4.0 Article

Neuropathic pain characteristics in patients from Curitiba (Brazil) with spinal cord injury

期刊

ARQUIVOS DE NEURO-PSIQUIATRIA
卷 69, 期 1, 页码 64-68

出版社

ASSOC ARQUIVOS NEURO- PSIQUIATRIA
DOI: 10.1590/S0004-282X2011000100013

关键词

neuropathic pain; spinal cord injury; DN4 questionnaire

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This was a descriptive cross-sectional study on patients with spinal cord injuries living in Curitiba, Parana, Brazil. The aim was to evaluate the pain characteristics among such patients seen at referral care centers for spinal cord injury patients in Curitiba. A total of 109 adults with spinal cord injury in this city were evaluated regarding the presence of pain, especially neuropathic pain. Neuropathic pain was evaluated using the DN4 questionnaire, a universal instrument that has been translated and validated for Portuguese. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the intensity of pain. The prevalence of pain among these 109 patients was 31.2% (34 patients). The nociceptive pain presented was classified as musculoskeletal pain (nine patients), visceral pain (four patients) and mixed pain (one patient), thus totaling 14 patients (12.8%). Another 20 patients (18.3%) showed symptoms of neuropathic pain and fulfilled the criteria for neuropathic pain with scores greater than 4 out 10 in the DN4 questionnaire. Regarding the characteristics of the patients with neuropathic pain, most of them were male, younger than 40 years of age and paraplegic with incomplete lesions. They had become injured from 1 to more than 5 years earlier. The predominant etiology was gunshot wounds, and the intensity of their pain was high, with VAS scores greater than 5. This study partially corroborates other studies conducted on this subject. Studies of this type are important for understanding the profile of these patients, for the purpose of designing strategies for their rehabilitation, with a focus on the appropriate treatment and management of pain.

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

4.0
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