Cargando…

Detection of altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms in patients with knee osteoarthritis by using a simple bedside tool kit (QuantiPain)

PURPOSE: Altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms have been recognized as an important manifestation in patients with chronic pain, and quantitative sensory testing (QST) can act as a proxy for this process. We have recently developed a simple bedside QST tool kit (QuantiPain) for more cl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Izumi, Masashi, Hayashi, Yoshihiro, Saito, Ryota, Oda, Shota, Petersen, Kristian Kjær, Arendt-Nielsen, Lars, Ikeuchi, Masahiko
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8984378/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35392651
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000998
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Altered pain facilitatory and inhibitory mechanisms have been recognized as an important manifestation in patients with chronic pain, and quantitative sensory testing (QST) can act as a proxy for this process. We have recently developed a simple bedside QST tool kit (QuantiPain) for more clinical use. The purpose of this study was to investigate its test–retest reliability and to evaluate its validity compared with the laboratory-based QST protocols in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: QuantiPain consists of 3 items: “pressure algometer” (for pressure pain thresholds [PPTs]), “pinprick” (for temporal summation of pain [TSP]), and “conditioning clamp” (for conditioned pain modulation [CPM]). In experiment-A, intrarater and interrater test–retest reliabilities were investigated in 21 young healthy subjects by using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC). In experiment-B, 40 unilateral painful patients with OA and 40 age-matched, healthy control subjects were included to compare the bedside tool kit against the computerized pressure algometry. RESULTS: In experiment-A, excellent to moderate intrarater and interrater reliabilities were achieved in PPT and TSP (ICC: 0.60–0.92) while the agreements of CPM were good to poor (ICC: 0.37–0.80). In experiment-B, localized and widespread decrease of PPT, facilitated TSP, and impaired CPM was found by using the bedside tool kit in patients with OA compared with controls (P < 0.05). The data were significantly correlated with the established laboratory-based tools (R = 0.281–0.848, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: QuantiPain demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability and assessment validity with the sensitivity to separate patients with painful OA from controls, which has a potential to create more practical approach for quantifying altered pain mechanisms in clinical settings.