English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Background and aims The choice of testing site for quantitative sensory testing (QST) of pain sensitivity is important and previous studies have demonstrated patterns in pain sensitivity within discrete areas in different body regions. Some areas are characterized by a relatively high degree of spatial pain discrimination and recognizable patterns of pain referral, whilst others are not. The lumbar region is likely to have relatively low pain acuity and overlapping of pain referral. The current study was conducted to determine whether patterns of pain sensitivity (detection thresholds) could be identified in the lower back, whether differences in such patterns exist between different groups and whether such patterns could help identify a clinical source of pain and localized increased pain sensitivity. Methods Twenty-one patients with non-specific chronic low back pain and 21 healthy controls were tested for pressure and heat pain thresholds on 30 pre-defined locations over the mid and lower back. Topographical maps of mean pain thresholds and variability were produced, inspected visually and analyzed statistically. Between group differences in pain threshold were analyzed statistically as an indicator of widespread increased pain sensitivity. Evidence of segmental increased pain sensitivity was examined by group statistical comparison of mid-line lower range. Results A clear pattern of higher pain thresholds in the mid-line was evident in both groups and for both pain modalities. No discernible patterns were evident for variability within groups, but marked differences were seen between groups: variability for pressure pain thresholds appeared similar between groups, however for heat pain threshold, variability was uniformly low in the control group and uniformly high in the patient group. A highly significant (p&lt;0.0001) difference in pain thresholds for pressure and heat was found with patients exhibiting lower thresholds than controls. No between group difference was found for mid-line lower range for either modality (p&gt;0.05). Conclusions The current study supports previous findings of widespread, increased pain sensitivity in chronic non-specific low-back pain patients. It also indicates that there are discernible and similar topographical patterns of pain sensitivity in the dorsal area in both groups, but that this pattern is related to the lateral position of the test site and not the segmental level. Specific segments with increased pain sensitivity could not be identified in the patient group, which casts doubt on the utility of pressure and heat pain thresholds as indicators of the clinical source of spinal pain - at least in a population of chronic non-specific low-back pain. Implications In a cohort of chronic non-specific low-back pain patients and with the chosen methodology, topographical QST mapping in the lumbar region does not appear useful for identifying the spinal segment responsible for clinical pain, but it does demonstrate widespread group differences in pain sensitivity.

Topographic mapping of pain sensitivity of the lower back – a comparison of healthy controls and patients with chronic non-specific low back pain