scholarly journals User-independent assessment of conditioning pain modulation by cuff pressure algometry

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 552-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Graven-Nielsen ◽  
M. Izumi ◽  
K.K. Petersen ◽  
L. Arendt-Nielsen
Keyword(s):  
Cuff Pressure ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Pressure Algometry ◽  
Independent Assessment

Computerized cuff pressure algometry: A new method to assess deep-tissue hypersensitivity in fibromyalgia

Pain ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 131 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Jespersen ◽  
Lene Dreyer ◽  
Sally Kendall ◽  
Thomas Graven-Nielsen ◽  
Lars Arendt-Nielsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cuff Pressure ◽  
New Method ◽  
Deep Tissue ◽  
Pressure Algometry

Combined electric and pressure cuff pain stimuli for assessing conditioning pain modulation (CPM)

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-182
Author(s):  
M. Tsukamoto ◽  
K.K. Petersen ◽  
C.D. Mørch ◽  
L. Arendt-Nielsen
Keyword(s):  
Test Stimulus ◽  
Cuff Pressure ◽  
Detection Threshold ◽  
Conditioning Stimulus ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Experimental Site ◽  
Pressure Cuff ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Median Split ◽  
Pain Stimuli

AbstractAimsTraditionally, conditioning pain modulation (CPM) can be assessed by applying a test stimulus (TS) before and after application of a conditioning stimulus (CS), which is normally applied extra-segmental. Currently, no studies have attempted to apply the TS and CS to the same site using different stimuli modalities. The aim of this study was to evaluate electrical TS and cuff pressure CS applied to the same experimental site for studying CPM.Methods20 male volunteers participated in this study, which consisted of stimulations applied by a cuff-algometer (NociTech and Aalborg University, Denmark) and current stimulator (Digitimer DS5, UK), through two Ag/AgCl electrodes (Ambu® Neuroline 700, Denmark). The cuff was wrapped around the lower leg and stimulation electrodes were placed under the cuff and to the same location on the contralateral leg. Electrical TS were applied to the non-dominant leg with or without cuff pressure CS on the dominant (CS1) or the same (non-dominant) leg (CS2, electrode under cuff). The subjects were instructed to rate the electrical evoked pain intensity on a 10-cm continuous visual analog scale (VAS, “0” represented “no pain”, and “10” represented “maximal pain”). The pain detection threshold (PDT) was defined as “1” on the VAS scale.ResultsThere was no significant deference in PDT for neither CS1 nor CS2. A median split subanalysis on CPM-responders versus CPM-nonresponders to the TS + CS1 combination. Using this grouping, there was significant increase in PDT when comparing TS to TS + CS1 or TS + CS2 (4.0 mA vs 5.6 mA; P < 0.05, 4.0 mA vs 5.1 mA; P < 0.05).ConclusionsThe study indicates that CPM can be evoked in a subgroup of subjects by applying the electrical test stimulus and cuff pressure conditioning stimuli to the same experimental site.

Fixed or adapted conditioning intensity for repeated conditioned pain modulation

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 176-176
Author(s):  
M. Hoegh ◽  
K.K. Petersen ◽  
T. Graven-Nielsen
Keyword(s):  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Cuff Pressure ◽  
Detection Threshold ◽  
Conditioning Stimulus ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Pain Tolerance ◽  
Conditioned Pain Modulation ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Aims Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is used to assess descending pain modulation through a test stimulation (TS) and a conditioning stimulation (CS). Due to potential carry-over effects, sequential CPM paradigms might alter the intensity of the CS, which potentially can alter the CPM-effect. This study aimed to investigate the difference between a fixed and adaptive CS intensity on CPM-effect. Methods On the dominant leg of 20 healthy subjects the cuff pressure detection threshold (PDT) was recorded as TS and the pain tolerance threshold (PTT) was assessed on the non-dominant leg for estimating the CS. The difference in PDT before and during CS defined the CPM-effect. The CPM-effect was assessed four times using a CS with intensities of 70% of baseline PTT (fixed) or 70% of PTT measured throughout the session (adaptive). Pain intensity of the conditioning stimulus was assessed on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Data were analyzed with repeated-measures ANOVA. Results No difference was found comparing the four PDTs assessed before CSs for the fixed and the adaptive paradigms. The CS pressure intensity for the adaptive paradigm was increasing during the four repeated assessments (P < 0.01). The pain intensity was similar during the fixed (NRS: 5.8±0.5) and the adjusted paradigm (NRS: 6.0±0.4). The CPM-effect was higher using the fixed condition compared with the adaptive condition (P < 0.05). Conclusions The current study found that sequential CPM paradigms using a fixed conditioning stimulus produced an increased CPM-effect compared with adaptive and increasing conditioning intensities.

