Experimental shoulder pain models do not validly replicate the clinical experience of shoulder pain

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-174
Author(s):  
Brendon Ford ◽  
Milton Cohen ◽  
Mark Halaki ◽  
Joanna Diong ◽  
Karen A. Ginn

AbstractBackground and aimsPeople with shoulder pain often present with abnormal shoulder muscle function. It is not known whether shoulder pain causes or is the result of muscle dysfunction. If pain leads to muscle dysfunction, therapeutic interventions that produce shoulder pain may be contraindicated. Experimentally induced nociception can be used to investigate a causal relationship between shoulder pain and muscle dysfunction. However, the validity of current experimental shoulder pain protocols has not been established. The aim of this study was to determine whether current experimental shoulder pain protocols validly replicate the clinical experience of shoulder pain with respect to pain distribution, quality and behaviour.MethodsNine pain free participants received two injections of hypertonic saline, one into the subacromial space and one into supraspinatus, in random order, at least 1 week apart. Investigators blind to the injection site assessed pain distribution, pain response to clinical tests which provoke shoulder pain and pain quality assessed using the McGill Pain Questionnaire.ResultsFollowing hypertonic saline injection into both the subacromial space and supraspinatus: pain was most commonly reported in the deltoid region and did not extend beyond the elbow; the most common response to clinical tests which provoke shoulder pain was a decrease in pain; and the highest rating of pain quality was in the sensory domain with very few responses in the affective domain.ConclusionsExperimental shoulder pain induced by injection of hypertonic saline into either the subacromial space or supraspinatus produced a pain distribution similar to that observed in clinical shoulder pain, but neither experimental pain protocol could reproduce the increases in pain intensity following shoulder provocation tests or the emotional distress commonly observed in people with clinical shoulder pain.ImplicationsPain induced by local shoulder nociception produced by hypertonic saline injection into shoulder structures has significant limitations as a model of clinical shoulder pain. While it is perhaps unsurprising that short duration, chemically-induced experimental pain does not replicate the quality of the clinical experience of shoulder pain, the validity of experimental shoulder pain models which produce the opposite response to provocation testing to clinical shoulder pain must be questioned.

2008 ◽  
Vol 25 (Sup 44) ◽  
pp. 202-203
Author(s):  
M. Czuczwar ◽  
A. Kolacz ◽  
J. Luszczki ◽  
K. Przesmycki

2011 ◽  
Vol 02 (02) ◽  
pp. 130-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keshab Raj Paudel ◽  
SK Bhattacharya ◽  
GP Rauniar ◽  
BP Das

ABSTRACT Introduction: Newer anticonvulsants have a neuromodulatory effect on pain perception mechanisms in a hyperexcitable and damaged nervous system. Aim: This study was designed to study the analgesic effects of gabapentin alone and in combination with lamotrigine and topiramate in experimental pain models. Materials and Methods: Adult albino mice (n = 490) weighing 20–30 g and rats (n = 130) weighing 100–200 g were injected intraperitoneally with gabapentin, lamotrigine, and topiramate alone and in different dose combinations. The hot-plate method, tail-flick method, capsaicin-induced mechanical hyperalgesia, and formalin assay were used to assess the antinociceptive effects. Results: Of the three antiepileptic drugs, when given separately, gabapentin was more efficacious than either topiramate or lamotrigine in all the pain models. Combination of 25 mg/kg gabapentin with 25 mg/kg topiramate was more efficacious (P <.05) than 50 mg/kg gabapentin alone in the capsaicin-induced mechanical hyperalgesia test. Similarly, 50 mg/kg gabapentin with 50 mg/kg topiramate or 5 mg/kg lamotrigine was more efficacious (P <.05) than 50 or 100 mg/kg gabapentin alone in late-phase formalin-induced behaviors. Conclusions: Combination of gabapentin with either lamotrigine or topiramate produced better results than gabapentin alone in capsaicin-induced mechanical hyperalgesia test and in late-phase formalin-induced behaviors.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sayema Ainan ◽  
Noorzahan Begum ◽  
Taskina Ali

Background: The concept of analgesic effects of thiamine along with other B vitamins has been supported since long by various clinical and experimental evidences, though effects of individual thiamine on pain are yet to be clearly demonstrated.Objective: To assess the effects of increasing doses of thiamine supplementation on pain.Methods: Forty-eight (48) male Long Evans rats (200±20 gm) were given thiamine (100, 200, 250, mg/kg/day; experimental) or normal saline (5 ml/kg/day; control) intraperitonealy (i.p) for 7 consecutive days. The analgesic activity was evaluated by three experimental pain models, hot (52±0.50C) water tail immersion test, the interphase (6th-15th minutes) of formalin (50?l, 2.5%, subcutaneous) test and acetic acid (2%, i.p) induced writhing test. Statistical analysis was done by ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc test and p?0.05 was considered as significant.Results: In tail immersion test, %MPE significantly increased after 200 (p?0.05) and 250 (p?0.001) mg/kg of thiamine. In the formalin test, thiamine significantly lowered the jerking frequency (p?0.05, p?0.001, p?0.001, respectively) and duration of flexing and licking (p?0.001, in all doses), compared to control. In addition, in writhing test, significant increment in latency of appearance of 1st writhe (p?0.001, in higher 2 doses) and significant decrement in frequency of writhes (p?0.01, p?0.001, p?0.001, respectively, in all doses) were observed.Conclusion: The results of this study conclude that, repetitive administration of thiamine may cause alleviation of pain through central as well as peripheral inhibitory mechanisms, which is dose dependent as well.Bangladesh Soc Physiol. 2017, June; 12(1): 1-9


2019 ◽  
Vol 131 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Srinivasa N. Raja ◽  
Eellan Sivanesan ◽  
Yun Guan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document