Experimentally induced pain and paresthesia respond differently to parameter changes of cuff-based compression in pain-free young individuals

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105339
Jacek Skalski , Sylwia Swoboda , Tibor M. Szikszay , Piotr Wodarski , Andrzej Bieniek , Kerstin Luedtke , Wacław M. Adamczyk
{"title":"Experimentally induced pain and paresthesia respond differently to parameter changes of cuff-based compression in pain-free young individuals","authors":"Jacek Skalski ,&nbsp;Sylwia Swoboda ,&nbsp;Tibor M. Szikszay ,&nbsp;Piotr Wodarski ,&nbsp;Andrzej Bieniek ,&nbsp;Kerstin Luedtke ,&nbsp;Wacław M. Adamczyk","doi":"10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Neuropathic pain is a significant therapeutic challenge due to the co-occurrence with other neurological symptoms such as paresthesia. Human-based models such as cuff algometry can enhance our understanding of pain-paresthesia relationships. This experiment aimed to characterize (psychophysically) pain and paresthesia evoked by stimuli of different temporal and intensity parameters and to demonstrate the reliability of experimental induction of these two symptoms using cuff algometry. Forty participants, aged 18–35, were exposed to mechanical pressure stimuli at three intensities (100, 150, 200 mmHg) and three durations (90, 120, 150 s). Skin Conductance (SC) was continuously monitored, and participants rated pain and paresthesia in real-time using a computerized visual analog scale. The General Linear Model analysis revealed significant differences in paresthesia across all durations (p&lt;0.01), but not all intensities, as paresthesia did not increase from 150 to 200 mmHg (p&gt;0.05). Conversely, pain responses showed significant differences across all pressure intensities (p&lt;0.05) but not durations, as pain did not increase from 90 to 120 and from 120 to 150 s (p&gt;0.05). No interaction effects were found for either symptom. SC analysis showed no significant main or interaction effects. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) indicated moderate to excellent reliability for pain and paresthesia induction across different durations and intensities (ICC: 0.51–0.91), while SC showed poor to good reliability (ICC: 0.17–0.79). In conclusion, computerized cuff algometry seems to be an effective and reliable method for simultaneously inducing and assessing pain and paresthesia, revealing that these symptoms follow different patterns based on pressure duration and intensity.</div></div><div><h3>Perspective</h3><div>This study demonstrates that pain and paresthesia respond differently to varying intensities and durations of mechanical pressure, revealing their distinct psychophysical characteristics. This model can advance the understanding of neuropathic conditions and aid the development of more targeted therapeutic approaches for both pain and paresthesia.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51095,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain","volume":"29 ","pages":"Article 105339"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590025005668","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Neuropathic pain is a significant therapeutic challenge due to the co-occurrence with other neurological symptoms such as paresthesia. Human-based models such as cuff algometry can enhance our understanding of pain-paresthesia relationships. This experiment aimed to characterize (psychophysically) pain and paresthesia evoked by stimuli of different temporal and intensity parameters and to demonstrate the reliability of experimental induction of these two symptoms using cuff algometry. Forty participants, aged 18–35, were exposed to mechanical pressure stimuli at three intensities (100, 150, 200 mmHg) and three durations (90, 120, 150 s). Skin Conductance (SC) was continuously monitored, and participants rated pain and paresthesia in real-time using a computerized visual analog scale. The General Linear Model analysis revealed significant differences in paresthesia across all durations (p<0.01), but not all intensities, as paresthesia did not increase from 150 to 200 mmHg (p>0.05). Conversely, pain responses showed significant differences across all pressure intensities (p<0.05) but not durations, as pain did not increase from 90 to 120 and from 120 to 150 s (p>0.05). No interaction effects were found for either symptom. SC analysis showed no significant main or interaction effects. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) indicated moderate to excellent reliability for pain and paresthesia induction across different durations and intensities (ICC: 0.51–0.91), while SC showed poor to good reliability (ICC: 0.17–0.79). In conclusion, computerized cuff algometry seems to be an effective and reliable method for simultaneously inducing and assessing pain and paresthesia, revealing that these symptoms follow different patterns based on pressure duration and intensity.

Perspective

This study demonstrates that pain and paresthesia respond differently to varying intensities and durations of mechanical pressure, revealing their distinct psychophysical characteristics. This model can advance the understanding of neuropathic conditions and aid the development of more targeted therapeutic approaches for both pain and paresthesia.
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
实验诱导的疼痛和感觉异常对无痛年轻人袖带压缩参数变化的反应不同。
神经性疼痛是一个重要的治疗挑战,因为它与其他神经系统症状如感觉异常共同发生。以人类为基础的模型,如袖带测量法,可以增强我们对疼痛-感觉异常关系的理解。本实验旨在描述由不同时间和强度参数刺激引起的(心理物理)疼痛和感觉异常,并证明使用袖带测量法实验诱导这两种症状的可靠性。40名年龄在18-35岁的参与者暴露于三种强度(100、150、200 mmHg)和三种持续时间(90、120、150秒)的机械压力刺激下。持续监测皮肤电导(SC),参与者使用计算机化视觉模拟量表实时评估疼痛和感觉异常。一般线性模型分析显示,所有持续时间的感觉异常有显著差异(p0.05)。相反,疼痛反应在所有压力强度下均有显著差异(p0.05)。两种症状均未发现相互作用。SC分析显示主效应和交互效应均不显著。类内相关系数(ICC)表明,在不同的持续时间和强度下,疼痛和感觉异常诱导的可靠性从中等到优异(ICC: 0.51-0.91),而SC的可靠性从差到好(ICC: 0.17-0.79)。总之,计算机袖口测量似乎是同时诱导和评估疼痛和感觉异常的一种有效可靠的方法,揭示了这些症状根据压力持续时间和强度的不同而遵循不同的模式。观点:这项研究表明疼痛和感觉异常对不同强度和持续时间的机械压力有不同的反应,揭示了它们不同的心理物理特征。该模型可以促进对神经性疾病的理解,并有助于开发针对疼痛和感觉异常的更有针对性的治疗方法。
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
Journal of Pain
Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.50%
发文量
441
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pain publishes original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. Articles selected for publication in the Journal are most commonly reports of original clinical research or reports of original basic research. In addition, invited critical reviews, including meta analyses of drugs for pain management, invited commentaries on reviews, and exceptional case studies are published in the Journal. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals to publish original research.
期刊最新文献
Construct validity, reliability, and sensitivity of proxy-reported pain interference in individuals with cerebral palsy Moral injury events, pain intensity, and functional mobility in post-9/11 U.S. combat veterans Single-session, virtual, pain relief skills class for adults with chronic pain on long-term opioids: A randomized controlled trial Evidence for a shift towards a proinflammatory/pronociceptive signature of gut dysbiosis in patients with axial chronic low back pain: A preliminary cross-sectional analysis Non-pharmacological interventions for managing sickle cell crisis pain: A qualitative study on adolescents’ and caregivers’ experiences
×
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:604180095
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