Central hypersensitivity in whiplash: Implications for physiotherapy assessment and management

It is emerging that whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) is a complex condition characterised by a variety of physical and psychological features. Generalised sensory hypersensitivity is one of these features and its presence reflects augmented central pain processing mechanisms. Whilst most studies have investigated these processes in chronic WAD, it is becoming clear that in some of the whiplash injured, sensory disturbances are present from soon after injury, and are associated with both poor recovery and recalcitrance to multimodal physiotherapy interventions. Evidence for sensory hypersensitivity in WAD and possible underlying mechanisms of these phenomena are reviewed. Physiotherapists play an important role in the evaluation and management of whiplash injury. It is important that sensory disturbances be identified early in the clinical assessment of the whiplash injured patient and that ensuing management strategies address these changes, if the aim of treatment is to prevent the transition to chronicity.

Widespread sensory hypersensitivity is a feature of chronic whiplash-associated disorder but not chronic idiopathic neck pain

Objectives: To investigate sensory changes present in patients with chronic whiplash-associated disorders and chronic idiopathic neck pain using a variety of quantitative sensory tests to better understand the pain processing mechanisms underlying persistent symptoms. Methods: A case control study was used with 29 subjects with chronic whiplash-associated disorders, 20 subjects with chronic idiopathic neck pain, and 20 pain-free volunteers. Pressure pain thresholds were measured over the articular pillars of C2-C3, C5-C6, the median, radial, and ulnar nerve trunks in the arm and over a remote site, the muscle belly of tibialis anterior. Heat pain thresholds, cold pain thresholds, and von Frey hair sensibility were measured over the cervical spine, tibialis anterior, and deltoid insertion. Anxiety was measured with the Short-Form of the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory. Results: Pressure pain thresholds were decreased over cervical spine sites in both subject groups when compared with controls (P < 0.05). In the chronic whiplash-associated disorders group, pressure pain thresholds were also decreased over the tibialis anterior, median, and radial nerve trunks (P < 0.001). Heat pain thresholds were decreased and cold pain thresholds increased at all sites (P < 0.03). No differences in heat pain thresholds or cold pain thresholds were evident in the idiopathic neck pain group at any site compared with the control group (P > 0.27). No abnormalities in von Frey hair sensibility were evident in either neck pain group (P > 0.28). Discussion: Both chronic whiplash-associated disorders and idiopathic neck pain groups were characterized by mechanical hyperalgesia over the cervical spine. Whiplash subjects showed additional widespread hypersensitivity to mechanical pressure and thermal stimuli, which was independent of state anxiety and may represent changes in central pain processing mechanisms. This may have implications for future treatment approaches.

Sensory hypersensitivity occurs soon after whiplash injury and is associated with poor recovery

Hypersensitivity to a variety of sensory Stimuli is a feature of persistent whiplash associated disorders (WAD). However, little is known about sensory disturbances from the time Of injury until transition to either recovery or symptom persistence. Quantitative sensory testing (pressure and thermal pain thresholds, the brachial plexus provocation test), the sympathetic vasoconstrictor reflex and psychological distress (GHQ-28) were prospectively measured in 76 whiplash Subjects within 1 month of injury and then 2, 3 and 6 months post-injury. Subjects were classified at 6 months post-injury using scores on the Neck Disability Index: recovered (30). Sensory and sympathetic nervous system tests were also measured in 20 control subjects. All whiplash groups demonstrated local mechanical hyperalgesia in the cervica spine at 1 month post-injury. This hyperalgesia persisted in those with moderate/severe symptoms at 6 months but resolved by 2 months in those who had recovered or reported persistent mild symptoms. Only those with persistent moderate/severe symptoms at 6 months demonstrated generalised hypersensitivity to all sensory tests. These changes Occurred within 1 month of injury and remained Unchanged throughout the Study period. Whilst no significant group differences were evident for the sympathetic vasoconstrictor response, the moderate/severe group showed a tendency for diminished sympathetic reactivity. GHQ-28 scores of the moderate/severe group were higher than those of the other two groups. The differences in GHQ-28 did not impact on any of the sensory measures. These findings suggest that those with persistent moderate/severe symptoms at 6 months display, soon after injury, generalised hypersensitivity suggestive of changes in central pain processing mechanisms. This phenomenon did not Occur in those who recover or those with persistent mild symptoms. (C) 2003 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

