Topographical pressure pain sensitivity maps of the shoulder region in individuals with subacromial pain syndrome

Ribeiro, Ivana Leão; Camargo, Paula R.; Alburquerque‐Sendín, Francisco; Madeleine, Pascal; Fernández‐de‐las‐Peñas, César; Salvini, Tania F.

doi:10.1016/j.math.2015.07.002

Cited by 22 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…More recently, the following anatomical landmarks (the acromion, C7, and the insertion of the deltoid muscle) were used to define a map of 33 points in the shoulder region. 23 In this map, a compass was used to define a Cartesian plane and determine the position of equidistant points covering the anterior, medial, and posterior part of the shoulder ( Figure 4 ).…”

Section: Methodology Of Topographical Pressure Pain Mapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Topographical pressure pain sensitivity maps have also been applied to investigate spatial changes in sensitivity to pressure; not just within the same muscle, but also in a particular anatomical area including the scalp, 37 , 38 shoulder, 19 , 23 elbow, 26 hand, 25 low back, 21 knee, 29 foot, 28 and the entire lower extremity. 30 These studies included different pain populations such as nummular headache, 37 migraine, 38 breast cancer survivors, 19 subacromial pain syndrome, 23 lateral elbow pain, 26 carpal tunnel syndrome, 25 knee osteoarthritis, 29 fibromyalgia syndrome, 28 and in asymptomatic adults 21 or soccer players. 30 …”

Section: Studies Reporting Topographical Pressure Pain Mapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spotlight on topographical pressure pain sensitivity maps: a review

Alburquerque‐Sendín¹,

Madeleine²,

Fernández‐de‐las‐Peñas³

et al. 2018

JPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mechanical hyperalgesia defined as decreased pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) is commonly associated with pain. In this narrative review, we report the current state of the art within topographical pressure sensitivity maps. Such maps are based on multiple PPT assessments. The PPTs are assessed by an a priori defined grid with special focus on both spatial and temporal summation issues. The grid covers the muscle or the body region of interest using absolute or relative values determined from anatomical landmarks or anthropometric values. The collected PPTs are interpolated by Shepard or Franke and Nielson interpolation methods to create topographical pressure sensitivity maps. This new imaging technique has proven to be valuable in various disciplines including exercise physiology, neurology, physical therapy, occupational medicine, oncology, orthopedics, and sport sciences. The reviewed papers have targeted different body regions like the scalp, low back, neck–shoulder, and upper and lower extremities. The maps have delineated spatial heterogeneity in the pressure pain sensitivity underlining the different extents of pressure pain hyperalgesia in both experimentally induced and disease-associated pain conditions. Furthermore, various intervention studies have proven the utility of topographical pressure pain sensitivity maps. Topographical pressure pain sensitivity maps have contributed to revealing the efficacy of therapeutic, ergonomic, or training interventions that aim at reducing pain.

show abstract

Section: Methodology Of Topographical Pressure Pain Mapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studies Reporting Topographical Pressure Pain Mapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spotlight on topographical pressure pain sensitivity maps: a review

Alburquerque‐Sendín¹,

Madeleine²,

Fernández‐de‐las‐Peñas³

et al. 2018

JPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pain sensitivity heat maps over the lumbar region were generated using R packages "gstat" [46] and "ggplot2" [47] based on inverse distance weighted interpolation. For ease of comparison, mean values of pain sensitivity was mapped onto the same color gradient scales ("matlab.like2") as used by Binderup et al and Ribeiro et al [17,19]. Variation in pain threshold was mapped to a blue-to-yellow color scale.…”

Section: Topographical Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The test site is one of the variables that need careful consideration when assessing pain sensitivity and a number of studies have examined the spatial distributions of pain sensitivity in the neck/shoulder region [15][16][17][18][19], the head and scalp [20][21][22], the upper extremities [23,24], the lower extremities [25][26][27], and lower back [17]. Most studies have used mechanical pressure pain thresholds and some thermal stimuli [23,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Topographic mapping of pain sensitivity of the lower back – a comparison of healthy controls and patients with chronic non-specific low back pain

