The nature of anterior knee pain following injection of hypertonic saline into the infrapatellar fat pad

The infrapatellar fat pad has been implicated as a possible source of anterior knee pain. This study examined the nature, distribution and time-course of experimentally induced pain in the infrapatellar fat pad. Hypertonic saline (5%) was injected into the medial fat pad of 11 healthy individuals with no history of knee pain. Severity of pain was assessed at rest and during activity using an 11 point numerical rating scale (NRS) at regular intervals over 15-30 min following injection. Participants described the size of the pain region from a series of different sized circles while the area and type of pain was established from a body chart and the McGill pain questionnaire. The effect of pain on temperature-pain threshold and sensory thresholds of the anterior knee was assessed. Participants generally reported a deep aching pain that peaked in severity around 3 min and gradually declined over 15 min. Pain levels were not altered by clinical manoeuvres designed to impinge the fat pad. The size of the pain region was related to pain intensity. Pain was most commonly felt in the region of the fat pad medial to the patella, although some individuals reported proximal referred pain as far as the groin region. Thermal and sensory thresholds were not altered at a region close to the injection site during the experimental pain. These results suggest that nociceptive stimulation of the infrapatellar fat pad may cause anterior knee pain that is not necessarily confined locally particularly if pain is severe. This has implications for the investigation of pathological structures in patients presenting clinically with anterior knee pain and provides an experimental model of anterior knee pain. (C) 2003 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Experimental muscle pain changes feedforward postural responses of the trunk muscles

Many studies have identified changes in trunk muscle recruitment in clinical low back pain (LBP). However, due to the heterogeneity of the LBP population these changes have been variable and it has been impossible to identify a cause-effect relationship. Several studies have identified a consistent change in the feed-forward postural response of transversus abdominis (TrA), the deepest abdominal muscle, in association with arm movements in chronic LBP. This study aimed to determine whether the feedforward recruitment of the trunk muscles in a postural task could be altered by acute experimentally induced LBP. Electromyographic (EMG) recordings of the abdominal and paraspinal muscles were made during arm movements in a control trial, following the injection of isotonic (non-painful) and hypertonic (painful) saline into the longissimus muscle at L4, and during a 1-h follow-up. Movements included rapid arm flexion in response to a light and repetitive arm flexion-extension. Temporal and spatial EMG parameters were measured. The onset and amplitude of EMG of most muscles was changed in a variable manner during the period of experimentally induced pain. However, across movement trials and subjects the activation of TrA was consistently reduced in amplitude or delayed. Analyses in the time and frequency domain were used to confirm these findings. The results suggest that acute experimentally induced pain may affect feedforward postural activity of the trunk muscles. Although the response was variable, pain produced differential changes in the motor control of the trunk muscles, with consistent impairment of TrA activity.

Prolotherapy injections for chronic low back pain - A systematic review

Study Design. A systematic review of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Objectives. To determine the efficacy of prolotherapy injections in adults with chronic low back pain. Summary of Background Data. Prolotherapy is an injection-based treatment for chronic low back pain. Proponents of prolotherapy suggest that some back pain stems from weakened or damaged ligaments. Repeatedly injecting them with irritant solutions is thought to strengthen the ligaments and reduce pain and disability. Prolotherapy protocols usually include co-interventions to enhance the effectiveness of the injections. Methods. The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index up to January 2004, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register 2004, issue 1, and consulted content experts. Both randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing prolotherapy injections to control injections, either alone or in combination with other treatments, were included. Studies had to include measures of pain and disability before and after the intervention. Two reviewers independently selected the trials and assessed them for methodologic quality. Treatment and control group protocols varied from study to study, making meta-analysis impossible. Results. Four studies, all of high quality and with a total of 344 participants, were included. All trials measured pain and disability levels at 6 months, three measured the proportion of participants reporting a greater than 50% reduction in pain or disability scores from baseline to 6 months. Two studies showed significant differences between the treatment and control groups for those reporting more than 50% reduction in pain or disability. Their results could not be pooled. In one, cointerventions confounded interpretation of results; in the other, there was no significant difference in mean pain and disability scores between the groups. In the third study, there was little or no difference between groups in the number of individuals who reported more than 50% improvement in pain and disability. The fourth study reporting only mean pain and disability scores showed no differences between groups. Conclusions. There is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of prolotherapy injections in reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain. Conclusions are confounded by clinical heterogeneity among studies and by the presence of co-interventions. There was no evidence that prolotherapy injections alone were more effective than control injections alone. However, in the presence of co-interventions, prolotherapy injections were more effective than control injections, more so when both injections and co-interventions were controlled concurrently.

