pain. The system, when validated, could also be applied to measures of analgesic efficacy in the clinic.

Chemical composition, antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory activities of the curzerene type essential oil of Eugenia uniflora from Brazil

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

The Eugenia uniflora leaf infusion is widely used in folk medicine to treat gastroenteritis, fever, hypertension, inflammatory and diuretic diseases.

AIM OF THE STUDY

This work evaluated the acute oral toxic, antinociceptive, and anti-inflammatory activities of the curzerene chemotype of Eugenia uniflora essential oil (EuEO).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

EuEO was obtained by hydrodistillation and analyzed by GC and GC-MS. The antinociceptive action in mice was evaluated for the peripheral and central analgesic activity using abdominal contortion and hot plate tests (50, 100, and 200 mg/kg); xylene-induced ear swelling was carried out for the nociception test, and carrageenan-induced cell migration test. Spontaneous locomotor activity was assessed in the open field test to rule out any nonspecific sedative or muscle relaxant effects of EuEO.

RESULTS

The EuEO displayed a yield of 2.6 ± 0.7%. The major compounds classes were oxygenated sesquiterpenoids (57.3 ± 0.2%), followed by sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (16.4 ± 2.6). The chemical constituents with the highest concentrations were curzerene (33.4 ± 8.5%), caryophyllene oxide (7.6 ± 2.8%), β-elemene (6.5 ± 1.8%), and E-caryophyllene (4.1 ± 0.3%). Oral treatment with EuEO, at doses of 50, 300, and 2000 mg/kg, did not change the behavior patterns or mortality of the animals. EuEO (300 mg/kg) did not cause a reduction in the number of crossings in the open field compared to the vehicle group. The aspartate aminotransferase (AST) level was higher in EuEO-treated groups (50 and 2000 mg/kg) when compared to the control group (p < 0.05). EuEO, at doses of 50, 100, and 200 mg/kg, reduced the number of abdominal writhings by 61.66%, 38.33%, and 33.33%. EuEO did not show increased hot plate test time latency in any of the intervals analyzed. At 200 mg/kg, EuEO decreased paw licking time, with inhibition of 63.43%. In formalin-induced acute pain, EuEO decreased paw licking time at doses of 50, 100, and 200 mg/kg in the first phase, with inhibition of 30.54%, 55.02%, and 80.87%. The groups treated with EuEO at doses of 50, 100, and 200 mg/kg showed ear edema reduction of 50.26%, 55.17%, and 51.31%, respectively. Moreover, EuEO inhibited leukocyte recruitment only at a dose of 200 mg/kg. The inhibitory values of leukocyte recruitment after 4 h of carrageenan application were 4.86%, 4.93%, and 47.25% for 50, 100, and 200 mg/kg of essential oil, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The EuEO, curzerene chemotype, has significant antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory activities and low acute oral toxicity. This work confirms the antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory of this species as the traditional use.

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation in Chronic Painful Polyneuropathy: A Potential Modulator for Small Nerve Fiber Regeneration

OBJECTIVES

Neuromodulatory treatments like spinal cord stimulation and dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) have emerged as effective treatments to relieve pain in painful polyneuropathy. Animal studies have demonstrated that neurostimulation can enhance nerve regeneration. This study aimed to investigate if DRGS may impact intraepidermal nerve fiber regeneration and sensory nerve function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine patients with chronic, intractable painful polyneuropathy were recruited. Intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) quantification in 3 mm punch skin biopsy was performed 1 month before DRGS (placed at the level of the L5 and S1 dorsal root ganglion) and after 12- and 24-month follow-up. Quantitative sensory testing, nerve conduction studies, and a clinical scale score were also performed at the same time points.

RESULTS

In 7 of 9 patients, DRGS was successful (defined as a reduction of ≥ 50% in daytime and/or night-time pain intensity), allowing a definitive implantable pulse generator implantation. The median baseline IENFD among these 7 patients was 1.6 fibers/mm (first and third quartile: 1.2; 4.3) and increased to 2.6 fibers/mm (2.5; 2.9) and 1.9 fibers/mm (1.6; 2.4) at 1- and 2-years follow-up, respectively. These changes were not statistically significant (p = 1.000 and 0.375). Sensory nerve tests did not show substantial changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although not significant, the results of this study showed that in most of the patients with implants, there was a slight increase of the IENFD at the 1- and 2-year follow-up. Larger-scale clinical trials are warranted to explore the possible role of DRGS in reversing the progressive neurodegeneration over time.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02435004; Swiss National Clinical Trials Portal: SNCTP000001376.

