Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (17)
- Conference Proceeding (16)
- Other (3)
- Part of a Book (1)
Keywords
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (37)
Background:
The evaluation of somatosensory dysfunction is important for diagnostics and may also have implications for prognosis and management. The current standard to evaluate somatosensory dysfunction is quantitative sensory testing (QST), which is expensive and time consuming. This study describes a low-cost and time-efficient clinical sensory test battery (CST), and evaluates its concurrent validity compared to QST.
Method: Three patient cohorts with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS, n=86), non-specific neck and arm pain (NSNAP, n=40) and lumbar radicular pain/radiculopathy (LR n=26) were included. The CST consisted of 13 tests, each corresponding to a QST parameter and evaluating a broad spectrum of sensory functions using mechanical and thermal detection and pain thresholds and testing both loss and gain of function. Agreement rate, significance and strength of correlation between CST and QST were calculated.
Results: Several CST parameters (cold and warm detection, cold pain, mechanical detection, mechanical pain for loss of function, pressure pain) were significantly correlated with QST, with a majority demonstrating >60% agreement rates and weak to relatively strong correlations. However, agreement varied among cohorts. Gain of function parameters showed stronger correlation in the CTS and NSNAP cohort, whereas loss of function parameters performed better in the LR cohort. Other CST parameters (vibration detection, heat pain, mechanical pain for gain of function, windup ratio) did not significantly correlate with QST.
Conclusion: Some, but not all tests in the CST battery can detect somatosensory dysfunction as determined with QST. The CST battery may perform better when the somatosensory phenotype is more pronounced.
Background
This study describes a low-cost and time-efficient clinical sensory test (CST) battery and evaluates its concurrent validity as a screening tool to detect somatosensory dysfunction as determined using quantitative sensory testing (QST).
Method
Three patient cohorts with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS, n = 76), non-specific neck and arm pain (NSNAP, n = 40) and lumbar radicular pain/radiculopathy (LR, n = 26) were included. The CST consisted of 13 tests, each corresponding to a QST parameter and evaluating a broad spectrum of sensory functions using thermal (coins, ice cube, hot test tube) and mechanical (cotton wool, von Frey hairs, tuning fork, toothpicks, thumb and eraser pressure) detection and pain thresholds testing both loss and gain of function. Agreement rate, statistical significance and strength of correlation (phi coefficient) between CST and QST parameters were calculated.
Results
Several CST parameters (cold, warm and mechanical detection thresholds as well as cold and pressure pain thresholds) were significantly correlated with QST, with a majority demonstrating >60% agreement rates and moderate to relatively strong correlations. However, agreement varied among cohorts. Gain of function parameters showed stronger agreement in the CTS and LR cohorts, whereas loss of function parameters had better agreement in the NSNAP cohort. Other CST parameters (16 mN von Frey tests, vibration detection, heat and mechanical pain thresholds, wind-up ratio) did not significantly correlate with QST.
Conclusion
Some of the tests in the CST could help detect somatosensory dysfunction as determined with QST. Parts of the CST could therefore be used as a low-cost screening tool in a clinical setting.
Significance
Quantitative sensory testing, albeit considered the gold standard to evaluate somatosensory dysfunction, requires expensive equipment, specialized examiner training and substantial time commitment which challenges its use in a clinical setting. Our study describes a CST as a low-cost and time-efficient alternative. Some of the CST tools (cold, warm, mechanical detection thresholds; pressure pain thresholds) significantly correlated with the respective QST parameters, suggesting that they may be useful in a clinical setting to detect sensory dysfunction.
Background/Aim
This study aimed to establish the somatosensory profile of patients with lumbar radiculopathy at pre-and post-microdiscectomy and to explore any association between pre-surgical quantitative sensory test (QST) parameters and post-surgical clinical outcomes.
Methods
A standardized QST protocol was performed in 53 patients (mean age 38 ± 11 years, 26 females) with unilateral L5/S1 radiculopathy in the main pain area (MPA), affected dermatome and contralateral mirror sites and in age- and gender-,and body site-matched healthy controls. Repeat measures at 3 months included QST, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and numerous other clinical measures; at 12 months, only clinical measures were repeated. A change <30% on the ODI was defined as ‘no clinically meaningful improvement’.