Prolotherapy injections, saline injections, and exercises for chronic low-back pain: A randomized trial

Objectives. To assess the efficacy of a prolotherapy injection and exercise protocol in the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Design. Randomized controlled trial with two- by- two factorial design, triple- blinded for injection status, and single- blinded for exercise status. Setting. General practice. Participants. One hundred ten participants with nonspecific low- back pain of average 14 years duration were randomized to have repeated prolotherapy ( 20% glucose/ 0.2% lignocaine) or normal saline injections into tender lumbo- pelvic ligaments and randomized to perform either flexion/ extension exercises or normal activity over 6 months. Main outcome measures: Pain intensity ( VAS) and disability scores ( Roland- Morris) at 2.5, 4, 6, 12, and 24 months. Results. Follow- up was achieved in 96% at 12 months and 80% at 2 years. Ligament injections, with exercises and with normal activity, resulted in significant and sustained reductions in pain and disability throughout the trial, but no attributable effect was found for prolotherapy injections over saline injections or for exercises over normal activity. At 12 months, the proportions achieving more than 50% reduction in pain from baseline by injection group were glucose- lignocaine: 0.46 versus saline: 0.36. By activity group these proportions were exercise: 0.41 versus normal activity: 0.39. Corresponding proportions for > 50% reduction in disability were glucose- lignocaine: 0.42 versus saline 0.36 and exercise: 0.36 versus normal activity: 0.38. There were no between group differences in any of the above measures. Conclusions. In chronic nonspecific low- back pain, significant and sustained reductions in pain and disability occur with ligament injections, irrespective of the solution injected or the concurrent use of exercises.

Pain differs from non-painful attention-demanding or stressful tasks in its effect on postural control patterns of trunk muscles

Pain changes postural activation of the trunk muscles. The cause of these changes is not known but one possibility relates to the information processing requirements and the stressful nature of pain. This study investigated this possibility by evaluating electromyographic activity (EMG) of the deep and superficial trunk muscles associated with voluntary rapid arm movement. Data were collected from control trials, trials during low back pain (LBP) elicited by injection of hypertonic saline into the back muscles, trials during a non-painful attention-demanding task, and during the same task that was also stressful. Pain did not change the reaction time (RT) of the movement, had variable effects on RT of the superficial trunk muscles, but consistently increased RT of the deepest abdominal muscle. The effect of the attention-demanding task was opposite: increased RT of the movement and the superficial trunk muscles but no effect on RT of the deep trunk muscles. Thus, activation of the deep trunk muscles occurred earlier relative to the movement. When the attention-demanding task was made stressful, the RT of the movement and superficial trunk muscles was unchanged but the RT of the deep trunk muscles was increased. Thus, the temporal relationship between deep trunk muscle activation and arm movement was restored. This means that although postural activation of the deep trunk muscles is not affected when central nervous system resources are limited, it is delayed when the individual is also under stress. However, a non-painful attention-demanding task does not replicate the effect of pain on postural control of the trunk muscles even when the task is stressful.

Effects of experimentally-induced anterior knee pain on knee joint position sense in healthy individuals

Purpose. The ability to sense the position of limb segments is a highly specialised proprioceptive function important for control of movement. Abnormal knee proprioception has been found in association with several musculoskeletal pathologies but whether nociceptive Stimulation can produce these proprioceptive changes is unclear. This study evaluated the effect of experimentally induced knee pain on knee joint position sense (JPS) in healthy individuals. Study design. Repeated measures, within-subject design. Methods. Knee JPS was tested in 16 individuals with no history of knee pathology under three experimental conditions: baseline control, a distraction task and knee pain induced by injection of hypertonic saline into the infrapatellar fat pad. Knee JPS was measured using active ipsilateral limb matching responses at 20degrees and 60degrees flexion whilst non-weightbearing (NWB) and 20degrees flexion single leg stance. During the tasks, the subjective perception of distraction and severity of pain were measured using 11-point numerical rating scales. Results. Knee JPS was not altered by acute knee pain in any of the positions tested. The distraction task resulted in poorer concentration, greater JPS absolute errors at 20degrees NWB, and greater variability in errors during the WB tests. There were no significant correlations between levels of pain and changes in JPS errors. Changes in JPS with pain and distraction were inversely related to baseline knee JPS variable error in all test positions (r = -0.56 to -0.91) but less related to baseline absolute error. Conclusion. Knee JPS is reduced by an attention-demanding task but not by experimentally induced pain. (C) 2004 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Experimental hand pain delays recognition of the contralateral hand: Evidence that acute and chronic pain have opposite effects on information processing?

