More than 1100 patients with neuropathic pain were examined using quantitative sensory testing. Independent of the etiology, 3 subtypes with distinct sensory profiles were identified and replicated.

Postoperative pain is often stated to be a significant contributor to a sympathetic stress response after surgery. However, hardly any evidence has been published to support this assumption. Hence it was the aim of this trial to investigate the relationship between postoperative pain and hemodynamic, endocrine, and autonomic parameters. A total of 85 postoperative patients in the recovery room were repeatedly asked to rate their pain on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Concurrently, the parameters of heart rate variability (HRV) were analysed, and mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and respiration rate (RR) were recorded. Pain was categorized into no, mild, moderate, and severe. Blood samples were taken for epinephrine (EPI) and norepinephrine (NE) plasma level assessment at the time of recovery room admission and discharge, and each time pain was found decreased in categorized severity. A total of 239 pain readings were obtained. None of the investigated parameters correlated with NRS scores. NE was higher at NRS 5 to 10 vs. NRS 0 to 4 (mean [SEM]: 1009 [73] pg/mL vs. 872 [65] pg/mL; P<0.01). This was also found for MAP, but not for EPI or the parameters of HRV, HR, and RR. In contrast to common belief, the severity of postoperative pain does not appear to be associated with the degree of sympathetic stress response after surgery, and other factors such as surgical trauma may be more important. Importantly, the absence of signs of sympathetic stimulation cannot be seen as a guarantee for the absence of significant pain.

BackgroundComplex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS-I) is characterized by sensory, motor and autonomic abnormalities without electrophysiological evidence of a nerve lesion.ObjectiveAims were to investigate how sensory, autonomic and motor function change in the course of the disease.Methods19 CRPS-I patients (17 with acute, 2 with chronic CRPS, mean duration of disease 5.7±8.3, range 1–33 months) were examined with questionnaires (LANSS, NPS, MPI, Quick DASH, multiple choice list of descriptors for sensory, motor, autonomic symptoms), motor and autonomic tests as well as quantitative sensory testing according to the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain at two visits (baseline and 36±10.6, range 16–53 months later).ResultsCRPS-I patients had an improvement of sudomotor and vasomotor function, but still a great impairment of sensory and motor function upon follow-up. Although pain and mechanical detection improved upon follow-up, thermal and mechanical pain sensitivity increased, including the contralateral side. Increase in mechanical pain sensitivity and loss of mechanical detection were associated with presence of ongoing pain.ConclusionsThe results demonstrate that patients with CRPS-I show a sensitization of the nociceptive system in the course of the disease, for which ongoing pain seems to be the most important trigger. They further suggest that measured loss of function in CRPS-I is due to pain-induced hypoesthesia rather than a minimal nerve lesion. In conclusion, this article gives evidence for a pronociceptive pain modulation profile developing in the course of CRPS and thus helps to assess underlying mechanisms of CRPS that contribute to the maintenance of patients’ pain and disability.

Introduction: Stratification of patients according to the individual sensory phenotype has been suggested a promising method to identify responders for pain treatment. However, many state-of-the-art sensory testing procedures are expensive or time-consuming. Objectives: Therefore, this study aimed to present a selection of easy-to-use bedside devices. Methods: In total, 73 patients (39 m/34 f) and 20 controls (11 m/9 f) received a standardized laboratory quantitative sensory testing (QST) and a bedside-QST. In addition, 50 patients were tested by a group of nonexperienced investigators to address the impact of training. The sensitivity, specificity, and receiver-operating characteristics were analyzed for each bedside-QST parameter as compared to laboratory QST. Furthermore, the patients' individual sensory phenotype (ie, cluster) was determined using laboratory QST, to select bedside-QST parameters most indicative for a correct cluster allocation. Results: The bedside-QST parameters “loss of cold perception to 22°C metal,” “hypersensitivity towards 45°C metal,” “loss of tactile perception to Q-tip and 0.7 mm CMS hair,” as well as “the allodynia sum score” indicated good sensitivity and specificity (ie, ≳70%). Results of interrater variability indicated that training is necessary for individual parameters (ie, CMS 0.7). For the cluster assessment, the respective bedside quantitative sensory testing (QST) parameter combination indicated the following agreements as compared to laboratory QST stratification: excellent for “sensory loss” (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.91), good for “thermal hyperalgesia” (AUC = 0.83), and fair for “mechanical hyperalgesia” (AUC = 0.75). Conclusion: This study presents a selection of bedside parameters to identify the individual sensory phenotype as cost and time efficient as possible.