Results
Patients showed a significant loss of function in their symptomatic leg both in the dermatome (thermal, mechanical, vibration detection p < .002), and MPA (thermal, mechanical, vibration detection, mechanical pain threshold, mechanical pain sensitivity p < .041) and increased cold sensitivity in the MPA (p < .001). Pre-surgical altered QST parameters improved significantly post-surgery in the dermatome (p < .018) in the symptomatic leg and in the MPA (p < .010), except for thermal detection thresholds and cold sensitivity. Clinical outcomes improved at 3 and 12 months (p < .001). Seven patients demonstrated <30% change on the ODI at 12 months. Baseline loss of function in mechanical detection in the MPA was associated with <30% change on the ODI at 12 months (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.09–6.37, p = .032).
Conclusion
Microdiscectomy resulted in improvements in affected somatosensory parameters and clinical outcomes. Pre-surgical mechanical detection thresholds may be predictive of clinical outcome.
Significance
This study documented quantitative sensory testing (QST) profiles in patients with lumbar radiculopathy in their main pain area (MPA) and dermatome pre- and post-microdiscectomy and explored associations between QST parameters and clinical outcome. Lumbar radiculopathy was associated with loss of function in modalities mediated by large and small sensory fibres. Microdiscectomy resulted in significant improvements in loss of function and clinical outcomes in 85% of our cohort. Pre-surgical mechanical detection thresholds in the MPA may be predictive of clinical outcome.
Wir kennen neurodynamische Tests und Behandlungsmethoden, nutzen diese alltäglich in der Praxis und gehen auf Kurse, um mehr darüber zu lernen. Aber was verstehen wir tatsächlich darunter? Kommen wir in unserem Verständnis darüber auf einen gemeinsamen Nenner? Dieser Artikel gibt einen Einblick in die Thematik Neurodynamik. Bisherige Überzeugungen stehen dabei auf dem Prüfstand.
Background and Aims
Early identification of nerve lesions and associated neuropathic pain in spine-related pain disorders is important for tailored treatment. Management may consist of surgical intervention for compressive neural lesions.
With a growing waitlist for public surgical outpatient clinics in Western Australia and wait times exceeding the recommended wait time for initial assessment (Category 1 – assessment within 1 months, Category 2 within 3 months, category 3 within 12 months), a call to support new models of care has been made1, including the evaluation and expansion of workforce models supporting advanced skills in allied health.1
An Advanced Scope Physiotherapy (ASP) led Neurosurgery Spinal Clinic operates at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Western Australia. The ASPs (2FTE) examine patients from the neurosurgery waitlist for their suitability for spinal surgery. Recommendation of either further investigation and possible assessment by a neurosurgeon or appropriate non-surgical management of the patients’ pain condition is suggested. Patient assessment is conducted either ‘in person’ at the hospital or via telehealth due to the remoteness of some rural patients. Patient cases are discussed with a neurosurgery consultant on a weekly basis. The aim of this project is to evaluate the ASP service in the year 2022.
Method
A retrospective descriptive analysis of patient data captured in 2022 was performed.
Results
In 2022, 1337 new patient referrals were managed plus 267 follow-ups from the previous year. Category 1 patients (n=81) waited on average 31 days for their first appointment, Category 2 patients (n=394) waited 76 days and Category 3 patients (n=854) waited 376 days.
287 (18%) referrals were discharged without physical assessment of the patient (DNA, cancellations, declined). Of the 1317 patients physically assessed by the ASPs (57%) were discharged directly after assessment, for 290 patients (22%) their outcome was still pending at time of analysis (March 2023) and 281 (22%) patients were referred for review with a neurosurgeon. Of the 229 patients assessed by a neurosurgeon (including patients from 2022), 103 patients (45%) were offered surgery, 52 (23%) were not offered surgery, 46 ( 20%) patients had to be reviewed, and for the remaining (n=18) their outcome was unknown.
Conclusion
Of the 1604 patients managed in the Neurosurgery Spinal Clinic, only 17% needed to see a neurosurgeon. The conversion rate to surgery of 45% is higher compared to an estimated 5%-10% in a non-triaged clinic.
The ASP model of care has proved invaluable to (i) provide access of patient care within the recommended wait times (ii) optimize neurosurgeons’ time, (iii) educate patients and, in case of non-suitability for surgery, advise and refer them for alternative appropriate management.
Relevance for Patient Care
The Advanced Scope Physiotherapy model of care at the Neurosurgery Spinal Clinic allows timely assessment of patients with spine-related disorders and supports targeted management of their condition.
Ethical Permissions
This project is registered as a Quality Improvement Project at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital (QI35728) and as per the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research was exempt from review by the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Human Research and Ethics Committee
References
1Sustainable Health Review (2019). Sustainable Health Review: Final report to the Western Australian Government of Health, Western Australia
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.