A proposed new classification system for whiplash associated disorders - implications for assessment and management

The development of chronic symptoms following whiplash injury is common and contributes substantially to costs associated with this condition. The currently used Quebec Task Force classification system of whiplash associated disorders is primarily based on the severity of signs and symptoms following injury and its usefulness has been questioned. Recent evidence is emerging that demonstrates differences in physical and psychological impairments between individuals who recover from the injury and those who develop persistent pain and disability. Motor dysfunction, local cervical mechanical hyperalgesia and psychological distress are present soon after injury in all whiplash injured persons irrespective of recovery. In contrast those individuals who develop persistent moderate/severe pain and disability show a more complex picture, characterized by additional impairments of widespread sensory hypersensitivity indicative of underlying disturbances in central pain processing as well as acute posttraumatic stress reaction, with these changes present from soon after injury. Based on this heterogeneity a new classification system is proposed that takes into account measurable disturbances in motor, sensory and psychological dysfunction. The implications for the management of this condition are discussed. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The threat of predictable and unpredictable pain: Differential effects on central nervous system processing?

Central nervous system performance is disrupted by pain and by the threat of pain. It is not known whether disruption caused by the threat of pain is dependent on the likelihood of pain occurring. We hypothesised that when a painful stimulus is possible but unpredictable central nervous system performance is reduced, but when the pain is predictable and unavoidable it is not. Sixteen healthy subjects performed a reaction time task during predictable and unpredictable conditions (100% and 50% probability of pain, respectively). Group data showed increased reaction time with the threat of pain by 50 ms (95% Cl 16 to 83 ms) for the predictable condition and 46 ms (95% CI 12 to 80 ms) for the unpredictable condition (p < 0.01 for both), but there was no difference between predictable and unpredictable conditions (p = 0.41). However, individual data showed that there was a differential effect in 75% of subjects (p < 0.05 for all) and that there was a greater effect of predictable pain for some subjects and a greater effect of unpredictable pain for others. Reaction time was related to reported anxiety (r = 0.49, p = 0.02 for both conditions). The predictability of a painful stimulus may have a differential effect on central nervous system performance within individuals, but anxiety about the impending pain appears to be important in determining this effect.

Does anticipation of back pain predispose to back trouble?

Limb movement imparts a perturbation to the body. The impact of that perturbation is limited via anticipatory postural adjustments. The strategy by which the CNS controls anticipatory postural adjustments of the trunk muscles during limb movement is altered during acute back pain and in people with recurrent back pain, even when they are pain free. The altered postural strategy probably serves to protect the spine in the short term, but it is associated with a cost and is thought to predispose spinal structures to injury in the long term. It is not known why this protective strategy might occur even when people are pain free, but one possibility is that it is caused by the anticipation of back pain. In eight healthy subjects, recordings of intramuscular EMG were made from the trunk muscles during single and repetitive arm movements. Anticipation of experimental back pain and anticipation of experimental elbow pain were elicited by the threat of painful cutaneous stimulation. There was no effect of anticipated experimental elbow pain on postural adjustments. During anticipated experimental back pain, for single arm movements there was delayed activation of the deep trunk muscles and augmentation of at least one superficial trunk muscle. For repetitive arm movements, there was decreased activity and a shift from biphasic to monophasic activation of the deep trunk muscles and increased activity of superficial trunk muscles during anticipation of back pain. In both instances, the changes were consistent with adoption of an altered strategy for postural control and were similar to those observed in patients with recurrent back pain. We conclude that anticipation of experimental back pain evokes a protective postural strategy that stiffens the spine. This protective strategy is associated with compressive cost and is thought to predispose to spinal injury if maintained long term. © Guarantors of Brain 2004; all rights reserved