scholarly journals P356 SPATIAL SUMMATION OF PAIN ASSESSED BY COMPUTERIZED CUFF PRESSURE ALGOMETRY IS NOT FACILITATED IN PATIENTS WITH KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS

2006 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. S191
Author(s):  
A. Jespersen ◽  
H. Lund ◽  
T. Graven-Nielsen ◽  
L. Arendt-Nielsen ◽  
H. Bliddal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Cuff Pressure ◽  
Spatial Summation ◽  
Pressure Algometry

scholarly journals Activation of the descending pain modulatory system using cuff pressure algometry: Back translation from man to rat

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (7) ◽  
pp. 1330-1338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatum M. Cummins ◽  
Mateusz M. Kucharczyk ◽  
Thomas Graven‐Nielsen ◽  
Kirsty Bannister
Keyword(s):  
Cuff Pressure ◽  
Pressure Algometry ◽  
Back Translation

scholarly journals Assessment of musculoskeletal pain sensitivity and temporal summation by cuff pressure algometry

Pain ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 156 (11) ◽  
pp. 2193-2202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Graven-Nielsen ◽  
Henrik Bjarke Vaegter ◽  
Sara Finocchietti ◽  
Gitte Handberg ◽  
Lars Arendt-Nielsen
Keyword(s):  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Pain Sensitivity ◽  
Temporal Summation ◽  
Cuff Pressure ◽  
Pressure Algometry

scholarly journals Endogenous Pain Facilitation Rather Than Inhibition Differs Between People with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Multiple Sclerosis, and Controls: An Observational Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (20;4) ◽  
pp. E489-E497
Author(s):  
Kelly Ickman
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ◽  
Central Sensitization ◽  
Temporal Summation ◽  
Cuff Pressure ◽  
Experimental Pain ◽  
Chronic Fatigue ◽  
Pain Modulation ◽  
Fatigue Syndrome ◽  
Pressure Threshold

Background: Commonalities in the core symptoms of fatigue and cognitive dysfunction experienced by chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS, also known as ME) and multiple sclerosis (MS) patients have been described. Many CFS and MS patients also experience chronic pain, which has been attributed to central sensitization in both groups of patients. However, the characteristics of pain in CFS and MS patients have not been compared. Objectives: To compare experimental pain measurements in patients with CFS or MS and healthy controls. Study design: Observational study. Setting: This study took place in Belgium at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and the University of Antwerp. Methods: Pressure pain thresholds, temporal summation, conditioned pain modulation, and occlusion cuff pressure thresholds rated as painful (1st cuff pressure threshold) and as 3/10 on a verbal numerical scale (2nd cuff pressure threshold) were measured in patients with CFS (n = 48), MS (n = 19) and healthy pain-free controls (n = 30). Adjusted between-group differences were estimated using linear regression models. Results: Finger pain pressure thresholds of patients with CFS, compared with patients with MS, were 25% lower (difference ratio 0.75 [95% CI 0.59, 0.95], P = 0.02) and shoulder pain pressure thresholds were 26% lower (difference ratio 0.74 [0.52, 1.04], P = 0.08). Compared with patients with MS, patients with CFS had 29% lower first cuff pressure threshold (difference ratio 0.71 [0.53, 0.94], P = 0.02) and 41% lower 2nd cuff pressure threshold (0.59 [0.41, 0.86], P = 0.006). Finger temporal summation was higher in patients with CFS than in patients with MS (mean difference 1.15 [0.33, 1.97], P = 0.006), but there were no differences in shoulder temporal summation or conditioned pain modulation at either site. Differences between patients with CFS and MS tended to be greater than between either patient group and healthy controls. Pain pressure thresholds and cuff pressure thresholds tended to be positively correlated, and temporal summation negatively correlated, with higher physical function and lower fatigue in both groups of patients. Subjective pain in patients with CFS but not in patients with MS was strongly negatively correlated with pain pressure thresholds and cuff pressure thresholds, and positively correlated with temporal summation. Limitations: The main limitations of our study are the relatively small sample sizes, its crosssectional design, and its exploratory nature. Conclusions: We found differences in the characteristics of pain symptoms reported by patients with CFS and patients with MS, which suggest different underlying mechanisms. Specifically, overactive endogenous pain facilitation was characteristic of pain in patients with CFS but not in patients with MS, suggesting a greater role for central sensitization in CFS. Keywords: Chronic fatigue syndrome, CFS/ME, multiple sclerosis, experimental pain, central sensitization

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document