Suppr超能文献

热模态与电模态在疼痛时间总和及条件性疼痛调制评估中的比较

Comparison of Thermal and Electrical Modalities in the Assessment of Temporal Summation of Pain and Conditioned Pain Modulation.

作者信息

Sean Monica, Coulombe-Lévêque Alexia, Bordeleau Martine, Vincenot Matthieu, Gendron Louis, Marchand Serge, Léonard Guillaume

机构信息

Research Centre on Aging, School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.

Department of Pharmacology-Physiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.

出版信息

Front Pain Res (Lausanne). 2021 Sep 27;2:659563. doi: 10.3389/fpain.2021.659563. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Temporal summation of pain (TSP) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) can be measured using a thermode and a cold pressor test (CPT). Unfortunately, these tools are complex, expensive, and are ill-suited for routine clinical assessments. Building on the results from an exploratory study that attempted to use transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to measure CPM and TSP, the present study assesses whether a "new" TENS protocol can be used instead of the thermode and CPT to measure CPM and TSP. The objective of this study was to compare the thermode/CPT protocol with the new TENS protocol, by (1) measuring the association between the TSP evoked by the two protocols; (2) measuring the association between the CPM evoked by the two protocols; and by (3) assessing whether the two protocols successfully trigger TSP and CPM in a similar number of participants. We assessed TSP and CPM in 50 healthy participants, using our new TENS protocol and a thermode/CPT protocol (repeated measures and randomized order). In the TENS protocol, both the test stimulus (TS) and the conditioning stimulus (CS) were delivered using TENS; in the thermode/CPT protocol, the TS was delivered using a thermode and the CS consisted of a CPT. There was no association between the response evoked by the two protocols, neither for TSP nor for CPM. The number of participants showing TSP [49 with TENS and 29 with thermode ( < 0.001)] and CPM [16 with TENS and 30 with thermode ( = 0.01)] was different in both protocols. Our results suggest that response to one modality does not predict response to the other; as such, TENS cannot be used instead of a thermode/CPT protocol to assess TSP and CPM without significantly affecting the results. Moreover, while at first glance it appears that TENS is more effective than the thermode/CPT protocol to induce TSP, but less so to induce CPM, these results should be interpreted carefully. Indeed, TSP and CPM response appear to be modality-dependent as opposed to an absolute phenomenon, and the two protocols may tap into entirely different mechanisms, especially in the case of TSP.

摘要

疼痛的时间总和(TSP)和条件性疼痛调制(CPM)可以使用热刺激器和冷加压试验(CPT)来测量。不幸的是,这些工具复杂、昂贵,且不适用于常规临床评估。基于一项探索性研究的结果,该研究试图使用经皮电神经刺激(TENS)来测量CPM和TSP,本研究评估是否可以使用一种“新的”TENS方案来替代热刺激器和CPT来测量CPM和TSP。本研究的目的是通过以下方式比较热刺激器/CPT方案与新的TENS方案:(1)测量两种方案诱发的TSP之间的关联;(2)测量两种方案诱发的CPM之间的关联;以及(3)评估两种方案是否能在相似数量的参与者中成功触发TSP和CPM。我们使用新的TENS方案和热刺激器/CPT方案(重复测量和随机顺序)对50名健康参与者进行了TSP和CPM评估。在TENS方案中,测试刺激(TS)和条件刺激(CS)均使用TENS施加;在热刺激器/CPT方案中,TS使用热刺激器施加,CS由CPT组成。两种方案诱发的反应之间没有关联,无论是TSP还是CPM。在两种方案中,出现TSP的参与者数量不同[TENS组为49人,热刺激器组为29人(<0.001)],出现CPM的参与者数量也不同[TENS组为16人,热刺激器组为30人(=0.01)]。我们的结果表明,对一种方式的反应不能预测对另一种方式的反应;因此,在不显著影响结果的情况下,不能使用TENS替代热刺激器/CPT方案来评估TSP和CPM。此外,虽然乍一看TENS在诱发TSP方面似乎比热刺激器/CPT方案更有效,但在诱发CPM方面则不然,但对这些结果应谨慎解释。事实上,TSP和CPM反应似乎取决于方式而非绝对现象,并且两种方案可能涉及完全不同的机制,尤其是在TSP的情况下。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f441/8915752/23d63ed1df6d/fpain-02-659563-g0001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验