4.6 Article

Deficiency in endogenous modulation of prolonged heat pain in patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Temporomandibular Disorder

期刊

PAIN
卷 143, 期 3, 页码 172-178

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2008.12.027

关键词

Pain modulation; Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Control; Psychophysics; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Temporomandibular Disorder; Dysfunction; Focal heat pain

资金

  1. University of Florida College of Density (UFCD)
  2. NIH-NID-CR [T32 DE007200]
  3. UF Comprehensive center for Pain Research (CCPR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Females with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) and Temporomandibular Disorder (TMD) are characterized by enhanced sensitivity to experimental pain. One possible explanation for this observation is deficiencies in pain modulation systems such as Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Control (DNIC). In a few studies that used brief stimuli, chronic pain patients demonstrate reduced DNIC. The purpose of this study was to compare sensitivity to prolonged heat pain and the efficacy of DNIC in controls to IBS and TMD patients. Heat pain (experimental stimulus; 44.0-49.0 degrees C) which was applied to left palm, was continuously rated during three 30-s trials across three separate testing sessions under the following conditions: without a conditioning stimulus; during concurrent immersion of the right foot in a 23.0 degrees C (control); and during noxious cold immersion in a (DNIC; 8.0-16.0 degrees C) water bath. Compared to controls, IBS and TMD patients reported an increased sensitivity to heat pain and failed to demonstrate pain inhibition due to DNIC. Controls showed a significant reduction in pain during the DNIC session. These findings support the idea that chronic pain patients are not only more pain sensitive but also demonstrate reduced pain inhibition by pain, possibly because of dysfunction of endogenous pain inhibition systems. (C) 2009 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据