A case report of a patient with upper extremity symptoms: differentiating radicular and referred pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Similar upper extremity symptoms can present with varied physiologic etiologies. However, due to the multifaceted nature of musculoskeletal conditions, a definitive diagnosis using physical examination and advanced testing is not always possible. This report discusses the diagnosis and case management of a patient with two episodes of similar upper extremity symptoms of different etiologies.</p> <p>Case Presentation</p> <p>On two separate occasions a forty-four year old female patient presented to a chiropractic office with a chief complaint of insidious right-sided upper extremity symptoms. During each episode she reported similar pain and parasthesias from her neck and shoulder to her lateral forearm and hand.</p> <p>During the first episode the patient was diagnosed with a cervical radiculopathy. Conservative treatment, including manual cervical traction, spinal manipulation and neuromobilization, was initiated and resolved the symptoms.</p> <p>Approximately eighteen months later the patient again experienced a severe acute flare-up of the upper extremity symptoms. Although the subjective complaint was similar, it was determined that the pain generator of this episode was an active trigger point of the infraspinatus muscle. A diagnosis of myofascial referred pain was made and a protocol of manual trigger point therapy and functional postural rehabilitative exercises improved the condition.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this case a thorough physical evaluation was able to differentiate between radicular and referred pain. By accurately identifying the pain generating structures, the appropriate rehabilitative protocol was prescribed and led to a successful outcome for each condition. Conservative manual therapy and rehabilitative exercises may be an effective treatment for certain cases of cervical radiculopathy and myofascial referred pain.</p

Sleep-wake sensitive mechanisms of adenosine release in the basal forebrain of rodents : an in vitro study

Adenosine acting in the basal forebrain is a key mediator of sleep homeostasis. Extracellular adenosine concentrations increase during wakefulness, especially during prolonged wakefulness and lead to increased sleep pressure and subsequent rebound sleep. The release of endogenous adenosine during the sleep-wake cycle has mainly been studied in vivo with microdialysis techniques. The biochemical changes that accompany sleep-wake status may be preserved in vitro. We have therefore used adenosine-sensitive biosensors in slices of the basal forebrain (BFB) to study both depolarization-evoked adenosine release and the steady state adenosine tone in rats, mice and hamsters. Adenosine release was evoked by high K+, AMPA, NMDA and mGlu receptor agonists, but not by other transmitters associated with wakefulness such as orexin, histamine or neurotensin. Evoked and basal adenosine release in the BFB in vitro exhibited three key features: the magnitude of each varied systematically with the diurnal time at which the animal was sacrificed; sleep deprivation prior to sacrifice greatly increased both evoked adenosine release and the basal tone; and the enhancement of evoked adenosine release and basal tone resulting from sleep deprivation was reversed by the inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) inhibitor, 1400 W. These data indicate that characteristics of adenosine release recorded in the BFB in vitro reflect those that have been linked in vivo to the homeostatic control of sleep. Our results provide methodologically independent support for a key role for induction of iNOS as a trigger for enhanced adenosine release following sleep deprivation and suggest that this induction may constitute a biochemical memory of this state

Discrepancy between prevalence and perceived effectiveness of treatment methods in myofascial pain syndrome: Results of a cross-sectional, nationwide survey

Background: Myofascial pain is a common dysfunction with a lifetime prevalence affecting up to 85% of the general population. Current guidelines for the management of myofascial pain are not available. In this study we investigated how physicians on the basis of prescription behaviour evaluate the effectiveness of treatment options in their management of myofascial pain. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, nationwide survey with a standardized questionnaire among 332 physicians (79.8% male, 25.6% female, 47.5 +/- 9.6 years) experienced in treating patients with myofascial pain. Recruitment of physicians took place at three German meetings of pain therapists, rheumatologists and orthopaedists, respectively. Physicians estimated the prevalence of myofascial pain amongst patients in their practices, stated what treatments they used routinely and then rated the perceived treatment effectiveness on a six-point scale (with 1 being excellent). Data are expressed as mean +/- standard deviation. Results: The estimated overall prevalence of active myofascial trigger points is 46.1 +/- 27.4%. Frequently prescribed treatments are analgesics, mainly metamizol/paracetamol (91.6%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/coxibs (87.0%) or weak opioids (81.8%), and physical therapies, mainly manual therapy (81.1%), TENS (72.9%) or acupuncture (60.2%). Overall effectiveness ratings for analgesics (2.9 +/- 0.7) and physical therapies were moderate (2.5 +/- 0.8). Effectiveness ratings of the various treatment options between specialities were widely variant. 54.3% of all physicians characterized the available treatment options as insufficient. Conclusions: Myofascial pain was estimated a prevalent condition. Despite a variety of commonly prescribed treatments, the moderate effectiveness ratings and the frequent characterizations of the available treatments as insufficient suggest an urgent need for clinical research to establish evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome