4.4 Article

Cerebral excitability is abnormal in patients with painful chronic pancreatitis

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 46-54

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2012.00155.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Karen Elise Jensen's Foundation
  2. Hertha Christensen's Foundation
  3. Christenson-Ceson's Family Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background We investigated whether patients with painful chronic pancreatitis (CP) present abnormalities in the cerebral response to experimental pain stimuli. Methods Contact heat-evoked potentials (CHEPS) were recorded in 15 patients with CP and in 15 healthy volunteers during repetitive stimulation of the upper abdominal region (pancreatic viscerotome) and the right forearm (heterologous area). Three sequences of painful stimuli were applied at each site. Subjective pain scores were assessed by a visual analogue scale. Habituation was calculated as the relative change in CHEPS amplitudes between the first and the third stimulation sequence. Results As expected pain scores decreased in healthy volunteers during successive stimulations at both sites (i.e., habituation), while in the CP group, they remained unchanged. The cerebral response consisted of an early-latency, low-amplitude response (N1, contralateral temporal region) followed by a late, high-amplitude, negativepositive complex (N2/P2, vertex). During successive stimulation of the pancreatic area, N2/P2 amplitude increased 25% in CP patients, while they decreased 20% in healthy volunteers (p?=?0.006). After stimulation of the forearm, N2/P2 amplitudes increased 3% in CP patients compared to a decrease of 20% in healthy volunteers (p?=?0.06). Conclusions Taken together, CP patients had an abnormal cerebral response to repetitive thermal stimuli. This was most prominent after stimulation of the upper abdominal area. As this area share spinal innervation with the pancreatic gland, these findings likely mirror distinctive abnormalities in cerebral pain processing.

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