4.4 Article

Nociceptive blink reflex and pain-related evoked potentials in hypnic headache

Journal

CEPHALALGIA
Volume 31, Issue 11, Pages 1181-1188

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0333102411412629

Keywords

Central facilitation; habituation; hypnic headache; nociceptive blink reflex; pain-related evoked potentials

Funding

  1. University of Duisburg-Essen
  2. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Muskelkranke
  3. University of Halle-Wittenberg
  4. MSD
  5. Berlin Chemie
  6. Medtronic
  7. Bohringer Ingelheim
  8. Allergan
  9. Almirall
  10. AstraZeneca
  11. Bayer
  12. GalaxoSmith-Kline
  13. Janssen-Cilag
  14. Pfizer
  15. German Research Council (DFG)
  16. German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
  17. European Union
  18. Biogen
  19. Merck

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Central facilitation of trigeminal pain processing and deficient habituation was observed in different headache and facial pain disorders. This overactivation seems to be primarily associated with chronic pain states. Objective: To investigate the function of the trigeminal nociceptive system in patients with hypnic headache (HH). Methods: Fifteen HH patients according International Classification of Headache Disorders II criteria and 15 age- and gender-matched healthy controls were investigated using the nociceptive blink reflex (nBR) and trigeminal pain-related evoked potentials (PREP). Results: nBR and PREP responses showed no significant differences comparing HH patients and healthy controls. Moreover, no habituation deficit was detected in HH patients. Conclusion: Central facilitation and change in habituation do not seem to be a crucial part in the pathophysiology of HH despite the chronic nature of this disease. Facilitation or habituation deficit does not seem to be exclusively related to chronic pain disorders in general. Further research is needed to illuminate the pathophysiology of HH.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available