O’Neill

Larsen

Nim

et al. 2018

Scandinavian Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractBackground and aimsThe choice of testing site for quantitative sensory testing (QST) of pain sensitivity is important and previous studies have demonstrated patterns in pain sensitivity within discrete areas in different body regions. Some areas are characterized by a relatively high degree of spatial pain discrimination and recognizable patterns of pain referral, whilst others are not. The lumbar region is likely to have relatively low pain acuity and overlapping of pain referral. The current study was conducted to determine whether patterns of pain sensitivity (detection thresholds) could be identified in the lower back, whether differences in such patterns exist between different groups and whether such patterns could help identify a clinical source of pain and localized increased pain sensitivity.MethodsTwenty-one patients with non-specific chronic low back pain and 21 healthy controls were tested for pressure and heat pain thresholds on 30 pre-defined locations over the mid and lower back. Topographical maps of mean pain thresholds and variability were produced, inspected visually and analyzed statistically. Between group differences in pain threshold were analyzed statistically as an indicator of widespread increased pain sensitivity. Evidence of segmental increased pain sensitivity was examined by group statistical comparison of mid-line lower range.ResultsA clear pattern of higher pain thresholds in the mid-line was evident in both groups and for both pain modalities. No discernible patterns were evident for variability within groups, but marked differences were seen between groups: variability for pressure pain thresholds appeared similar between groups, however for heat pain threshold, variability was uniformly low in the control group and uniformly high in the patient group. A highly significant (p<0.0001) difference in pain thresholds for pressure and heat was found with patients exhibiting lower thresholds than controls. No between group difference was found for mid-line lower range for either modality (p>0.05).ConclusionsThe current study supports previous findings of widespread, increased pain sensitivity in chronic non-specific low-back pain patients. It also indicates that there are discernible and similar topographical patterns of pain sensitivity in the dorsal area in both groups, but that this pattern is related to the lateral position of the test site and not the segmental level. Specific segments with increased pain sensitivity could not be identified in the patient group, which casts doubt on the utility of pressure and heat pain thresholds as indicators of the clinical source of spinal pain – at least in a population of chronic non-specific low-back pain.ImplicationsIn a cohort of chronic non-specific low-back pain patients and with the chosen methodology, topographical QST mapping in the lumbar region does not appear useful for identifying the spinal segment responsible for clinical pain, but it does demonstrate widespread group differences in pain sensitivity.

show abstract

“…The same rater was responsible for palpating and marking the pressure pain threshold site on each subject before any measurements, both on days 1 and 2. The middle deltoid's site was topographically determined in the middle of a horizontal line drawn between the acromioclavicular joint and the deltoid muscle insertion (Ribeiro et al, 2016). Three measurements were performed for each site, with 10-15 s apart.…”

Section: Intra-and Inter-rater Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Instrumental validity and intra/inter-rater reliability of a novel low-cost digital pressure algometer

Jerez‐Mayorga

Anjos

Macedo

et al. 2020

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Pain assessment is a key measure that accompanies treatments in a wide range of clinical settings. A low-cost valid and reliable pressure algometer would allow objective assessment of pressure pain to assist a variety of health professionals. However, the pressure algometer is often expensive, which limits its daily use in both clinical and research settings. Objectives This study aimed to assess the instrumental validity, and the intra- and inter-rater reliability of an inexpensive digital adapted pressure algometer. Methods A single rater applied 60 random compressions on a force platform. The pressure pain thresholds of 20 volunteers were collected twice (3 days apart) by two raters. The main outcome measurements were as follows: the maximal peak force (in kPa) and the pressure pain threshold (adapted pressure algometer vs. force platform). Cronbach’s α test was used to assess internal consistency. The standard error of measurement provided estimates of measurement error, and the measurement bias was estimated with the Bland–Altman method, with lower and upper limits of agreement. Results No differences were observed when comparing the compression results (P = 0.51). The validity and internal intra-rater consistencies ranged from 0.84 to 0.99, and the standard error of measurement from 0.005 to 0.04 kPa. Very strong (r = 0.73–0.74) to near-perfect (r = 0.99) correlations were found, with a low risk of bias for all measurements. The results demonstrated the validity and intra-rater reliability of the digitally adapted pressure algometer. Inter-rater reliability results were moderate (r = 0.55–0.60; Cronbach’s α = 0.71–0.75). Conclusion The adapted pressure algometer provide valid and reliable measurements of pressure pain threshold. The results support more widespread use of the pressure pain threshold method among clinicians.

show abstract

Topographical pressure pain sensitivity maps of the shoulder region in individuals with subacromial pain syndrome

Abstract: This study revealed no differences for mechanical pain sensitivity in patients with SAPS experiencing lower levels of pain compared with matched controls, but showed heterogeneous distribution of PPTs in the shoulder.

Cited by 22 publications

References 60 publications

Spotlight on topographical pressure pain sensitivity maps: a review

Spotlight on topographical pressure pain sensitivity maps: a review

Topographic mapping of pain sensitivity of the lower back – a comparison of healthy controls and patients with chronic non-specific low back pain

Instrumental validity and intra/inter-rater reliability of a novel low-cost digital pressure algometer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About