Cargando…

A comparison of physical and psychological features of responders and non-responders to cervical facet blocks in chronic whiplash

BACKGROUND: Cervical facet block (FB) procedures are often used as a diagnostic precursor to radiofrequency neurotomies (RFN) in the management of chronic whiplash associated disorders (WAD). Some individuals will respond to the FB procedures and others will not respond. Such responders and non-resp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Smith, Ashley Dean, Jull, Gwendolen, Schneider, Geoff, Frizzell, Bevan, Hooper, Robert Allen, Sterling, Michele
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3819261/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24188899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-313
_version_ 1782289962028236800
author Smith, Ashley Dean
Jull, Gwendolen
Schneider, Geoff
Frizzell, Bevan
Hooper, Robert Allen
Sterling, Michele
author_facet Smith, Ashley Dean
Jull, Gwendolen
Schneider, Geoff
Frizzell, Bevan
Hooper, Robert Allen
Sterling, Michele
author_sort Smith, Ashley Dean
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Cervical facet block (FB) procedures are often used as a diagnostic precursor to radiofrequency neurotomies (RFN) in the management of chronic whiplash associated disorders (WAD). Some individuals will respond to the FB procedures and others will not respond. Such responders and non-responders provided a sample of convenience to question whether there were differences in their physical and psychological features. This information may inform future predictive studies and ultimately the clinical selection of patients for FB procedures. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 58 individuals with chronic WAD who responded to cervical FB procedures (WAD_R); 32 who did not respond (WAD_NR) and 30 Healthy Controls (HC)s. Measures included: quantitative sensory tests (pressure; thermal pain thresholds; brachial plexus provocation test); nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR); motor function (cervical range of movement (ROM); activity of the superficial neck flexors during the cranio-cervical flexion test (CCFT). Self-reported measures were gained from the following questionnaires: neuropathic pain (s-LANSS); psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-28), post-traumatic stress (PDS) and pain catastrophization (PCS). Individuals with chronic whiplash attended the laboratory once the effects of the blocks had abated and symptoms had returned. RESULTS: Following FB procedures, both WAD groups demonstrated generalized hypersensitivity to all sensory tests, decreased neck ROM and increased superficial muscle activity with the CCFT compared to controls (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between WAD groups (all p > 0.05). Both WAD groups demonstrated psychological distress (GHQ-28; p < 0.05), moderate post-traumatic stress symptoms and pain catastrophization. The WAD_NR group also demonstrated increased medication intake and elevated PCS scores compared to the WAD_R group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Chronic WAD responders and non-responders to FB procedures demonstrate a similar presentation of sensory disturbance, motor dysfunction and psychological distress. Higher levels of pain catastrophization and greater medication intake were the only factors found to differentiate these groups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3819261
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38192612013-11-07 A comparison of physical and psychological features of responders and non-responders to cervical facet blocks in chronic whiplash Smith, Ashley Dean Jull, Gwendolen Schneider, Geoff Frizzell, Bevan Hooper, Robert Allen Sterling, Michele BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Cervical facet block (FB) procedures are often used as a diagnostic precursor to radiofrequency neurotomies (RFN) in the management of chronic whiplash associated disorders (WAD). Some individuals will respond to the FB procedures and others will not respond. Such responders and non-responders provided a sample of convenience to question whether there were differences in their physical and psychological features. This information may inform future predictive studies and ultimately the clinical selection of patients for FB procedures. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 58 individuals with chronic WAD who responded to cervical FB procedures (WAD_R); 32 who did not respond (WAD_NR) and 30 Healthy Controls (HC)s. Measures included: quantitative sensory tests (pressure; thermal pain thresholds; brachial plexus provocation test); nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR); motor function (cervical range of movement (ROM); activity of the superficial neck flexors during the cranio-cervical flexion test (CCFT). Self-reported measures were gained from the following questionnaires: neuropathic pain (s-LANSS); psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire-28), post-traumatic stress (PDS) and pain catastrophization (PCS). Individuals with chronic whiplash attended the laboratory once the effects of the blocks had abated and symptoms had returned. RESULTS: Following FB procedures, both WAD groups demonstrated generalized hypersensitivity to all sensory tests, decreased neck ROM and increased superficial muscle activity with the CCFT compared to controls (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between WAD groups (all p > 0.05). Both WAD groups demonstrated psychological distress (GHQ-28; p < 0.05), moderate post-traumatic stress symptoms and pain catastrophization. The WAD_NR group also demonstrated increased medication intake and elevated PCS scores compared to the WAD_R group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Chronic WAD responders and non-responders to FB procedures demonstrate a similar presentation of sensory disturbance, motor dysfunction and psychological distress. Higher levels of pain catastrophization and greater medication intake were the only factors found to differentiate these groups. BioMed Central 2013-11-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3819261/ /pubmed/24188899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-313 Text en Copyright © 2013 Smith et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Smith, Ashley Dean
Jull, Gwendolen
Schneider, Geoff
Frizzell, Bevan
Hooper, Robert Allen
Sterling, Michele
A comparison of physical and psychological features of responders and non-responders to cervical facet blocks in chronic whiplash
title A comparison of physical and psychological features of responders and non-responders to cervical facet blocks in chronic whiplash
title_full A comparison of physical and psychological features of responders and non-responders to cervical facet blocks in chronic whiplash
title_fullStr A comparison of physical and psychological features of responders and non-responders to cervical facet blocks in chronic whiplash
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of physical and psychological features of responders and non-responders to cervical facet blocks in chronic whiplash
title_short A comparison of physical and psychological features of responders and non-responders to cervical facet blocks in chronic whiplash
title_sort comparison of physical and psychological features of responders and non-responders to cervical facet blocks in chronic whiplash
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3819261/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24188899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-313
work_keys_str_mv AT smithashleydean acomparisonofphysicalandpsychologicalfeaturesofrespondersandnonresponderstocervicalfacetblocksinchronicwhiplash
AT jullgwendolen acomparisonofphysicalandpsychologicalfeaturesofrespondersandnonresponderstocervicalfacetblocksinchronicwhiplash
AT schneidergeoff acomparisonofphysicalandpsychologicalfeaturesofrespondersandnonresponderstocervicalfacetblocksinchronicwhiplash
AT frizzellbevan acomparisonofphysicalandpsychologicalfeaturesofrespondersandnonresponderstocervicalfacetblocksinchronicwhiplash
AT hooperrobertallen acomparisonofphysicalandpsychologicalfeaturesofrespondersandnonresponderstocervicalfacetblocksinchronicwhiplash
AT sterlingmichele acomparisonofphysicalandpsychologicalfeaturesofrespondersandnonresponderstocervicalfacetblocksinchronicwhiplash
AT smithashleydean comparisonofphysicalandpsychologicalfeaturesofrespondersandnonresponderstocervicalfacetblocksinchronicwhiplash
AT jullgwendolen comparisonofphysicalandpsychologicalfeaturesofrespondersandnonresponderstocervicalfacetblocksinchronicwhiplash
AT schneidergeoff comparisonofphysicalandpsychologicalfeaturesofrespondersandnonresponderstocervicalfacetblocksinchronicwhiplash
AT frizzellbevan comparisonofphysicalandpsychologicalfeaturesofrespondersandnonresponderstocervicalfacetblocksinchronicwhiplash
AT hooperrobertallen comparisonofphysicalandpsychologicalfeaturesofrespondersandnonresponderstocervicalfacetblocksinchronicwhiplash
AT sterlingmichele comparisonofphysicalandpsychologicalfeaturesofrespondersandnonresponderstocervicalfacetblocksinchronicwhiplash