Takahashi Ken, Taguchi Toru, Itoh Kazunori, Okada Kaoru, Kawakita Kenji, Mizumura Kazue
Japan Foundation for Aging and Health, Aichi, Japan.
Somatosens Mot Res. 2005 Dec;22(4):299-305. doi: 10.1080/08990220500420475.
Transcutaneous pressure with pressure probes of arbitrary diameters have been commonly used for measuring the threshold and magnitude of muscle pain, yet this procedure lacks scientific validation. To examine the valid probe dimensions, we conducted physiological experiments using 34 human subjects. Pin-prick pain, pressure pain threshold (PPT) to pressure probes of various diameters, heat pain threshold, and electrical pain threshold of deep tissues were measured before and after application of surface lidocaine anesthesia to the skin surface over the brachioradial muscle in a double-blinded manner. The anesthesia neither affected PPT with larger probes (diameters: 1.6 and 15 mm) nor increased electric pain threshold of deep structures, whereas it diminished pain count in pin-prick test and PPT with a 1.0 mm diameter probe, suggesting that mechanical pain thresholds measured with 1.6 and 15 mm probes reflect the pain threshold of deep tissues, possibly muscle. Pain thresholds to heat did not change after application of the anesthesia. These results suggest that larger pressure probes can give a better estimation of muscular pain threshold.
使用任意直径的压力探头进行经皮压力测量已普遍用于测量肌肉疼痛的阈值和强度,但该方法缺乏科学验证。为了研究有效的探头尺寸,我们对34名人类受试者进行了生理实验。采用双盲法,在对肱桡肌上方皮肤表面应用表面利多卡因麻醉前后,测量针刺疼痛、对不同直径压力探头的压力疼痛阈值(PPT)、热痛阈值和深部组织的电痛阈值。麻醉既不影响使用较大探头(直径:1.6和15毫米)时的PPT,也不提高深部结构的电痛阈值,而它减少了针刺试验中的疼痛计数以及使用1.0毫米直径探头时的PPT,这表明使用1.6和15毫米探头测量的机械性疼痛阈值反映了深部组织(可能是肌肉)的疼痛阈值。应用麻醉后热痛阈值没有变化。这些结果表明,较大的压力探头可以更好地估计肌肉疼痛阈值。