比较心理知情和常规物理治疗对慢性腰痛疼痛敏感性的影响:一项探索性随机对照试验。

IF 2.1 Q1 REHABILITATION
Archives of physiotherapy Pub Date : 2025-02-17 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.33393/aop.2025.3323
Hugo Massé-Alarie, Amélie Desgagnés, Claudia Côté-Picard, Olivier Liberty, Pierre Langevin, Mathieu Piché, Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme
{"title":"比较心理知情和常规物理治疗对慢性腰痛疼痛敏感性的影响:一项探索性随机对照试验。","authors":"Hugo Massé-Alarie, Amélie Desgagnés, Claudia Côté-Picard, Olivier Liberty, Pierre Langevin, Mathieu Piché, Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme","doi":"10.33393/aop.2025.3323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The presence of altered central pain processing and modulation, as well as negative psychological factors, have been suggested to impede recovery in chronic low back pain (CLBP). Psychologically-informed physiotherapy (PiP) aims to specifically address the latter factors-in addition to physical factors-to improve treatment effects. This study aims to determine if the effect of PiP is superior to usual physiotherapy (UP) on pain sensitivity and modulation in participants with CLBP and if changes in these variables were associated with changes in clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty participants with CLBP were randomly allocated to PiP or UP. Seven physiotherapy sessions over 6 weeks plus a booster session at an 11-week follow-up were delivered. Pressure pain threshold (PPT), temporal summation of pain (TSP), and exercise-induced hypoalgesia were assessed on lumbar, upper, and lower limb sites at baseline and after 6 weeks. Linear mixed models tested if PiP was superior to UP on pain sensitivity/modulation. Linear regressions tested if pain sensitivity/modulation changes were associated with changes in clinical outcomes (pain intensity, physical functioning, symptoms of central sensitization).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PiP was not superior to UP to modulate pain sensitivity/modulation variables. All PPTs increased after 6 weeks regardless of the approach. Lumbar PPT and lumbar and lower limb TSP changes were associated with physical functioning changes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although our study suggests that neither approach has a superiority to impact on pain sensitivity, both approaches elicited widespread hypoalgesia. Future powered trials should verify if pain sensitivity can be a mediator of physical functioning improvement, as suggested by our results.</p>","PeriodicalId":72290,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physiotherapy","volume":"15 ","pages":"32-41"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11836659/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparisons of the effects of psychologically-informed and usual physiotherapy on pain sensitivity in chronic low back pain: an exploratory randomized controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Hugo Massé-Alarie, Amélie Desgagnés, Claudia Côté-Picard, Olivier Liberty, Pierre Langevin, Mathieu Piché, Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme\",\"doi\":\"10.33393/aop.2025.3323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The presence of altered central pain processing and modulation, as well as negative psychological factors, have been suggested to impede recovery in chronic low back pain (CLBP). Psychologically-informed physiotherapy (PiP) aims to specifically address the latter factors-in addition to physical factors-to improve treatment effects. This study aims to determine if the effect of PiP is superior to usual physiotherapy (UP) on pain sensitivity and modulation in participants with CLBP and if changes in these variables were associated with changes in clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty participants with CLBP were randomly allocated to PiP or UP. Seven physiotherapy sessions over 6 weeks plus a booster session at an 11-week follow-up were delivered. Pressure pain threshold (PPT), temporal summation of pain (TSP), and exercise-induced hypoalgesia were assessed on lumbar, upper, and lower limb sites at baseline and after 6 weeks. Linear mixed models tested if PiP was superior to UP on pain sensitivity/modulation. Linear regressions tested if pain sensitivity/modulation changes were associated with changes in clinical outcomes (pain intensity, physical functioning, symptoms of central sensitization).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PiP was not superior to UP to modulate pain sensitivity/modulation variables. All PPTs increased after 6 weeks regardless of the approach. Lumbar PPT and lumbar and lower limb TSP changes were associated with physical functioning changes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although our study suggests that neither approach has a superiority to impact on pain sensitivity, both approaches elicited widespread hypoalgesia. Future powered trials should verify if pain sensitivity can be a mediator of physical functioning improvement, as suggested by our results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"volume\":\"15 \",\"pages\":\"32-41\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11836659/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33393/aop.2025.3323\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33393/aop.2025.3323","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

中枢性疼痛加工和调节的改变,以及负面心理因素的存在,已被认为会阻碍慢性腰痛(CLBP)的恢复。心理知情物理治疗(PiP)旨在专门解决后一个因素-除了物理因素-以提高治疗效果。本研究旨在确定PiP在CLBP患者的疼痛敏感性和调节方面是否优于常规物理治疗(UP),以及这些变量的变化是否与临床结果的变化相关。方法:40例CLBP患者随机分为PiP组和UP组。在6周内进行了7次物理治疗,并在11周的随访中进行了一次加强治疗。在基线和6周后评估腰椎、上肢和下肢的压痛阈值(PPT)、疼痛时间总和(TSP)和运动引起的痛觉减退。线性混合模型测试了PiP在疼痛敏感性/调节方面是否优于UP。线性回归测试疼痛敏感性/调节变化是否与临床结果(疼痛强度、身体功能、中枢致敏症状)的变化相关。结果:PiP在调节疼痛敏感性/调节变量方面并不优于UP。无论采用何种方法,6周后所有PPTs均升高。腰椎PPT和腰椎及下肢TSP的改变与身体功能的改变有关。结论:虽然我们的研究表明两种方法对疼痛敏感性的影响都没有优势,但两种方法都引起了广泛的痛觉减退。正如我们的结果所表明的那样,未来的有力试验应该验证疼痛敏感性是否可以作为身体功能改善的中介。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparisons of the effects of psychologically-informed and usual physiotherapy on pain sensitivity in chronic low back pain: an exploratory randomized controlled trial.

Introduction: The presence of altered central pain processing and modulation, as well as negative psychological factors, have been suggested to impede recovery in chronic low back pain (CLBP). Psychologically-informed physiotherapy (PiP) aims to specifically address the latter factors-in addition to physical factors-to improve treatment effects. This study aims to determine if the effect of PiP is superior to usual physiotherapy (UP) on pain sensitivity and modulation in participants with CLBP and if changes in these variables were associated with changes in clinical outcomes.

Methods: Forty participants with CLBP were randomly allocated to PiP or UP. Seven physiotherapy sessions over 6 weeks plus a booster session at an 11-week follow-up were delivered. Pressure pain threshold (PPT), temporal summation of pain (TSP), and exercise-induced hypoalgesia were assessed on lumbar, upper, and lower limb sites at baseline and after 6 weeks. Linear mixed models tested if PiP was superior to UP on pain sensitivity/modulation. Linear regressions tested if pain sensitivity/modulation changes were associated with changes in clinical outcomes (pain intensity, physical functioning, symptoms of central sensitization).

Results: PiP was not superior to UP to modulate pain sensitivity/modulation variables. All PPTs increased after 6 weeks regardless of the approach. Lumbar PPT and lumbar and lower limb TSP changes were associated with physical functioning changes.

Conclusion: Although our study suggests that neither approach has a superiority to impact on pain sensitivity, both approaches elicited widespread hypoalgesia. Future powered trials should verify if pain sensitivity can be a mediator of physical functioning improvement, as suggested by our results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信