Refine
Document Type
- Article (13) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (13) (remove)
Keywords
- Engpass-Syndrome (1)
- Karpaltunnelsyndrom (1)
- Nervenkompressionssyndrome (1)
- Radikulopathie (1)
- Radikulärer Schmerz (1)
- acute care (1)
- back care (1)
- grading system (1)
- low back pain (1)
- neuropathic pain (1)
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (13)
Characterisation of pain in people with hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsy
(2017)
Hereditary neuropathy with liability to pressure palsy (HNPP) has historically been considered a pain-free condition, though some people with HNPP also complain of pain. This study characterised persistent pain in people with HNPP. Participants provided cross-sectional demographic data, information on the presence of neurological and persistent pain symptoms, and the degree to which these interfered with daily life. The painDETECT and Central Sensitization Inventory questionnaires were used to indicate potential neuropathic, central sensitisation and musculoskeletal (nociceptive) pain mechanisms. Additionally, participants were asked if they thought that pain was related to/part of HNPP. 32/43 (74%) subjects with HNPP had persistent pain and experience this pain in the last week. Of those with pain, 24 (75%) were likely to have neuropathic pain and 27 (84%) were likely to have central sensitisation. All 32 participants felt that their pain could be related to/part of their HNPP. Significant negative impact of the pain was common. Pain characterisation identified neuropathic pain and/or central sensitisation as common, potential underlying processes. Pain may plausibly be directly related to the underlying pathophysiology of HNPP. Further consideration of including pain as a primary symptom of HNPP is warranted.
Introduction Development and implementation of appropriate health policy is essential to address the rising global burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The aim of this study was to evaluate existing health policies for integrated prevention/management of NCDs among Member States of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). We sought to describe policies’ aims and strategies to achieve those aims, and evaluate extent of integration of musculoskeletal conditions as a leading cause of global morbidity.
Methods Policies submitted by OECD Member States in response to a World Health Organization (WHO) NCD Capacity Survey were extracted from the WHO document clearing-house and analysed following a standard protocol. Policies were eligible for inclusion when they described an integrated approach to prevention/management of NCDs. Internal validity was evaluated using a standard instrument (sum score: 0–14; higher scores indicate better quality). Quantitative data were expressed as frequencies, while text data were content-analysed and meta-synthesised using standardised methods.
Results After removal of duplicates and screening, 44 policies from 30 OECD Member States were included. Three key themes emerged to describe the general aims of included policies: system strengthening approaches; improved service delivery; and better population health. Whereas the policies of most countries covered cancer (83.3%), cardiovascular disease (76.6%), diabetes/endocrine disorders (76.6%), respiratory conditions (63.3%) and mental health conditions (63.3%), only half the countries included musculoskeletal health and pain (50.0%) as explicit foci. General strategies were outlined in 42 (95.5%) policies—all were relevant to musculoskeletal health in 12 policies, some relevant in 27 policies and none relevant in three policies. Three key themes described the strategies: general principles for people-centred NCD prevention/management; enhanced service delivery; and system strengthening approaches. Internal validity sum scores ranged from 0 to 13; mean: 7.6 (95% CI 6.5 to 8.7).
Conclusion Relative to other NCDs, musculoskeletal health did not feature as prominently, although many general prevention/management strategies were relevant to musculoskeletal health improvement.
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial.
Objectives
The aims of the present study were to provide back pain (BP) point prevalence data from inpatients at an Australian tertiary hospital on one day, and compare this with Australian non-hospitalized population prevalence data; to collect data around the development of BP throughout hospital admission; and to analyse the association between BP and past history of BP, gender, age, admission specialty and hospital length of stay (LOS).
Methods
This was a single-site, prospective, observational study of hospitalized inpatients on one day during 2016, with a subsequent survey over the following 11 days (unless discharge or death occurred sooner).
Results
Data were collected from 343 patients (75% of the hospitalized cohort). A third of patients (n = 108) reported BP on admission, and almost a fifth (n = 63) developed new BP during their hospitalization. Patients who described BP at any time during their hospital stay had a higher chance of having had a history of BP, with odds increasing after adjustment for age and gender (odds ratio 5.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0 to 11.6; p < 0.001). After adjusting for age and gender, those experiencing BP had a significantly longer LOS (median 13 days; CI 10.8 to 15.3) than those who did not (median 10 days; CI 8.4 to 11.6; p = 0.034).
Conclusions
Hospital LOS for patients who complained of BP at any time during their admission was 3 days longer than those who had no BP, and a history of BP predicted a higher likelihood of BP during admission. Screening of patients on admission to identify any history of BP, and application of a package of care including early mobilization and analgesia may prevent the onset of BP and reduce LOS.
Abstract
Background
The clinical presentation of neck-arm pain is heterogeneous with varying underlying pain types (nociceptive/neuropathic/mixed) and pain mechanisms (peripheral/central sensitization). A mechanism-based clinical framework for spinally referred pain has been proposed, which classifies into (1) somatic pain, (2) neural mechanosensitivity, (3) radicular pain, (4) radiculopathy and mixed pain presentations. This study aims to (i) investigate the application of the clinical framework in patients with neck-arm pain, (ii) determine their somatosensory, clinical and psychosocial profile and (iii) observe their clinical course over time.
Method
We describe a study protocol. Patients with unilateral neck-arm pain (n = 180) will undergo a clinical examination, after which they will be classified into subgroups according to the proposed clinical framework. Standardized quantitative sensory testing (QST) measurements will be taken in their main pain area and contralateral side. Participants will have to complete questionnaires to assess function (Neck Disability Index), psychosocial factors (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Depression, anxiety and stress scale), neuropathic pain (Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions, PainDETECT Questionnaire) and central sensitization features (Central Sensitization Inventory). Follow-ups at three, six and 12 months include the baseline questionnaires. The differences of QST data and questionnaire outcomes between and within groups will be analyzed using (M)AN(C)OVA and/or regression models. Repeated measurement analysis of variance or a linear mixed model will be used to calculate the differences between three, six, and 12 months outcomes. Multiple regression models will be used to analyze potential predictors for the clinical course.
Conclusion
The rationale for this study is to assess the usability and utility of the proposed clinical framework as well as to identify possible differing somatosensory and psychosocial phenotypes between the subgroups. This could increase our knowledge of the underlying pain mechanisms. The longitudinal analysis may help to assess possible predictors for pain persistency.
Entrapment neuropathies such as carpal tunnel syndrome, radiculopathies, or radicular pain are the most common peripheral neuropathies and also the most common cause for neuropathic pain. Despite their high prevalence, they often remain challenging to diagnose and manage in a clinical setting. Summarising the evidence from both preclinical and clinical studies, this review provides an update on the aetiology and pathophysiology of entrapment neuropathies. Potential mechanisms are put in perspective with clinical findings. The contemporary assessment is discussed and diagnostic pitfalls highlighted. The evidence for the noninvasive and surgical management of common entrapment neuropathies is summarised and future areas of research are identified.
Entrapment neuropathies are a heterogenous condition reflecting distinct underlying pathomechanisms. A contemporary assessment aimed at identifying potential mechanisms may help target management for these patients.
Nervenkompressionssyndrome („Engpass-Syndrome“) wie Karpaltunnelsyndrom, Radikulopathien oder radikulärer Schmerz sind die häufigsten peripheren Nervenläsionen und auch die häufigste Ursache für neuropathischen Schmerz. Trotz ihrer hohen Prävalenz stellen sie diagnostisch und therapeutisch weiterhin oft eine klinische Herausforderung dar. Die vorliegende Übersicht bietet aktuelle Informationen zur Ätiologie und Pathophysiologie von Nervenkompressionssyndromen; dafür wird die Evidenz aus präklinischen wie auch klinischen Studien zusammengefasst. Mögliche Mechanismen werden in den Kontext klinischer Befunde gestellt. Das aktuelle diagnostische Vorgehen wird erörtert, diagnostische Fallstricke werden beleuchtet. Zuletzt fasst der Beitrag die Evidenz für die nichtinvasive und chirurgische Therapie häufiger Nervenkompressionssyndrome zusammen und zeigt zukünftige Forschungsbereiche auf.
Entrapment neuropathies are the most prevalent type of peripheral neuropathy and often a challenge to diagnose and treat. To a large extent, our current knowledge is based on empirical concepts and early (often biomechanical) studies. This Viewpoint will challenge some of the current beliefs with recent advances in both basic and clinical neurosciences.
Nervenschmerz ist nicht gleich Nervenschmerz. Um Patienten mit ausstrahlenden Schmerzen, bei denen die Nerven eine Rolle spielen könnten, adäquat zu therapieren, sind eine gründliche Untersuchung und ein fundiertes Clinical Reasoning unerlässlich. Nur dadurch entpuppen sich die beiden Patientinnen mit fast identischen Symptomen als sehr unterschiedlich.
Background and aims
In 2008, the International Association for the Study of Pain Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) proposed a clinical grading system to help identify patients with neuropathic pain (NeP). We previously applied this classification system, along with two NeP screening tools, the painDETECT (PD-Q) and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale (LANSS), to identify NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain. Both screening tools failed to identify a large proportion of patients with clinically classified NeP, however a limitation of our study was the use of a single clinician performing the NeP classification. In 2016, the NeuPSIG grading system was updated with the aim of improving its clinical utility. We were interested in field testing of the revised grading system, in particular in the application of the grading system and the agreement of interpretation of clinical findings. The primary aim of the current study was to explore the application of the NeuPSIG revised grading system based on patient records and to establish the inter-rater agreement of detecting NeP. A secondary aim was to investigate the level of agreement in detecting NeP between the revised NeuPSIG grading system and the LANSS and PD-Q.
Methods
In this retrospective study, two expert clinicians (Specialist Pain Medicine Physician and Advanced Scope Physiotherapist) independently reviewed 152 patient case notes and classified them according to the revised grading system. The consensus of the expert clinicians’ clinical classification was used as “gold standard” to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the two NeP screening tools.
Results
The two clinicians agreed in classifying 117 out of 152 patients (ICC 0.794, 95% CI 0.716–850; κ 0.62, 95% CI 0.50–0.73), yielding a 77% agreement. Compared to the clinicians’ consensus, both LANSS and PD-Q demonstrated limited diagnostic accuracy in detecting NeP (LANSS sensitivity 24%, specificity 97%; PD-Q sensitivity 53%, specificity 67%).
Conclusions
The application of the revised NeP grading system was feasible in our retrospective analysis of patients with neck/upper limb pain. High inter-rater percentage agreement was demonstrated. The hierarchical order of classification may lead to false negative classification. We propose that in the absence of sensory changes or diagnostic tests in patients with neck/upper limb pain, classification of NeP may be further improved using a cluster of clinical findings that confirm a relevant nerve lesion/disease, such as reflex and motor changes. The diagnostic accuracy of LANSS and PD-Q in identifying NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain remains limited. Clinical judgment remains crucial to diagnosing NeP in the clinical practice.
Implications
Our observations suggest that in view of the heterogeneity in patients with neck/upper limb pain, a considerable amount of expertise is required to interpret the revised grading system. While the application was feasible in our clinical setting, it is unclear if this will be feasible to apply in primary health care settings where early recognition and timely intervention is often most needed. The use of LANSS and PD-Q in the identification of NeP in patients with neck/upper limb pain remains questionable.