Recognising the laterality of a pictured hand involves making an initial decision and confirming that choice by mentally moving one's own hand to match the picture. This depends on an intact body schema. Because patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS1) take longer to recognise a hand's laterality when it corresponds to their affected hand, it has been proposed that nociceptive input disrupts the body schema. However, chronic pain is associated with physiological and psychosocial complexities that may also explain the results. In three studies, we investigated whether the effect is simply due to nociceptive input. Study one evaluated the temporal and perceptual characteristics of acute hand pain elicited by intramuscular injection of hypertonic saline into the thenar eminence. In studies two and three, subjects performed a hand laterality recognition task before, during, and after acute experimental hand pain, and experimental elbow pain, respectively. During hand pain and during elbow pain, when the laterality of the pictured hand corresponded to the painful side, there was no effect on response time (RT). That suggests that nociceptive input alone is not sufficient to disrupt the working body schema. Conversely to patients with CRPS1, when the laterality of the pictured hand corresponded to the non-painful hand, RT increased similar to 380 ms (95% confidence interval 190 ms-590 ms). The results highlight the differences between acute and chronic pain and may reflect a bias in information processing in acute pain toward the affected part.

The impact of neurodynamic testing on the perception of experimentally induced muscle pain

Neurodynamic tests such as the straight leg raising (SLR) and slump test are frequently used for assessment of mechanosensitivity of neural tissues. However, there is ongoing debate in the literature regarding the contributions of neural and non-neural tissues to the elicited symptoms because many structures are affected by these tests. Sensitizing manoeuvres are limb or spinal movements added to neurodynamic tests, which aim to identify the origin of the symptoms by preferentially loading or unloading neural structures. A prerequisite for the use of sensitizing manoeuvres to identify neural involvement is that the addition of sensitizing manoeuvres has no impact on pain perception when the origin of the pain is non-neural. In this study, experimental muscle pain was induced by injection of hypertonic saline in tibialis anterior or soleus in 25 asymptomatic, naive volunteers. A first experiment investigated the impact of hip adduction, abduction, medial and lateral rotation in the SLR position. In a second experiment, the different stages of the slump test were examined. The intensity and area of experimentally induced muscle pain did not increase when sensitizing manoeuvres were added to the SLR or throughout the successive stages of the slump test. The findings of this study lend support to the validity of the use of sensitizing manoeuvres during neurodynamic testing. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effect of experimentally induced low back pain on postural sway with breathing

Although breathing perturbs balance, in healthy individuals little sway is detected in ground reaction forces because small movements of the spine and lower limbs compensate for the postural disturbance. When people have chronic low back pain (LBP), sway at the ground is increased, possibly as a result of reduced compensatory motion of the trunk. The aim of this study was to determine whether postural compensation for breathing is reduced during experimentally induced pain. Subjects stood on a force plate with eyes open, eyes closed, and while breathing with hypercapnoea before and after injection of hypertonic saline into the right lumbar longissimus muscle to induce LBP. Motion of the lumbar spine, pelvis, and lower limbs was measured with four inclinometers fixed over bony landmarks. During experimental pain, motion of the trunk in association with breathing was reduced. However, despite this reduction in motion, there was no increase in postural sway with breathing. These data suggest that increased body sway with breathing in people with chronic LBP is not simply because of reduced trunk movement, but instead, indicates changes in coordination by the central nervous system that are not replicated by experimental nociceptor stimulation.

An integrated analysis of five double-blind, randomized controlled trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of a hyaluronan product for intra-articular injection in osteoarthritis of the kneel

Objective: Five double-blind, randomized, saline-controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the United States marketing application for an intra-articular hyaluronan (IA-HA) product for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. We report an integrated analysis of the primary Case Report Form (CRF) data from these trials. Method. Trials were similar in design, patient population and outcome measures - all included the Lequesne Algofunctional Index (LI), a validated composite index of pain and function, evaluating treatment over 3 months. Individual patient data were pooled; a repeated measures analysis of covariance was performed in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Analyses utilized both fixed and random effects models. Safety data from the five RCTs were summarized. Results: A total of 1155 patients with radiologically confirmed knee OA were enrolled: 619 received three or five IA-HA injections; 536 received. placebo saline injections. In the active and control groups, mean ages were 61.8 and 61.4 years; 62.4% and 58.8% were women; baseline total Lequesne scores 11.03 and 11.30, respectively. Integrated analysis of the pooled data set found a statistically significant reduction (P < 0.001) in total Lequesne score with hyaluronan (HA) (-2.68) vs placebo (-2.00); estimated difference -0.68 (95% CI: -0.56 to -0.79), effect size 0.20. Additional modeling approaches confirmed robustness of the analyses. Conclusions: This integrated analysis demonstrates that multiple design factors influence the results of RCTs assessing efficacy of intra-articular (IA) therapies, and that integrated analyses based on primary data differ from meta-analyses using transformed data. (C) 2006 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.