scholarly journals Transient and Persistent Pain Induced Connectivity Alterations in Pediatric Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e57205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clas Linnman ◽  
Lino Becerra ◽  
Alyssa Lebel ◽  
Charles Berde ◽  
P. Ellen Grant ◽  
...  
PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e11882
Author(s):  
Valeria Bellan ◽  
Felicity A. Braithwaite ◽  
Erica M. Wilkinson ◽  
Tasha R. Stanton ◽  
G. Lorimer Moseley

Background Anecdotally, people living with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) often report difficulties in localising their own affected limb when it is out of view. Experimental attempts to investigate this report have used explicit tasks and yielded varied results. Methods Here we used a limb localisation task that interrogates implicit mechanisms because we first induce a compelling illusion called the Disappearing Hand Trick (DHT). In the DHT, participants judge their hands to be close together when, in fact, they are far apart. Sixteen volunteers with unilateral upper limb CRPS (mean age 39 ± 12 years, four males), 15 volunteers with non-CRPS persistent hand pain (‘pain controls’; mean age 58 ± 13 years, two males) and 29 pain-free volunteers (‘pain-free controls’; mean age 36 ± 19 years, 10 males) performed a hand-localisation task after each of three conditions: the DHT illusion and two control conditions in which no illusion was performed. The conditions were repeated twice (one for each hand). We hypothesised that (1) participants with CRPS would perform worse at hand self-localisation than both the control samples; (2) participants with non-CRPS persistent hand pain would perform worse than pain-free controls; (3) participants in both persistent pain groups would perform worse with their affected hand than with their unaffected hand. Results Our first two hypotheses were not supported. Our third hypothesis was supported —when visually and proprioceptively encoded positions of the hands were incongruent (i.e. after the DHT), relocalisation performance was worse with the affected hand than it was with the unaffected hand. The similar results in hand localisation in the control and pain groups might suggest that, when implicit processes are required, people with CRPS’ ability to localise their limb is preserved.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. e0180479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jae-Hun Kim ◽  
Soo-Hee Choi ◽  
Joon Hwan Jang ◽  
Do-Hyeong Lee ◽  
Kyung-Jun Lee ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Robert J. Barth

Abstract Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a controversial, ambiguous, unreliable, and unvalidated concept that, for these very reasons, has been justifiably ignored in the “AMA Guides Library” that includes the AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), the AMA Guides Newsletter, and other publications in this suite. But because of the surge of CRPS-related medicolegal claims and the mission of the AMA Guides to assist those who adjudicate such claims, a discussion of CRPS is warranted, especially because of what some believe to be confusing recommendations regarding causation. In 1994, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) introduced a newly invented concept, CRPS, to replace the concepts of reflex sympathetic dystrophy (replaced by CRPS I) and causalgia (replaced by CRPS II). An article in the November/December 1997 issue of The Guides Newsletter introduced CRPS and presciently recommended that evaluators avoid the IASP protocol in favor of extensive differential diagnosis based on objective findings. A series of articles in The Guides Newsletter in 2006 extensively discussed the shortcomings of CRPS. The AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, notes that the inherent lack of injury-relatedness for the nonvalidated concept of CRPS creates a dilemma for impairment evaluators. Focusing on impairment evaluation and not on injury-relatedness would greatly simplify use of the AMA Guides.


2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-5
Author(s):  
James B. Talmage ◽  
Jay Blaisdell

Abstract Physicians use a variety of methodologies within the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, to rate nerve injuries depending on the type of injury and location of the nerve. Traumatic injuries that cause impairment to the peripheral or brachial plexus nerves are rated using Section 15.4e, Peripheral Nerve and Brachial Plexus Impairment, for upper extremities and Section 16.4c, Peripheral Nerve Rating Process, for lower extremities. Verifiable nerve lesions that incite the symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome, type II (similar to the former concept of causalgia), also are rated in these sections. Nerve entrapments, which are not isolated traumatic events, are rated using the methodology in Section 15.4f, Entrapment Neuropathy. Type I complex regional pain syndrome is rated using Section 15.5, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome for upper extremities or Section 16.5, Complex Regional Pain Syndrome for lower extremities. The method for grading the sensory and motor deficits is analogous to the method described in previous editions of AMA Guides. Rating the permanent impairment of the peripheral nerves or brachial plexus is similar to the methodology used in the diagnosis-based impairment scheme with the exceptions that the physical examination grade modifier is never used to adjust the default rating and the names of individual nerves or plexus trunks, as opposed to the names of diagnoses, appear in the far left column of the rating grids.


2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-3, 9-12
Author(s):  
Robert J. Barth ◽  
Tom W. Bohr

Abstract From the previous issue, this article continues a discussion of the potentially confusing aspects of the diagnostic formulation for complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-1) proposed by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), the relevance of these issues for a proposed future protocol, and recommendations for clinical practice. IASP is working to resolve the contradictions in its approach to CRPS-1 diagnosis, but it continues to include the following criterion: “[c]ontinuing pain, which is disproportionate to any inciting event.” This language only perpetuates existing issues with current definitions, specifically the overlap between the IASP criteria for CRPS-1 and somatoform disorders, overlap with the guidelines for malingering, and self-contradiction with respect to the suggestion of injury-relatedness. The authors propose to overcome the last of these by revising the criterion: “[c]omplaints of pain in the absence of any identifiable injury that could credibly account for the complaints.” Similarly, the overlap with somatoform disorders could be reworded: “The possibility of a somatoform disorder has been thoroughly assessed, with the results of that assessment failing to produce any consistencies with a somatoform scenario.” The overlap with malingering could be addressed in this manner: “The possibility of malingering has been thoroughly assessed, with the results of that assessment failing to produce any consistencies with a malingering scenario.” The article concludes with six recommendations, and a sidebar discusses rating impairment for CRPS-1 (with explicit instructions not to use the pain chapter for this purpose).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document