Anodal transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation influences the amplitude of pain-related evoked potentials in healthy subjects

It has already been described that transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) can selectively influence nociceptive evoked potentials. This study is the first aiming to prove an influence of tsDCS on pain-related evoked potentials (PREP) using concentric surface electrodes (CE), whose nociceptive specificity is still under discussion. 28 healthy subjects participated in this sham-controlled, double-blind cross-over study. All subjects underwent one session of anodal and one session of sham low-thoracic tsDCS. Before and after the intervention, PREP using CE, PREP-induced pain perception and somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) were assessed on the right upper and lower limb. We found a decrease in PREP amplitude at the lower limb after sham stimulation, but not after anodal tsDCS, while SEP remained unchanged under all studied conditions. There was no difference between the effects of anodal tsDCS and sham stimulation on the studied parameters assessed at the upper limb. PREP-induced pain of the upper and lower limb increased after anodal tsDCS. The ability of influencing PREP using a CE at the spinal level in contrast to SEP suggests that PREP using CE follows the spinothalamic pathway and supports the assumption that it is specifically nociceptive. However, while mainly inhibitory effects on nociceptive stimuli have already been described, our results rather suggest that anodal tsDCS has a sensitizing effect. This may indicate that the mechanisms underlying the elicitation of PREP with CE are not the same as for the other nociceptive evoked potentials. The effects on the processing of different types of painful stimuli should be directly compared in future studies.

Pain-related evoked potentials with concentric surface electrodes in patients and healthy subjects: a systematic review

Pain-related evoked potentials with concentric surface electrodes (PREP with CE) have been increasingly used in the diagnostics of polyneuropathies as well as in pain research. However, the study results are partly inconsistent regarding their utility to distinguish between normal and abnormal findings. The present systematic review aimed to summarise and compare study results, where PREP with CE were used in healthy subjects or patients and to identify possible influencing factors. We found 36 research articles, of which 21 investigated disorders in patients compared to healthy controls, while the other 15 focussed on basic research in healthy subjects. Patients with polyneuropathies showed the most consistent PREP results with similar prolonged latencies and reduced amplitude values. Findings in other patient groups or in healthy subjects were more heterogeneous. There was evidence for an influence by age and height as well as by central effects like emotions, which should be considered in further studies. Further systematic research analysing PREP results depending on individual and disease-specific factors is needed to develop optimal normative values.

Chemical composition and antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory activity of the essential oil of Hyptis crenata Pohl ex Benth. from the Brazilian Amazon

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE

The leaf tea of Hyptis crenata has its practical use in the Brazilian Amazon for treating gastrointestinal and liver disorders, sweating induction, and as an anti-inflammatory.

AIM OF THE STUDY

Evaluation of the chemical composition, acute oral toxicity, and antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory activities of the H. crenata essential oil.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The essential oil was hydrodistilled and analyzed by GC and GC-MS. The antinociceptive action in mice was evaluated for the peripheral and central analgesic activity (abdominal contortion and hot plate tests), and the xylene-induced ear swelling was carried out for the nociception test.

RESULTS

Oxygenated monoterpenes (53.0%) and monoterpene hydrocarbons (38.9%) predominated in the H. crenata oil, being 1,8-cineo1e (35.9%), α-pinene (20.8%), camphor (10.0%), and β-pinene (7.3%) their primary constituents. The oral oil administration in the mice did not display changes in behavior patterns or animal mortality at 300 and 2000 mg/kg doses. The control group's biochemical parameters (ALP, AST, ALT) displayed a statistical difference from the treated group, unlike the renal parameters, which showed no variation between the groups. Oil reduced the abdominal contortions at doses of 100 (79.5%) and 300 mg/kg (44.4%), while with endodontacin, the dose was 5 mg/kg (75.2%). In addition, the oil could not decrease the paw licking/biting time at doses of 30, 100, and 300 mg/kg. However, it showed a significant antinociceptive effect on the second phase in the formalin test inhibiting licking time, with a reduction of 50.8% (30 mg/kg), 63.4% (100 mg/kg), 58.0% (300 mg/kg), and morphine (4 mg/kg, 78.3%). The oil administration produced significant inhibition of ear edema at all tested doses, with a better effect produced at 30 mg/kg (64.0% inhibition).

