No abstract

No abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.Adding 6 sessions of pain neuroscience education to standard physiotherapy after breast cancer surgery did not result in a better course of functioning compared with biomedical pain education.

Objective Quantitative sensory testing (QST) are non-invasive psychophysical assessment techniques to evaluate functioning of the somatosensory nervous system. Despite the importance of reliability for correct use of QST results in research and clinical practice, the relative and absolute intra-and inter-rater reliability of a comprehensive QST protocol to evaluate the functioning of both peripheral and central somatosensory nervous system in a breast cancer population, has not yet been investigated. Setting University Hospitals, Leuven, Belgium. Subjects Thirty women at least six months after unilateral breast cancer surgery Methods The protocol included nine static and dynamic QST methods (mechanical detection-pain thresholds, pressure pain thresholds, thermal detection-pain thresholds for heat and cold, temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation (CPM)) performed in the surgical area and more distant regions. Absolute and relative intra (60-minutes interval) and inter-rater (one-week interval) reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients, standard error of measurement and Bland-Altman plots. Results A moderate to excellent relative intra- and inter-rater reliability was found for the evaluation of mechanical thresholds, pressure pain thresholds and temporal summation. Reliability of the CPM paradigm was considered weak. Systematic bias between raters was noticed for detection of mechanical and cold stimuli at the non-affected trunk and CPM. Conclusions Except for the evaluation of CPM, the QST protocol was found suitable for identifying differences between subjects (relative reliability) and individual follow-up after breast cancer surgery (limited systematic bias) during a one-week timeframe. Additional research is required to determine measurement properties that influence CPM test stability in order to establish a more reliable CPM test paradigm.

No abstract

Objectives: Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a noninvasive technique to evaluate functioning of the somatosensory system. In many women surgically treated for breast cancer (BC), somatosensory functioning is disturbed with high prevalence of sensory loss and/or pain. The aims of this systematic review were (1) to summarize literature about QST methods; (2) to summarize the results within women surgically treated for BC (patients and survivors); (3) to compare QST results between women surgically treated for BC with and without pain; and (4) to compare the results between women surgically treated for BC and women without history of BC.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted up to February 2020. Included studies had to report on QST methods (mechanical or thermal detection-pain thresholds, pressure pain thresholds [PPT], temporal summation [TS], or conditioned pain modulation [CPM]) in women over 18 years with-without pain, who had undergone unilateral surgery for BC.Results: Twenty-eight studies were included. Discrepancies in QST methods were greatest for TS and CPM. A local disturbance in thermal detection and an increased pain facilitation were found in BC survivors with pain in the surgical area. BC survivors with upper limb pain had significantly lower PPT at the surgical area and PPT were also significantly lower compared with women without history of BC, at affected and nonaffected sides for both local and remote body regions.Discussion: Standardized QST incorporating assessments of CPM is warranted in order to draw conclusions about neurobiological mechanisms of pain and somatosensory disturbances after surgical treatment for BC and to enhance mechanism-based management of these sequelae.

Objective: To synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of pain science education on pain, psychological factors and physical functioning in adults who underwent surgery. Data sources: A systematic literature search of English articles using PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Library. Review methods: The search strategy was constructed as follows: (((pain) AND (education)) OR (pain education)) AND (surgery). Only controlled quantitative studies in adults reporting outcome(s) on pain, psychological factors and/or physical functioning were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tools. P-values and corresponding effect sizes for interaction-effect (time × group) portrayed the difference in change over time between groups were of interest. The last search was conducted on February 28, 2021. Results: Nine papers ( n = 1078) were deemed eligible for this review. Two randomized controlled trials showed significant interaction effects. Breast cancer patients who had received one preoperative pain science education session showed a significant increase in postoperative pain compared to controls ( P-value = 0.0394). Furthermore, p sychological factors (pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia) decreased in participants who had received pain science education before total knee arthroplasty, while this was not the case in the control group ( P-value < 0.001, ƞ2p:0.11). Conclusions: Overall, pain science education did not result in any significant postoperative effects on pain, psychological factors and/or physical functioning compared to controls. There is currently no strong evidence for the implementation of pain science education in the perioperative period. Registration number: PROSPERO: ID 161267, registration number CRD42020161267

No abstract