4.4 Article

Restless Legs Syndrome and Painful Neuropathy-Retrospective Study. A Role for Nociceptive Deafferentation?

期刊

PAIN MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 1481-1486

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2009.00732.x

关键词

Restless Legs Syndrome; Small Fiber Sensory Neuropathy; Neuropathic Pain; Painful Polyneuropathy; A-Delta Fibers

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of University and Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. Restless legs syndrome (RLS) occurs in polyneuropathy with small fiber involvement, possibly as a peculiar form of neuropathic pain; however, the relationship between pain and RLS has been poorly investigated in polyneuropathy. Design, Setting, and Patients. We evaluated retrospectively the occurrence of RLS in 102 consecutive patients with polyneuropathy manifesting with neuropathic pain or dysesthesia, referred to the Neuromuscular Center, using the National Institutes of Health criteria for RLS. The patients were classified in subgroups characterized respectively by allodynia (hyperphenomena), with reported unpleasant sensations evoked by tactile stimuli, and hypoalgesia (hypophenomena), with absent pain sensation to pinprick, according to putative mechanisms of pain. Results. RLS was present in 41/102 patients (40.2%). It was significantly more frequent in the hypoalgesia (23/37) than in the allodynia subgroup (9/31; P = 0.008) and in the not classifiable cases (9/34; P = 0.004). Conclusions. RLS is frequent in painful polyneuropathy and is significantly associated with decreased small fiber input, thus nociceptive deafferentation may represent a factor interacting with RLS generators, possibly at spinal level. We suggest that overactivity of the spinal structures implicated in RLS may be triggered by nociceptive deafferentation in a subgroup of patients with painful polyneuropathy. Our findings, prompting a mechanistic characterization of RLS associated with painful polyneuropathy, have to be confirmed in a prospective study.

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

4.4
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