Results suggest the consideration of impairment of QoL and functionality in addition to symptom intensity for treatment evaluation of chronic LBP. This can help to improve overall well-being of the patients and enhance efficacy in clinical pain trials and patient-centered treatment.

The painDETECT Questionnaire (PDQ) is commonly used as a screening tool to discriminate between neuropathic pain (NP) and nociceptive pain, based on the self-report of symptoms, including pain qualities, numbness, and pain to touch, cold, or heat. However, there are minimal data about whether the PDQ is differentially sensitive to different sensory phenotypes in NP. The aim of the study was to analyze whether the overall PDQ score or its items reflect phenotypes of sensory loss in NP as determined by quantitative sensory testing. An exploratory analysis in the Innovative Medicines Initiative Europain and Neuropain database was performed. Data records of 336 patients identified with NP were grouped into sensory profiles characterized by (1) no loss of sensation, (2) loss of thermal sensation, (3) loss of mechanical sensation, and (4) loss of thermal and mechanical sensation. painDETECT Questionnaire profiles were analyzed in a 2-factor analysis of variance. Patients with loss of thermal sensation (2 and 4) significantly more often reported pain evoked by light touch, and patients with loss of mechanical sensation (3 and 4) significantly more often reported numbness and significantly less often burning sensations and pain evoked by light touch. Although the PDQ was not designed to assess sensory loss, single items reflect thermal and/or mechanical sensory loss at group level, but because of substantial variability, the PDQ does not allow for individual allocation of patients into sensory profiles. It will be useful to develop screening tools according to the current definition of NP.

The diagnostic criteria of the third International Classification of Headache Disorders state that there should be no neurological deficits in patients with classical trigeminal neuralgia (TN) at clinical examination. However, studies demonstrating sensory abnormalities at bedside examination in TN patients have questioned this. Our aim was to examine whether TN patients without sensory abnormalities at neurological examination have sensory abnormalities at quantitative sensory testing (QST) and whether there were any QST differences between TN with and without concomitant persistent pain. Thirty-six TN patients were investigated with the standardized QST protocol by the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain. The investigators were blinded to presence of concomitant persistent pain and symptomatic side. Based on comparison to the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain controls, z scores were calculated to process frequency analyses and Z-profiles. We found increased mechanical detection threshold on the symptomatic side (47.2% vs 0%, P = 0.008), asymptomatic side (33.3% vs 0%, P = 0.011), and hand (36% vs 0%, P < 0.001) in TN compared with controls. The Z-profiles demonstrated increased mechanical detection threshold on the symptomatic side compared with the asymptomatic side (-2.980 vs -2.166, P = 0.040). Thermal and mechanical hyperalgesia was detected bilaterally in the face and the hand. Trigeminal neuralgia patients with concomitant persistent pain tended to have higher mean z score values compared to TN with purely paroxysmal pain indicative of decreased detection thresholds. Trigeminal neuralgia patients with no sensory abnormalities at neurological examination had generalized subclinical hypoesthesia, which was more pronounced on the symptomatic side, and thermal and mechanical hyperalgesia. This could indicate pain-induced hypoesthesia and sensitization induced by central mechanisms.

CEPs were reliably recorded in healthy subjects at the hand, face and foot. Experimentally induced reversible A-delta fibre function loss was detected by CEPs. Functional recovery was assessed as well. This study is basis for further CEP evaluation studies and might be the first step for implementing CEPs in clinical routine for the early diagnosis of small-fibre disease. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD?: Cold-evoked potentials are capable of reliably measuring A-delta fibre integrity, loss of function and functional recovery in healthy subjects, which is an essential prerequisite for diagnostic use in patients with small-fibre disease.