CONCLUSION

The oil of Hyptis crenata, rich in 1,8-cineole, camphor, α-pinene, and β-pinene, totaling 74%, displayed low acute toxicity and significant anti-inflammatory activity, with peripheral and no central antinociceptive action. Thus, these results show an actual perspective on using H. crenata oil in developing a phytotherapeutic product.

Workshops of the Eighth International Brain-Computer Interface Meeting: BCIs: The Next Frontier

The Eighth International Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) Meeting was held June 7-9th, 2021 in a virtual format. The conference continued the BCI Meeting series' interactive nature with 21 workshops covering topics in BCI (also called brain-machine interface) research. As in the past, workshops covered the breadth of topics in BCI. Some workshops provided detailed examinations of specific methods, hardware, or processes. Others focused on specific BCI applications or user groups. Several workshops continued consensus building efforts designed to create BCI standards and increase the ease of comparisons between studies and the potential for meta-analysis and large multi-site clinical trials. Ethical and translational considerations were both the primary topic for some workshops or an important secondary consideration for others. The range of BCI applications continues to expand, with more workshops focusing on approaches that can extend beyond the needs of those with physical impairments. This paper summarizes each workshop, provides background information and references for further study, presents an overview of the discussion topics, and describes the conclusion, challenges, or initiatives that resulted from the interactions and discussion at the workshop.

Intra-epidermal evoked potentials: A promising tool for spinal disorders?

OBJECTIVES

To test the robustness and signal-to-noise ratio of pain-related evoked potentials following intra-epidermal electrical stimulation (IES) compared to contact heat stimulation in healthy controls, and to explore the feasibility and potential added value of IES in the diagnosis of spinal disorders.

METHODS

Pain-related evoked potentials induced by IES (custom-made, non-invasive, concentric triple pin electrode with steel pins protruding 1 mm from the anode, triangularly separated by 7-10 mm respectively) and contact heat stimulation were compared in 30 healthy subjects. Stimuli were applied to four different body sites. Two IES intensities, i.e., high (individually adapted to contact heat painfulness) and low (1.5 times pain threshold), were used. Additionally, a 40-year-old patient with unilateral dissociated sensory loss due to a multi-segmental syringohydromyelia was assessed comparing IES and contact heat stimulation.

RESULTS

Both IES and contact heat stimulation led to robust pain-related evoked potentials recorded in all healthy subjects. Low intensity IES evoked potentials (14.1-38.0 µV) had similar amplitudes as contact heat evoked potentials (11.8-32.3 µV), while pain ratings on the numeric rating scale were lower for IES (0.8-2.5, compared to 1.5-3.9 for contact heat stimulation). High intensity IES led to evoked potentials with higher signal-to-noise ratio than low intensity IES and contact heat stimulation. The patient case showed impaired pain-related evoked potentials in segments with hypoalgesia for both IES modes. IES evoked potentials were preserved, with delayed latencies, while contact heat evoked potentials were abolished.

CONCLUSION

IES evoked robust pain-related cortical potentials, while being less painful in healthy controls. The improved signal-to-noise ratio supports the use of IES for objective segmental testing of nociceptive processing. This was highlighted in a spinal syndrome case, where IES as well as contact heat stimulation reliably detected impaired segmental nociception.

Electrical (Pain) Thresholds and Conditioned Pain Modulation in Patients with Low Back-Related Leg Pain and Patients with Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Cross-Sectional Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

When evaluating sensory dysfunctions and pain mechanisms in patients with low back pain (LBP), a specific subgroup of patients with radicular symptoms is often excluded. Comparative studies that evaluate sensory sensitivity in patients with a dominant nociceptive and neuropathic pain component are rarely performed. Therefore, the goal of this study was to examine differences in electrical thresholds and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) between patients with low back-related leg pain (LBRLP) and patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

University Hospital Brussels.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-one patients with LBRLP and 21 patients with FBSS were included.

METHODS

Electrical detection thresholds (EDTs), electrical pain thresholds (EPTs), and CPM were evaluated on the symptomatic and nonsymptomatic sides. Within- and between-group differences were evaluated for all parameters.

