Maracle Emmalee C, Hung Laurie Y, Fell Sabrina I, Osmond Michael R, Brown Stephen H M, Srbely John Z
Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Pain Pract. 2017 Jan;17(1):16-24. doi: 10.1111/papr.12418. Epub 2016 Mar 3.
Two of the most common Quantitative Sensory Techniques (QST) employed to detect allodynia include mechanical brush allodynia and Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments. However, their relative sensitivity at detecting allodynia is poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity of brush allodynia against Semmes-Weinstein monofilament technique for detecting allodynia within regions of secondary hyperalgesia in humans.
Twenty subjects (10 males, 10 females; 21.1 ± 0.9 years) were recruited and randomly allocated to allodynia or monofilament groups. Topical capsaicin (Zostrix 0.075%) was applied to a target region defined by C4-C7 dermatomes. Allodynia testing was performed at 0- (baseline) and 10 minutes postcapsaicin. The Semmes-Weinstein group assessed changes in skin sensitivity 8 cm inferior to target region and 2 cm lateral to the spinous process, while brush allodynia was employed to detect the point inferior to the target region where subjects reported changes in skin sensitivity. The distance (cm) from this point to the inferior border of the target region was termed the Allodynia Score.
Statistically significant increases in the Allodynia Score were observed at 10 minutes postcapsaicin compared to baseline (P < 0.001). No differences in monofilament scores were observed between 10 minutes postcapsaicin and baseline (P = 0.125). Brush allodynia also demonstrated superior sensitivity, detecting allodynia in 100% of cases compared to 60% in the Semmes-Weinstein group.
Brush allodynia is more sensitive than Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments for detecting mechanical allodynia in regions of secondary hyperalgesia. Brush allodynia may be preferred over Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments for clinical applications requiring reliable detection of allodynia.
用于检测痛觉过敏的两种最常见的定量感觉技术(QST)包括机械刷痛觉过敏和Semmes-Weinstein单丝检查。然而,它们在检测痛觉过敏方面的相对敏感性尚不清楚。本研究的目的是比较刷痛觉过敏与Semmes-Weinstein单丝技术在检测人类继发性痛觉过敏区域内痛觉过敏的敏感性。
招募了20名受试者(10名男性,10名女性;21.1±0.9岁),并随机分为痛觉过敏组或单丝组。将局部辣椒素(Zostrix 0.075%)应用于由C4 - C7皮节定义的目标区域。在辣椒素应用后0分钟(基线)和10分钟进行痛觉过敏测试。Semmes-Weinstein组评估目标区域下方8 cm且棘突外侧2 cm处皮肤敏感性的变化,而刷痛觉过敏用于检测目标区域下方受试者报告皮肤敏感性变化的点。从该点到目标区域下缘的距离(cm)称为痛觉过敏评分。
与基线相比,辣椒素应用后10分钟痛觉过敏评分有统计学显著增加(P < 0.001)。辣椒素应用后10分钟与基线之间未观察到单丝评分的差异(P = 0.125)。刷痛觉过敏也表现出更高的敏感性,在100%的病例中检测到痛觉过敏,而Semmes-Weinstein组为60%。
在检测继发性痛觉过敏区域的机械性痛觉过敏方面,刷痛觉过敏比Semmes-Weinstein单丝检查更敏感。在需要可靠检测痛觉过敏的临床应用中,刷痛觉过敏可能比Semmes-Weinstein单丝检查更受青睐。