A pain neuromatrix approach to patients with chronic pain

This paper presents an approach to rehabilitation of pain patients. The fundamental principles of the approach are (i) pain is an output of the brain that is produced whenever the brain concludes that body tissue is in danger and action is required, and (ii) pain is a multisystem output that is produced when an individual-specific cortical pain neuromatrix is activated. When pain becomes chronic, the efficacy of the pain neuromatrix is strengthened via nociceptive and non-nociceptive mechanisms, which means that less input, both nociceptive and non-nociceptive, is required to produce pain. The clinical approach focuses on decreasing all inputs that imply that body tissue is in danger and then on activating components of the pain neuromatrix without activating its output. Rehabilitation progresses to increase exposure to threatening input across sensory and non-sensory domains. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Joining forces - Combining cognition-targeted motor control training with group or individual pain physiology education: A successful treatment for chronic low back pain

Chronic unremittent low back pain (LBP) is characterised by cognitive barriers to treatment. Combining a motor control training approach with individualised education about pain physiology is effective in this group of patients. This randomized comparative trial (i) evaluates an approach to motor control acquisition and training that considers the complexities of the relationship between pain and motor output, and (ii) compares the efficacy and cost of individualized and group pain physiology education. After an "ongoing usual treatment" period, patients participated in a 4-week motor control and pain physiology education program. Patients received four one-hour individualized education sessions (IE) or one 4-hour group lecture (GE). Both groups reduced pain (numerical rating scale) and disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire). IE showed bigger decreases, which were maintained at 12 months (P < 0.05 for all). The combined motor control and education approach is effective. Although group education imparts a lesser effect, it may be more cost-efficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

A randomized controlled trial of intensive neurophysiology education in chronic low back pain

Objectives: Cognitive-behavioral pain management programs typically achieve improvements in pain cognitions, disability, and physical performance. However, it is not known whether the neurophysiology education component of such programs contributes to these outcomes. In chronic low back pain patients, we investigated the effect of neurophysiology education on cognitions, disability, and physical performance. Methods: This study was a blinded randomized controlled trial. Individual education sessions on neurophysiology of pain (experimental group) and back anatomy and physiology (control group) were conducted by trained physical therapist educators. Cognitions were evaluated using the Survey of Pain Attitudes (revised) (SOPA(R)), and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Behavioral measures included the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and 3 physical performance tasks; (1) straight leg raise (SLR), (2) forward bending range, and (3) an abdominal drawing-in task, which provides a measure of voluntary activation of the deep abdominal muscles. Methodological checks evaluated non-specific effects of intervention. Results: There was a significant treatment effect on the SOPA(R), PCS, SLR, and forward bending. There was a statistically significant effect on RMDQ; however, the size of this effect was small and probably not clinically meaningful. Discussion: Education about pain neurophysiology changes pain cognitions and physical performance but is insufficient by itself to obtain a change in perceived disability. The results suggest that pain neurophysiology education, but not back school type education, should be included in a wider pain management approach.

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 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.

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.