RESULTS

No between-group differences were found for EDT and EPT at both sides. On the nonsymptomatic side, a significantly lower CPM effect was found in the FBSS group (P = 0.04). The only significant within-group difference was an increased EDT at the symptomatic side in patients with FBSS (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

LBP patients with a primary neuropathic pain component revealed altered detection sensitivity at the symptomatic side, without severe indications for altered nociceptive processing, compared with LBP patients without a dominant neuropathic pain component. Endogenous modulation is functioning in LBP patients, although it is possible that it might only be functioning partially in patients with a dominant neuropathic pain component.

Guideline "diagnosis and non interventional therapy of neuropathic pain" of the German Society of Neurology (deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie)

2019 the DGN (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurology) published a new guideline on the diagnosis and non-interventional therapy of neuropathic pain of any etiology excluding trigeminal neuralgia and CRPS (complex regional pain syndrome). Neuropathic pain occurs after lesion or damage of the somatosensory system. Besides clinical examination several diagnostic procedures are recommended to assess the function of nociceptive A-delta and C-Fibers (skin biopsy, quantitative sensory testing, Laser-evoked potentials, Pain-evoked potentials, corneal confocal microscopy, axon reflex testing). First line treatment in neuropathic pain is pregabalin, gabapentin, duloxetine and amitriptyline. Second choice drugs are topical capsaicin and lidocaine, which can also be considered as primary treatment in focal neuropathic pain. Opioids are considered as third choice treatment. Botulinum toxin can be considered as a third choice drug for focal limited pain in specialized centers only. Carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine cannot be generally  recommended, but might be helpful in single cases. In Germany, cannabinoids can be prescribed, but only after approval of reimbursement. However, the use is not recommended, and can only be considered as off-label therapy within a multimodal therapy concept.

Pain-related evoked potentials in patients with large, mixed, and small fiber neuropathy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate A-delta fiber pathways in patients with large, mixed, and small fiber neuropathies using pain-related evoked potentials (PREP).

METHODS

We prospectively examined consecutive and unselected 108 patients with neuropathies using PREP. Patients were stratified according to impaired fiber types in those with large fiber neuropathy (LFN, n = 23), mixed fiber neuropathy (MFN, n = 80), and small fiber neuropathy (SFN, n = 5). Additionally, medical history, nerve conduction studies, quantitative sensory testing (QST), and skin punch biopsy were applied. Data was compared with those of 49 healthy controls.

RESULTS

Patients with MFN showed a distal loss of PREP (16/80, 20%) and prolonged PREP latencies after stimulation at the foot (MFN: 225.8 [135-293.6] ms, controls: 218 [135-394] ms, p < 0.05). Patients with demyelinating neuropathies had prolonged PREP latencies after stimulation at the hand (p < 0.05 each). QST showed an impairment of small and large fiber function in patients with MFN. PREP were mostly absent in patients at advanced stages of neuropathies: in 10/31 (30%) patients with no recordable sural nerve action potential (SNAP, preserved SNAP: 8/76, 10% missing) and in 4/17 (24%) patients with loss of distal epidermal innervation (preserved epidermal innervation: 7/60, 24%) PREP was not recordable. PREP peak-to-peak amplitude after stimulation at the face was lowered in patients with reduced proximal intraepidermal nerve fiber density (p < 0.02).

CONCLUSION

PREP is a useful screening method for A-delta fiber pathology also in patients with simultaneous large fiber pathology. Loss of PREP indicates advance stages of nerve fiber damage.

SIGNIFICANCE

PREP may be useful as a complementary method for detection of small fiber impairment also in patients with mixed fiber neuropathy and in advanced stages.

