M K Drew1, T S Palsson2, R P Hirata2, M Izumi3, G Lovell4, M Welvaert5, P Chiarelli6, P G Osmotherly6, T Graven-Nielsen7. 1. School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Australia; Department of Physical Therapies, Australian Institute of Sport, Australia. 2. Center for Neuroplasticity and Pain (CNAP), SMI, Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Denmark. 3. Center for Neuroplasticity and Pain (CNAP), SMI, Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Denmark; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Kochi University, Japan. 4. Department of Sports Medicine, Australian Institute of Sport, Australia. 5. UCRISE, University of Canberra, Australia. 6. School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Australia. 7. Center for Neuroplasticity and Pain (CNAP), SMI, Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Denmark. Electronic address: tgn@hst.aau.dk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of experimental adductor pain on the pain referral pattern, mechanical sensitivity and muscle activity during common clinical tests. DESIGN: Repeated-measures design. METHODS: In two separate sessions, 15 healthy males received a hypertonic (painful) and isotonic (control) saline injection to either the adductor longus (AL) tendon to produce experimental groin pain or into the rectus femoris (RF) tendon as a painful control. Pain intensity was recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS) with pain distribution indicated on body maps. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were assessed bilaterally in the groin area. Electromyography (EMG) of relevant muscles was recorded during six provocation tests. PPT and EMG assessment were measured before, during and after experimental pain. RESULTS: Hypertonic saline induced higher VAS scores than isotonic saline (p<0.001), and a local pain distribution in 80% of participants. A proximal pain referral to the lower abdominal region in 33% (AL) and 7% (RF) of participants. Experimental pain (AL and RF) did not significantly alter PPT values or the EMG amplitude in groin or trunk muscles during provocation tests when forces were matched with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that AL tendon pain was distributed locally in the majority of participants but may refer to the lower abdomen. Experimental adductor pain did not significantly alter the mechanical sensitivity or muscle activity patterns.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of experimental adductor pain on the pain referral pattern, mechanical sensitivity and muscle activity during common clinical tests. DESIGN: Repeated-measures design. METHODS: In two separate sessions, 15 healthy males received a hypertonic (painful) and isotonic (control) saline injection to either the adductor longus (AL) tendon to produce experimental groin pain or into the rectus femoris (RF) tendon as a painful control. Pain intensity was recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS) with pain distribution indicated on body maps. Pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were assessed bilaterally in the groin area. Electromyography (EMG) of relevant muscles was recorded during six provocation tests. PPT and EMG assessment were measured before, during and after experimental pain. RESULTS:Hypertonicsaline induced higher VAS scores than isotonic saline (p<0.001), and a local pain distribution in 80% of participants. A proximal pain referral to the lower abdominal region in 33% (AL) and 7% (RF) of participants. Experimental pain (AL and RF) did not significantly alter PPT values or the EMG amplitude in groin or trunk muscles during provocation tests when forces were matched with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that ALtendon pain was distributed locally in the majority of participants but may refer to the lower abdomen. Experimental adductor pain did not significantly alter the mechanical sensitivity or muscle activity patterns.
Authors: Héctor Guerrero-Tapia; Rodrigo Martín-Baeza; Rubén Cuesta-Barriuso Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 3.390