The result of acute induced psychosocial stress on pain sensitivity and modulation in healthy people

Background: Pain can be influenced by several factors, including stress. Stress can have various reactions on pain. These reactions are influenced by several internal factors such as gender, age, and experience with stress or pain. Objectives: To determine the effect of acute stress on mechanical hyperalgesia (with pressure pain thresholds [PPT]), endogenous pain facilitation (measured by temporal summation [TS]), and inhibition (measured by conditioned pain modulation [CPM]) in healthy people and to determine which factors are responsible for this stress result. Study Design: Pre-posttest design. Setting: Healthy volunteers from Belgium. Methods: One hundred and one healthy pain-free patients underwent a modified Trier Social Stress Test. Prior and following the stress manipulation, PPT, TS, and CPM efficacy were determined in the mm. trapezius and quadriceps and overall. Furthermore, possible explanatory factors, such as fear of pain, pain catastrophizing, pain hypervigilance, and daily activity levels, were assessed using questionnaires. Results: We found a significant stress result on widespread pain sensitivity, with an increase of PPT (P 0.05), and a decrease in CPM efficacy (P < 0.001). Factors associated with the stress result were age, previous surgery, attentional focus on the conditioning stimulus during CPM, fear of pain, and daily activity levels. Limitations: The efficacy of the stress manipulation was not examined, and the lack of a control group prevented to examine a real stress-effect. Furthermore, no physiologic parameters were measured as possibly influencing internal factors for the stress-result. Conclusions: The increase in PPT was not a clinically significant change, whereas the decrease in CPM was meaningful. None of the factors predicted the stress result in all experimental pain measurements, and the predictions that were observed only explained a small proportion of the observed effects

Treatment of central sensitization in patients with rheumatoid arthritis : a narrative overview

Purpose of reviewCentral sensitization (CS) is present in a variety of chronic pain conditions including rheumatoid arthritis (RA). An overview of the treatment options for desensitizing the central nervous system in RA patients, with CS as their dominant pain mechanism, is provided.Recent findingsThe treatment of pain in RA patients has mostly focused on treating inflammation to indirectly treat pain. Unfortunately, little research has focused on treating CS, which appears to be present in some patients with RA.Summary"Treating the brain without ignoring the joints" should be the leading principle in the management of CS in RA patients. Pain neuroscience education, graded activity, and a time-contingent exercise approach are important interventions to implement in clinical practice. Further research is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of these promising treatments for diminishing hyperexcitability of the central nervous system in RA patients with CS as their dominant pain mechanism

The result of acute induced psychosocial stress on pain sensitivity and modulation in healthy people.

Background: Pain can be influenced by several factors, including stress. Stress can have various reactions on pain. These reactions are influenced by several internal factors such as gender, age, and experience with stress or pain. Objectives: To determine the effect of acute stress on mechanical hyperalgesia (with pressure pain thresholds [PPT]), endogenous pain facilitation (measured by temporal summation [TS]), and inhibition (measured by conditioned pain modulation [CPM]) in healthy people and to determine which factors are responsible for this stress result. Study Design: Pre-posttest design. Setting: Healthy volunteers from Belgium. Methods: One hundred and one healthy pain-free patients underwent a modified Trier Social Stress Test. Prior and following the stress manipulation, PPT, TS, and CPM efficacy were determined in the mm. trapezius and quadriceps and overall. Furthermore, possible explanatory factors, such as fear of pain, pain catastrophizing, pain hypervigilance, and daily activity levels, were assessed using questionnaires. Results: We found a significant stress result on widespread pain sensitivity, with an increase of PPT (P 0.05), and a decrease in CPM efficacy (P < 0.001). Factors associated with the stress result were age, previous surgery, attentional focus on the conditioning stimulus during CPM, fear of pain, and daily activity levels. Limitations: The efficacy of the stress manipulation was not examined, and the lack of a control group prevented to examine a real stress-effect. Furthermore, no physiologic parameters were measured as possibly influencing internal factors for the stress-result. Conclusions: The increase in PPT was not a clinically significant change, whereas the decrease in CPM was meaningful. None of the factors predicted the stress result in all experimental pain measurements, and the predictions that were observed only explained a small proportion of the observed effects

Personal influencing factors for pressure pain threshold in healthy people : a systematic review and meta-analysis

All studies that investigated personal factors influencing pressure pain threshold (PPT) in healthy people were synthesized. Data was summarized, and risk of bias (RoB) and level of evidence were determined. Results were pooled per influencing factor, grouped by body region and included in meta-analyses. Fifty-four studies were eligible. Five had low, nine moderate, and 40 high RoB. Following meta-analyses, a strong conclusion was found for the influence of scapular position, a moderate for the influence of gender, and a weak for the influence of age (shoulder/arm region) and blood pressure on PPT. In addition, body mass index, gender (leg region), alcohol consumption and pain vigilance may not influence PPT. Based on qualitative summary, depression and meno-pause may not influence PPT. For other variables there was only preliminary or conflicting evidence. However, caution is advised, since the majority of included studies showed a high RoB and several were not eligible to include in meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was high in the performed meta-analyses, and most conclusions were weak. More standardized research is necessary

Prehabilitation before total knee arthroplasty:A systematic review on the use and efficacy of stratified care

BACKGROUND: Preoperative rehabilitation (hereafter called "prehabilitation") has been proposed as a potentially effective treatment to target preoperative risk factors to prevent insufficient outcome after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). PURPOSE: We aimed to assess whether previous clinical trials of non-surgical, non-pharmacological prehabilitation in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) awaiting TKA focused on specific clinical phenotypes or specific individual characteristics and whether the content of the prehabilitation was stratified accordingly. Second, we aimed to summarize and compare the long-term effects of stratified and non-stratified care on pain, satisfaction, function and quality of life. METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Embase was performed. All relevant articles published up to April 19, 2021 reporting "(randomized controlled) clinical trials or prospective cohort studies" (S) related to the key words "total knee arthroplasty" (P), "preoperative conservative interventions" (I), "pain, function, quality of life and/or satisfaction" (O) were included. RESULTS: After screening 3498 potentially eligible records, 18 studies were assessed for risk of bias. Twelve studies had low, 2 moderate, 3 serious, and one high risk of bias. The latter study was excluded, resulting in 17 included studies. Five studies investigated a"stratified prehabilitation care" and 12 "non-stratified prehabilitation care". Stratified prehabilitation in 4 studies meant that the study sample was chosen considering a predefined intervention, and in the fifth study, the prehabilitation was stratified to individuals' needs. No direct comparison between the 2 approaches was possible. We found weak evidence for a positive effect of biopsychosocial prehabilitation compared to no prehabilitation on function (stratified studies) and pain neuroscience education prehabilitation compared to biomedical education on satisfaction (non-stratified studies) at 6 months post-TKA. We found strong evidence for positive effects of exercise prehabilitation compared to no prehabilitation on pain at 6 months and on function at 12 months post-TKA (non-stratified studies). CONCLUSION: More research is needed of stratified prehabilitation care focusing on individual characteristics in people with KOA awaiting TKA. REGISTRATION NUMBER: This systematic review was prospectively registered at PROSPERO on March 22, 2021 (no. CRD42021221098)