Sandrini G, Antonaci F, Pucci E, Bono G, Nappi G
University Center for Adaptive Disorders and Headache, Pavia, Italy.
Cephalalgia. 1994 Dec;14(6):451-7; discussion 394-5. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-2982.1994.1406451.x.
According to International Headache Society classification criteria, the presence of pericranial muscle disorder in tension-type headache should be evaluated using one of the following methods: EMG, pressure algometry or manual palpation. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of these three methods in 15 patients with episodic tension-type headache, 29 with chronic tension-type headache and 22 presenting migraine without aura compared to those obtained in healthy individuals. Algometric and EMG recordings at the frontalis muscle during mental arithmetic were more impaired in episodic and chronic tension headache patients than in controls and migraine patients. Chronic tension headache patients were significantly impaired at the trapezius muscle in all three tests compared to controls. Our data indicate that when two or three tests were carried out the diagnostic capacity was significantly improved in comparison to only one test. Moreover, since a different pattern could be seen with pain and without pain, the existence of headache at the time of testing should be taken into consideration.
根据国际头痛协会的分类标准，紧张型头痛患者颅周肌肉疾病的存在应采用以下方法之一进行评估：肌电图（EMG）、压力痛觉测定法或手动触诊。本研究的目的是将15例发作性紧张型头痛患者、29例慢性紧张型头痛患者和22例无先兆偏头痛患者的这三种方法的结果与健康个体的结果进行比较。与对照组和偏头痛患者相比，发作性和慢性紧张性头痛患者在进行心算时额肌的压力痛觉测定和肌电图记录受损更严重。与对照组相比，慢性紧张性头痛患者在所有三项测试中斜方肌均有明显受损。我们的数据表明，与仅进行一项测试相比，进行两项或三项测试时诊断能力显著提高。此外，由于疼痛和无疼痛时会出现不同的模式，因此在测试时应考虑头痛的存在。
