Paradox pain sensitivity using cuff pressure or algometer testing in patients with hemophilia.

IF 1.5 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Scandinavian Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2024-04-09 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1515/sjpain-2023-0128
Pia Ransmann, Fabian Tomschi, Alexander Schmidt, Marius Brühl, Thomas Hilberg
{"title":"Paradox pain sensitivity using cuff pressure or algometer testing in patients with hemophilia.","authors":"Pia Ransmann, Fabian Tomschi, Alexander Schmidt, Marius Brühl, Thomas Hilberg","doi":"10.1515/sjpain-2023-0128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pain is a common comorbidity in patients with hemophilia (PwH) due to hemophilic arthropathy. This study aims to explore pain sensitivity in PwH methodologically investigating in cuff pressure testing compared to algometer testing.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>37 PwH and 35 healthy control subjects (Con) enrolled in this study. Joint health status was assessed. Subjective pain was evaluated using numeric rating scales. Pain sensitivity was measured with pressure algometry and cuff pressure algometry. Pressure pain thresholds of the algometer (PPT<sub>a</sub>) were measured at knee, ankle joints, and forehead. Subsequently, thresholds of cuff pressure were measured at the left and right lower legs (PPT<sub>cuff</sub>). In both, lower values represent higher pain sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PwH exerted a worse joint health status than Con. Pain sensitivity was higher in PwH compared to Con as PPT<sub>a</sub> of the knee and ankle joints were lower in PwH. No difference was observed in PPT<sub>a</sub> at the forehead. Contrastingly, lower pain sensitivity was detected in PwH by higher PPT<sub>cuff</sub> values compared to Con in both legs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While PPT<sub>a</sub> of the knee and ankle joints are lower in PwH, PPT<sub>cuff</sub> are higher in PwH compared to Con. This reveals a paradox situation, highlighting that PwH experience local, joint- and hemophilic arthropathy-related pain, whereas pain sensitivity of non-affected soft tissue structures is lower. The reasons explaining the PPT<sub>cuff</sub> results remain elusive but might be explained by coping strategies counteracting chronic joint pain, resulting in lower sensitivity at non-affected structures.</p>","PeriodicalId":47407,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sjpain-2023-0128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Pain is a common comorbidity in patients with hemophilia (PwH) due to hemophilic arthropathy. This study aims to explore pain sensitivity in PwH methodologically investigating in cuff pressure testing compared to algometer testing.

Methods: 37 PwH and 35 healthy control subjects (Con) enrolled in this study. Joint health status was assessed. Subjective pain was evaluated using numeric rating scales. Pain sensitivity was measured with pressure algometry and cuff pressure algometry. Pressure pain thresholds of the algometer (PPTa) were measured at knee, ankle joints, and forehead. Subsequently, thresholds of cuff pressure were measured at the left and right lower legs (PPTcuff). In both, lower values represent higher pain sensitivity.

Results: PwH exerted a worse joint health status than Con. Pain sensitivity was higher in PwH compared to Con as PPTa of the knee and ankle joints were lower in PwH. No difference was observed in PPTa at the forehead. Contrastingly, lower pain sensitivity was detected in PwH by higher PPTcuff values compared to Con in both legs.

Conclusion: While PPTa of the knee and ankle joints are lower in PwH, PPTcuff are higher in PwH compared to Con. This reveals a paradox situation, highlighting that PwH experience local, joint- and hemophilic arthropathy-related pain, whereas pain sensitivity of non-affected soft tissue structures is lower. The reasons explaining the PPTcuff results remain elusive but might be explained by coping strategies counteracting chronic joint pain, resulting in lower sensitivity at non-affected structures.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用袖带压力或算法测试血友病患者的反常疼痛敏感性。
简介:由于血友病关节病变,疼痛是血友病患者(PwH)的常见并发症。本研究旨在通过袖带压力测试与艾氏测试的比较,探讨血友病患者对疼痛的敏感性。对关节健康状况进行了评估。使用数字评分量表对主观疼痛进行评估。疼痛敏感度通过压力测痛法和袖带压力测痛法进行测量。测量了膝关节、踝关节和前额的压痛阈值(PPTa)。随后,在左右小腿处测量袖带压力阈值(PPTcuff)。在这两种情况下,较低的数值代表较高的疼痛敏感度:结果:PwH 的关节健康状况比 Con 差。由于 PwH 的膝关节和踝关节的 PPTa 值较低,因此 PwH 的疼痛敏感性高于 Con。前额的 PPTa 则没有差异。与此形成鲜明对比的是,PwH 两腿的 PPTcuff 值较 Con 为高,表明其疼痛敏感性较低:结论:虽然 PwH 的膝关节和踝关节的 PPTa 值较低,但与 Con 相比,PwH 的 PPTcuff 值较高。这揭示了一个矛盾的情况,即 PwH 会经历局部、关节和血友病关节相关的疼痛,而未受影响的软组织结构的疼痛敏感性较低。解释 PPTcuff 结果的原因仍然难以捉摸,但可能是应对策略抵消了慢性关节疼痛,导致非受影响结构的敏感性降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Scandinavian Journal of Pain
Scandinavian Journal of Pain CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
73
期刊最新文献
Neck and shoulder pain and inflammatory biomarkers in plasma among forklift truck operators - A case-control study. A positive scratch collapse test in anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome indicates its neuropathic character. Real-world evidence evaluation on consumer experience and prescription journey of diclofenac gel in Sweden. Differences in risk factors for flare-ups in patients with lumbar radicular pain may depend on the definition of flare. The "future" pain clinician: Competencies needed to provide psychologically informed care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1