Paracetamol versus paracetamol-codeine in the treatment of post-operative dental pain: A randomized, double-blind, prospective trial

Background: Codeine is frequently added to paracetamol to treat post-operative dento-alveolar pain; studies have shown effectiveness in relief of post-operative pain at high doses but at the expense of central nervous and gastrointestinal side effects. There has been no trial to compare the efficacy and safety of paracetamol 1000mg with paracetamol 1000mg combined with codeine 30mg. Method. A randomized, single centre, double-blind prospective parallel group trial was performed to compare paracetamol 1000mg with paracetamol 1000mg with codeine 30mg for the relief of pain following surgical removal of impacted third molars, and analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. Eighty-two patients were assigned randomly to receive either drug for a maximum of three doses. Patients recorded their pain intensity one hour after surgery and hourly thereafter for 12 hours. Results: The average increase in pain intensity over 12 hours was significantly less in patients receiving paracetamol plus codeine than in those receiving paracetamol alone (p=0.03) -1.81cm/h compared with 0.45cm/h - a difference of 1.13cm/h (95 per cent Cl: 0.18 to 2.08). Of the patients who received the paracetamol codeine combination, 62 per cent used escape medication compared with 75 per cent of those on paracetamol alone (p=0.20). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events (P=0.5). Conclusion: A combination of 1000mg paracetamol and 30mg codeine was significantly more effective in controlling pain for 12 hours following third molar removal, with no significant difference of side effects during the 12 hour period studied.

The role of morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G) in pain control

Morphine-6beta-D-glucuronide (M6G) is an analgesically active metabolite of morphine, accounting for approximate to10% of the morphine dose when administered by systemic routes to humans. Although M6G is more hydrophilic than morphine, it crosses the blood-brain barrier, albeit relatively slowly. For this reason, it is generally thought that, after chronic dosing, M6G contributes significantly to the analgesic effects of systemically administered morphine. Owing to its polar nature, M6G is cleared from the systemic circulation primarily via renal elimination. As M6G accumulates in patients with renal impairment, there is an increased risk of M6G-induced respiratory depression in renal failure patients who are being dosed chronically with systemic morphine. Consistent with its analgesic and respiratory depressant properties, M6G binds to the p-opioid receptor in a naloxone-reversible manner. Although the affinity of M6G for the mu-opioid receptor is similar to or slightly less than that of morphine, preclinical studies in rodents show that M6G is one to two orders of magnitude more potent than morphine when administered by central routes. This major discrepancy between the markedly higher intrinsic antinociceptive potency of M6G relative to morphine, despite their similar p-opioid receptor binding affinities, is difficult to reconcile. It has been proposed that M6G mediates its pain-relieving effects through a novel 'M6G opioid receptor', while others have argued that M6G may have higher efficacy than morphine for transduction of intracellular events. When administered by parenteral routes to rodents, M6G's antinociceptive potency is no more than twofold higher than morphine. In humans, the analgesic efficacy and respiratory depressant potency of M6G relative to morphine have been assessed in a number of short-term studies involving the intrathecal or intravenous routes of administration. For example, in hip replacement patients, intrathecal M6G provided excellent postoperative analgesia but the occurrence of late respiratory depression in 10% of these patients raised serious concern about safety. In postoperative patients, intravenous M6G administered by means of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), or bolus plus PCA, produced no analgesia in one study and limited analgesia in another. Similarly, there was a lack of significant analgesia in healthy volunteers who received intravenous M6G for the alleviation of experimental pain (carbon dioxide applied to the nasal mucosa). In contrast, satisfactory analgesia was produced by bolus doses of intravenous M6G administered to patients with cancer pain, and to healthy volunteers with experimentally-induced ischaemic, electrical or thermal (ice water) pain. Studies to date in healthy volunteers suggest that intravenous M6G may be a less potent respiratory depressant and have a lower propensity for producing nausea and vomiting than morphine. However, it is unclear whether equi-analgesic doses of M6G and morphine were compared. Clearly, more extensive short-term trials, together with studies involving chronic M6G administration, are necessary before the potential clinical utility of M6G as an analgesic drug in its own right can be determined.

