Thomas K Ringsted1, Casper Enghuus2, Morten A Petersen3, Mads U Werner2. 1. Neuroscience Center, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Multidisciplinary Pain Center 7612, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: thomaskringsted@hotmail.com. 2. Neuroscience Center, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Multidisciplinary Pain Center 7612, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Research Unit, Department of Palliative Care, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospitals, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Secondary hyperalgesia is increased sensitivity in normal tissue near an injury, and it is a measure of central sensitization reflecting injury-related effects on the CNS. Secondary hyperalgesia areas (SHAs), usually assessed by polyamide monofilaments, are important outcomes in studies of analgesic drug effects in humans. However, since the methods applied in demarcating the secondary hyperalgesia zone seem inconsistent across studies, we examined the effect of a standardized approach upon the measurement of SHA following a first degree burn injury (BI). NEW METHOD: The study was a two-observer, test-retest study with the two sessions separated by 6wk. An observer-blinded design adjusted to examine day-to-day and observer-to-observer variability in SHA was used. In 23 healthy volunteers (12 females/11 males) a BI was induced by a contact thermode (47.0°C, 420s, 2.5×5.0cm(2)). The SHA, demarcated by polyamide monofilaments (bending force: 0.2, 69 and 2569mN) and a "weighted-pin" stimulator (512mN), were assessed 45 to 75min after each BI. RESULTS: A random effect, linear mixed model demonstrated a logarithmic correlation between elicited skin pressures (mN/mm(2)) and the SHAs (P<0.0001). No day-to-day or observer-to-observer differences in SHAs were observed. Intraclass correlation coefficients, in the range of 0.51 to 0.84, indicated a moderate to almost perfect reliability between observers. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: No standardized approach in SHA-assessment has hitherto been presented. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate that demarcation of secondary hyperalgesia zones depends on the developed pressure of the punctate stimulator used.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Secondary hyperalgesia is increased sensitivity in normal tissue near an injury, and it is a measure of central sensitization reflecting injury-related effects on the CNS. Secondary hyperalgesia areas (SHAs), usually assessed by polyamide monofilaments, are important outcomes in studies of analgesic drug effects in humans. However, since the methods applied in demarcating the secondary hyperalgesia zone seem inconsistent across studies, we examined the effect of a standardized approach upon the measurement of SHA following a first degree burn injury (BI). NEW METHOD: The study was a two-observer, test-retest study with the two sessions separated by 6wk. An observer-blinded design adjusted to examine day-to-day and observer-to-observer variability in SHA was used. In 23 healthy volunteers (12 females/11 males) a BI was induced by a contact thermode (47.0°C, 420s, 2.5×5.0cm(2)). The SHA, demarcated by polyamide monofilaments (bending force: 0.2, 69 and 2569mN) and a "weighted-pin" stimulator (512mN), were assessed 45 to 75min after each BI. RESULTS: A random effect, linear mixed model demonstrated a logarithmic correlation between elicited skin pressures (mN/mm(2)) and the SHAs (P<0.0001). No day-to-day or observer-to-observer differences in SHAs were observed. Intraclass correlation coefficients, in the range of 0.51 to 0.84, indicated a moderate to almost perfect reliability between observers. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: No standardized approach in SHA-assessment has hitherto been presented. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate that demarcation of secondary hyperalgesia zones depends on the developed pressure of the punctate stimulator used.
Authors: Lars P H Andersen; Ismail Gögenur; Andreas Q Fenger; Marian C Petersen; Jacob Rosenberg; Mads U Werner Journal: Pain Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Anna M Wahl; Daniel Bidstrup; Isabel G Smidt-Nielsen; Mads U Werner; Ole Hyldegaard; Per Rotbøll-Nielsen Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 3.133