{"title":"经皮神经电刺激(TENS):开发一种临床友好的方法来评估兴奋性和抑制性疼痛机制。","authors":"Monica Sean, Alexia Coulombe-Lévêque, Matthieu Vincenot, Marylie Martel, Louis Gendron, Serge Marchand, Guillaume Léonard","doi":"10.1080/24740527.2020.1862624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background: Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) can be measured using a thermode and cold pressor test (CPTest). Unfortunately, these complex and expensive tools are ill-suited for routine clinical assessments. Aims: We aimed to compare the temporal summation and CPM obtained with the thermode + CPTest paradigm to those obtained with a novel paradigm using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). Methods: We assessed temporal summation and CPM in 29 healthy participants, using two paradigms (random order): TENS, and thermode + CPTest. In the TENS paradigm, both the conditioning stimulus (CS) and the test stimulus (TS) were delivered using TENS; in the thermode + CPTest paradigm, the CS consisted of a CPTest and the TS was delivered using a thermode. We compared the average temporal summation and CPM evoked by the two paradigms. Results: Average temporal summation was similar for both modalities (P = 0.90), and the number of participants showing temporal summation was similar in both paradigms (19 with thermode vs. 18 with TENS; P = 1.00). Average CPM response was larger following the thermode + CPTest than following the TENS (P = 0.005), and more participants showed CPM with the thermode + CPTest paradigm compared to the TENS paradigm (24 vs. 14; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Both paradigms were roughly equivalent in the ability to evoke temporal summation (although response to one modality did not predict response to the other), but the TENS paradigm appeared to be less apt to induce a CPM response than the thermode + CPTest paradigm.","PeriodicalId":53214,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur","volume":"5 1","pages":"56-65"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/24740527.2020.1862624","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS): towards the development of a clinic-friendly method for the evaluation of excitatory and inhibitory pain mechanisms.\",\"authors\":\"Monica Sean, Alexia Coulombe-Lévêque, Matthieu Vincenot, Marylie Martel, Louis Gendron, Serge Marchand, Guillaume Léonard\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/24740527.2020.1862624\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Background: Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) can be measured using a thermode and cold pressor test (CPTest). Unfortunately, these complex and expensive tools are ill-suited for routine clinical assessments. Aims: We aimed to compare the temporal summation and CPM obtained with the thermode + CPTest paradigm to those obtained with a novel paradigm using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). Methods: We assessed temporal summation and CPM in 29 healthy participants, using two paradigms (random order): TENS, and thermode + CPTest. In the TENS paradigm, both the conditioning stimulus (CS) and the test stimulus (TS) were delivered using TENS; in the thermode + CPTest paradigm, the CS consisted of a CPTest and the TS was delivered using a thermode. We compared the average temporal summation and CPM evoked by the two paradigms. Results: Average temporal summation was similar for both modalities (P = 0.90), and the number of participants showing temporal summation was similar in both paradigms (19 with thermode vs. 18 with TENS; P = 1.00). Average CPM response was larger following the thermode + CPTest than following the TENS (P = 0.005), and more participants showed CPM with the thermode + CPTest paradigm compared to the TENS paradigm (24 vs. 14; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Both paradigms were roughly equivalent in the ability to evoke temporal summation (although response to one modality did not predict response to the other), but the TENS paradigm appeared to be less apt to induce a CPM response than the thermode + CPTest paradigm.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"56-65\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/24740527.2020.1862624\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/24740527.2020.1862624\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24740527.2020.1862624","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS): towards the development of a clinic-friendly method for the evaluation of excitatory and inhibitory pain mechanisms.
ABSTRACT Background: Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) can be measured using a thermode and cold pressor test (CPTest). Unfortunately, these complex and expensive tools are ill-suited for routine clinical assessments. Aims: We aimed to compare the temporal summation and CPM obtained with the thermode + CPTest paradigm to those obtained with a novel paradigm using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). Methods: We assessed temporal summation and CPM in 29 healthy participants, using two paradigms (random order): TENS, and thermode + CPTest. In the TENS paradigm, both the conditioning stimulus (CS) and the test stimulus (TS) were delivered using TENS; in the thermode + CPTest paradigm, the CS consisted of a CPTest and the TS was delivered using a thermode. We compared the average temporal summation and CPM evoked by the two paradigms. Results: Average temporal summation was similar for both modalities (P = 0.90), and the number of participants showing temporal summation was similar in both paradigms (19 with thermode vs. 18 with TENS; P = 1.00). Average CPM response was larger following the thermode + CPTest than following the TENS (P = 0.005), and more participants showed CPM with the thermode + CPTest paradigm compared to the TENS paradigm (24 vs. 14; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Both paradigms were roughly equivalent in the ability to evoke temporal summation (although response to one modality did not predict response to the other), but the TENS paradigm appeared to be less apt to induce a CPM response than the thermode + CPTest paradigm.