Chabal Charles, Dunbar Peter J, Painter Ian, Young Douglas, Chabal Darah C
Soovu Labs Inc., Seattle, WA, USA.
Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
J Pain Res. 2020 Aug 13;13:2083-2092. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S260967. eCollection 2020.
PURPOSE: For years, heat has been used for comfort and analgesia is recommended as a first-line therapy in many clinical guidelines. Yet, there are questions that remain about the actual effectiveness of heat for a condition as common as chronic low back pain, and factors such as time of onset, optimal temperature, and duration of effect. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized double-blinded controlled trial was designed to compare the analgesic response to heat delivered via pulses at 45°C (experimental group, N=49) to steady heat at 37°C (control group, N=51) in subjects with longstanding low back pain. Treatment lasted 30 minutes with follow-up out to four hours. The hypothesis was that the experimental group would experience a higher degree of analgesia compared to the control group. Time of onset and duration of effect were also measured. RESULTS: Both groups were similar in average duration of pain (10.3 years). The primary outcome measure was pain reduction at 30 minutes after the end of treatment, using a 10-points numeric pain scale. Reduction in pain was greater for the experimental group than the control group (difference in mean reduction = 0.72, 95% CI 0.15-1.29, p = 0.014). Statistically significant differences in pain levels were observed from the first measure at 5 minutes of treatment through 120 minutes after completion of treatment. Reduction in pain associated movement was greater in the active heat group than the placebo group (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: High-level pulsed heat (45°C) produced significantly more analgesia as compared to steady heat at 37°C at the primary end point and for an additional 2 hours after treatment. The onset of analgesia was rapid, <5 minutes of treatment. The results of this trial provide insight into the mechanisms and properties of thermal analgesia that are not well understood in a chronic low back pain model.
目的:多年来,热疗一直用于缓解疼痛,并且在许多临床指南中被推荐作为一线治疗方法。然而,对于像慢性下腰痛这种常见病症,热疗的实际效果以及诸如起效时间、最佳温度和作用持续时间等因素仍存在疑问。 材料与方法:设计了一项随机双盲对照试验,以比较长期下腰痛患者对45°C脉冲热疗(实验组,N = 49)和37°C持续热疗(对照组,N = 51)的镇痛反应。治疗持续30分钟,随访4小时。假设是实验组与对照组相比会经历更高程度的镇痛效果。同时还测量了起效时间和作用持续时间。 结果:两组的平均疼痛持续时间相似(10.3年)。主要结局指标是治疗结束后30分钟时使用10分数字疼痛量表评估的疼痛减轻情况。实验组的疼痛减轻程度大于对照组(平均减轻差异 = 0.72,95%可信区间0.15 - 1.29,p = 0.014)。从治疗5分钟时的首次测量到治疗完成后120分钟,观察到疼痛水平存在统计学显著差异。主动热疗组与安慰剂组相比,与疼痛相关的活动减少更明显(p = 0.04)。 结论:在主要终点以及治疗后额外2小时内,与37°C的持续热疗相比,45°C的高强度脉冲热疗产生的镇痛效果显著更强。镇痛起效迅速,治疗<5分钟。该试验结果为慢性下腰痛模型中尚未完全理解的热镇痛机制和特性提供了见解。
J Pain Res. 2020-8-13
GMS Krankenhhyg Interdiszip. 2007-12-28
Bioengineering (Basel). 2024-10-18
Eur Oral Res. 2021-9-1
Clin J Sport Med. 2017-7
Pain. 2015-6