Clinical neurophysiology of pain

Clinical neurophysiologic investigation of pain pathways in humans is based on specific techniques and approaches, since conventional methods of nerve conduction studies and somatosensory evoked potentials do not explore these pathways. The proposed techniques use various types of painful stimuli (thermal, laser, mechanical, or electrical) and various types of assessments (measurement of sensory thresholds, study of nerve fiber excitability, or recording of electromyographic reflexes or cortical potentials). The two main tests used in clinical practice are quantitative sensory testing and pain-related evoked potentials (PREPs). In particular, PREPs offer the possibility of an objective assessment of nociceptive pathways. Three types of PREPs can be distinguished depending on the type of stimulation used to evoke pain: laser-evoked potentials, contact heat evoked potentials, and intraepidermal electrical stimulation evoked potentials (IEEPs). These three techniques investigate both small-diameter peripheral nociceptive afferents (mainly Aδ nerve fibers) and spinothalamic tracts without theoretically being able to differentiate the level of lesion in the case of abnormal results. In routine clinical practice, PREP recording is a reliable method of investigation for objectifying the existence of a peripheral or central lesion or loss of function concerning the nociceptive pathways, but not the existence of pain. Other methods, such as nerve fiber excitability studies using microneurography, more directly reflect the activities of nociceptive axons in response to provoked pain, but without detecting or quantifying the presence of spontaneous pain. These methods are more often used in research or experimental study design. Thus, it should be kept in mind that most of the results of neurophysiologic investigation performed in clinical practice assess small fiber or spinothalamic tract lesions rather than the neuronal mechanisms directly at the origin of pain and they do not provide objective quantification of pain.

Bilaterally prolonged latencies of pain-related evoked potentials in peripheral nerve injuries

OBJECTIVE

Cross-sectional study to test the applicability of pain-related evoked potentials (PREP) for the diagnosis of peripheral nerve injuries (PNI).

INTRODUCTION

Patients with generalized polyneuropathies show prolonged latencies and decreased amplitudes of PREP indicating an impairment of A-delta fibers. Although these fibers are frequently affected in PNI, it is unclear, if PREP-testing detects PNI comparable to Nerve Conduction Studies (NCS).

METHODS

23 patients with PNI of one upper limb underwent bilateral PREP-testing (using concentric surface electrodes) and NCS. 41 healthy controls underwent PREP-testing only. We determined pain thresholds, N1-latencies and N1P1-amplitudes of PREP and analyzed them for group and side-to-side differences. Small-fiber function was evaluated using thermal detection thresholds of Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST). N1-latencies above a cut-off calculated by ROC-analysis were defined as abnormal in order to compare detection rates of PREP and NCS.

RESULTS

Patients with PNI showed bilaterally prolonged N1-latencies (ipsilateral: 167.0 ± 40.7 ms vs. 141.2 ± 20.5 ms / contralateral: 160.0 ± 41.0 ms vs. 140.2 ± 23.9 ms) without a significant side-to-side difference. Pain thresholds were increased on the affected side only (4.6 ± 5.2 mA vs. 2.4 ± 1.4 mA (controls)). N1P1-amplitudes did not differ between patients and controls. 7 (32%) patients showed prolonged N1-latencies (>176 ms) of PREP. NCS were abnormal in 16 (73%) cases. 13 (59%) patients showed thermal hypoesthesia in QST.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to our expectations, we found bilaterally prolonged N1-latencies and normal N1P1-amplitudes in patients with PNI. Our findings support the hypothesis of a bilateral generation of PREP and indicate that PREP are not suitable for the diagnosis of PNI.

Capsaicin 8% patch reversibly reduces A-delta fiber evoked potential amplitudes

The capsaicin 8% patch is a treatment option in patients with localized peripheral neuropathic pain. We provide first data on the effect of capsaicin on the electrophysiological properties of A-delta fibers.

Introduction:

The capsaicin 8% patch is a treatment option in patients with localized peripheral neuropathic pain. Better understanding of its mechanisms of action and knowledge on predictive biomarkers for a treatment response is warranted.

Objectives:

To use electrically evoked pain-related potentials for investigation of A-delta fiber conduction after capsaicin 8% patch treatment.

Methods:

We studied 11 healthy controls at the dorsal hand and the foot and 12 patients with neuropathic pain at the area affected by neuropathic pain before and 2 hours after application of a capsaicin 8% patch (Qutenza). Patients were additionally phenotyped using quantitative sensory testing and skin biopsy.

Results:

Peak-to-peak N1-P1 amplitudes (PPA) were reduced after Qutenza application by a median of 60% in 6/11 controls and by 33% in patients with neuropathic pain compared with baseline; they were increased in 3 controls that did not develop capsaicin-induced pain. Patients with elevated cold detection thresholds more often had reduced PPA after Qutenza than those with normal cold detection threshold. Patients with reduced PPA after capsaicin application and with capsaicin-induced pain were more likely to achieve pain reduction on Qutenza.