Core stability exercise in chronic low back pain

Exercise is commonly used in the management of chronic musculoskeletal conditions, including chronic low back pain (CLBP). The focus of exercise is varied and may include parameters ranging from strength and endurance training, to specific training of muscle coordination and control. The assumption underpinning these approaches is that improved neuromuscular function will restore or augment the control and support of the spine and pelvis. In a biomechanical model of CLBP, which assumes that pain recurrence is caused by repeated mechanical irritation of pain sensitive structures [1], it is proposed that this improved control and stability would reduce mechanical irritation and lead to pain relief [1]. Although this model provides explanation for the chronicity of LBP, perpetuation of pain is more complex, and contemporary neuroscience holds the view that chronic pain is mediated by a range of changes including both peripheral (eg, peripheral sensitization) and central neuroplastic changes [2]. Although this does not exclude the role of improved control of the lumbar spine and pelvis in management of CLBP, particularly when there is peripheral sensitization, it highlights the need to look beyond outdated simplistic models. One factor that this information highlights is that the refinement of control and coordination may be more important than simple strength and endurance training for the trunk muscles. The objective of this article is to discuss the rationale for core stability exercise in the management of CLBP, to consider critical factors for its implementation, and to review evidence for efficacy of the approach.

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.

The effect of motor control exercise versus placebo in patients with chronic low back pain

Background: While one in ten Australians suffer from chronic low back pain this condition remains extremely difficult to treat. Many contemporary treatments are of unknown value. One potentially useful therapy is the use of motor control exercise. This therapy has a biologically plausible effect, is readily available in primary care and it is of modest cost. However, to date, the efficacy of motor control exercise has not been established. Methods: This paper describes the protocol for a clinical trial comparing the effects of motor control exercise versus placebo in the treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain. One hundred and fifty-four participants will be randomly allocated to receive an 8-week program of motor control exercise or placebo (detuned short wave and detuned ultrasound). Measures of outcomes will be obtained at follow-up appointments at 2, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcomes are: pain, global perceived effect and patient-generated measure of disability at 2 months and recurrence at 12 months. Discussion: This trial will be the first placebo-controlled trial of motor control exercise. The results will inform best practice for treating chronic low back pain and prevent its occurrence.

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.

Are the changes in postural control associated with low back pain caused by pain interference?

Background: Voluntary limb movements are associated with involuntary and automatic postural adjustments of the trunk muscles. These postural adjustments occur prior to movement and prevent unwanted perturbation of the trunk. In low back pain, postural adjustments of the trunk muscles are altered such that the deep trunk muscles are consistently delayed and the superficial trunk muscles are sometimes augmented. This alteration of postural adjustments may reflect disruption of normal postural control imparted by reduced central nervous system resources available during pain, so-called pain interference, or reflect adoption of an alternate postural adjustment strategy. Methods: We aimed to clarify this by recording electromyographic activity of the upper (obliquus extemus) and lower (transversus abdominis/obliquus internus) abdominal muscles during voluntary arm movements that were coupled with painful cutaneous stimulation at the low back. If the effect of pain on postural adjustments is caused by pain interference, it should be greatest at the onset of the stimulus, should habituate with repeated exposure, and be absent immediately when the threat of pain is removed. Sixteen patients performed 30 forward movements of the right arm in response to a visual cue (control). Seventy trials were then conducted in which arm movement was coupled with pain (pain trials) and then a further 70 trials were conducted without the pain stimulus (no pain trials). Results: There was a gradual and increasing delay of transversus abdominis/obliquus internus electromyograph and augmentation of obliquus externus during the pain trials, both of which gradually returned to control values during the no pain trials. Conclusion: The results suggest that altered postural adjustments of the trunk muscles during pain are not caused by pain interference but are likely to reflect development and adoption of an alternate postural adjustment strategy, which may serve to limit the amplitude and velocity of trunk excursion caused by arm movement.