Refine
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (16)
- Article (13)
- Other (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (32) (remove)
Keywords
- Engpass-Syndrome (1)
- Karpaltunnelsyndrom (1)
- Nervenkompressionssyndrome (1)
- Radikulopathie (1)
- Radikulärer Schmerz (1)
- Somatosensory dysfunction (1)
- acute care (1)
- back care (1)
- grading system (1)
- low back pain (1)
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (32)
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.
Despite normal neurological bedside and electrodiagnostic, some patients with non-specific neck arm pain (NSNAP) have heightened nerve mechanosensitivity upon neurodynamic testing [1, 2]. It remains however unclear whether this is associated with a minor nerve injury. The aim of this study was to evaluate potential differences in somatosensory function among patients with unilateral NSNAP with and without positive neurodynamic tests and healthy controls.
Quantitative sensory testing was performed in 40 patients with unilateral NSNAP; 23 with positive upper limb neurodynamic tests (ULNTPOS) and 17 with negative neurodynamic tests (ULNTNEG). The protocol comprised thermal and mechanical detection and pain thresholds as well as mechanical pain sensitivity, wind-up ratio and dynamic mechanical allodynia. All parameters were measured in the maximal pain area on the affected side as well as over the corresponding area on the unaffected side. Symptom severity, functional deficits, psychological parameters, quality of life and sleep disturbance were also recorded.
Fifty-seven percent of patients with NSNAP had positive neurodynamic tests despite normal bedside neurological integrity tests and nerve conduction parameters. Clinical profiles did not differ between patient groups. Somatosensory profiling revealed a more pronounced loss of function phenotype in ULNTPOS patients compared to healthy controls. Hyperalgesia (cold, heat and pressure pain) was present bilaterally in both NSNAP group. The ULNTNEG subgroup represented an intermediate phenotype between ULNTPOS patients and healthy controls in both thermal and pressure pain thresholds as well as mechanical detection thresholds.
In conclusion, heightened nerve mechanosensitivity was present in over half of patients with NSNAP. Our data suggest that NSNAP presents as a spectrum with some patients showing signs suggestive of a minor nerve dysfunction.
[1] Elvey RL. Physical evaluation of the peripheral nervous system in disorders of pain and dysfunction. J Hand Ther 1997;10:122-129.
[2] van der Heide B, Bourgoin C, Eils G, Garnevall B, Blackmore M. Test-retest reliability and face validity of a modified neural tissue provocation test in patients with cervicobrachial pain syndrome. J Man Manip Ther 2006;14:30-36.
Relationship of QST measures between low back and leg sites in people with radicular leg pain
(2019)
Background and Aims
Clinicians and researchers often rely on altered neurological integrity tests in the leg to identify radicular pain, however neurological integrity is often not tested in the low back region even in the presence of pain in this region. There have been suggestions that the low back pain itself could be neuropathic in nature in some patients (Baron et al., 2016). This study aims to explore the relationship between quantitative sensory testing (QST) measures in the leg and low back in participants with radicular leg pain to consider if sensory testing should be performed in both areas in clinical practice.
Methods
13 participants (mean age 48.2 SD 13.8, gender (female) 8) with radicular leg pain were recruited from National Health Service spinal clinics in the UK. After assessment with the clinician, a full QST profile was taken from each participant’s affected leg and low back. Z scores were calculated using data from age matched healthy controls. Correlations using Pearson’s if the data was normally distributed or Kendall’s Tau-b if not, were undertaken between QST scores of the low back and leg. Paired t tests or Mann Whitney tests were performed to assess differences in QST scores between the leg and low back regions.
Results
There were no significant correlations (P>0.05) in any of the QST measures between the leg and the low back regions. However, only vibration detection threshold measures showed statistically significant differences between the leg and low back (p<0.001), with the low back region showing greater loss of function (mean -2.84) than the leg (mean -0.61).
Conclusions
Significantly lower vibration thresholds were found in the back compared to the leg. This may suggest some alteration in posterior primary ramus large diameter afferent nerve function, and indicate that the low back pain itself may indeed have a neuropathic component. Our findings suggest that sensory testing of the lumbar spine may be advisable in this group of individuals. The small sample size means that these results must be taken with some caution, however these results warrant further investigation in people with radicular leg pain.
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.
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.
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:
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/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.
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.