Conclusion:

The capsaicin 8% patch induces a reduction in A-delta PPA in healthy persons and in patients with neuropathic pain adding to the mechanistic understanding of its effect.

High test-retest-reliability of pain-related evoked potentials (PREP) in healthy subjects

Pain-related evoked potentials (PREP) is an established electrophysiological method to evaluate the signal transmission of electrically stimulated A-delta fibres. Although prerequisite for its clinical use, test-retest-reliability and side-to-side differences of bilateral stimulation in healthy subjects have not been examined yet. We performed PREP twice within 3-14days in 33 healthy subjects bilaterally by stimulating the dorsal hand. Detection (DT) and pain thresholds (PT) after electrical stimulation, the corresponding pain ratings, latencies of P0, N1, P1 and N2 components and the corresponding amplitudes were assessed. Impact of electrically induced pain intensity, age, sex, and arm length on PREP was analysed. MANOVA, t-Test, interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest real difference (SRD), Bland-Altmann-Analysis as well as ANCOVA were used for statistical analysis. Measurement from both sides on both days resulted in mean N1-latencies from 142.39±18.12ms to 144.03±16.62ms and in mean N1P1-amplitudes from 39.04±12.26μV to 40.53±12.9μV. Analysis of a side-to-side effect showed for the N1-latency a F-value of 0.038 and for the N1P1-amplitude of 0.004 (p>0.8). We found intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) from 0.88 to 0.93 and a standard error of measurement (SEM)<10% of mean values for all measurements concerning the N1-Latency and N1P1-amplitude. Intraclass correlation coefficients, standard error of measurement and Bland-Altman-Analyses revealed excellent test-retest-reliability for N1-latency and N1P1-amplitude without systematic error and there was no side-to-side effect on PREP. N1-latency (r=0.35, p<0.05) and N1P1-amplitude (r=-0.45, p<0.05) correlated with age and additionally N1-latency correlated with arm length (r=0.45, p<0.001). In contrast, pain intensity during the stimulation had no effect on both N1-latency and N1P1-amplitude. In summary, PREP showed high test-retest-reliability and negligible side-to-side differences concerning the commonly used parameters N1-latency and N1P1-amplitude.

Neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system, including peripheral fibres (Aβ, Aδ and C fibres) and central neurons, and affects 7-10% of the general population. Multiple causes of neuropathic pain have been described and its incidence is likely to increase owing to the ageing global population, increased incidence of diabetes mellitus and improved survival from cancer after chemotherapy. Indeed, imbalances between excitatory and inhibitory somatosensory signalling, alterations in ion channels and variability in the way that pain messages are modulated in the central nervous system all have been implicated in neuropathic pain. The burden of chronic neuropathic pain seems to be related to the complexity of neuropathic symptoms, poor outcomes and difficult treatment decisions. Importantly, quality of life is impaired in patients with neuropathic pain owing to increased drug prescriptions and visits to health care providers, as well as the morbidity from the pain itself and the inciting disease. Despite challenges, progress in the understanding of the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain is spurring the development of new diagnostic procedures and personalized interventions, which emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach to the management of neuropathic pain.

Neuropathic pain

Neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system, including peripheral fibres (Aβ, Aδ and C fibres) and central neurons, and affects 7-10% of the general population. Multiple causes of neuropathic pain have been described and its incidence is likely to increase owing to the ageing global population, increased incidence of diabetes mellitus and improved survival from cancer after chemotherapy. Indeed, imbalances between excitatory and inhibitory somatosensory signalling, alterations in ion channels and variability in the way that pain messages are modulated in the central nervous system all have been implicated in neuropathic pain. The burden of chronic neuropathic pain seems to be related to the complexity of neuropathic symptoms, poor outcomes and difficult treatment decisions. Importantly, quality of life is impaired in patients with neuropathic pain owing to increased drug prescriptions and visits to health care providers, as well as the morbidity from the pain itself and the inciting disease. Despite challenges, progress in the understanding of the pathophysiology of neuropathic pain is spurring the development of new diagnostic procedures and personalized interventions, which emphasize the need for a multidisciplinary approach to the management of neuropathic pain.