Pressure-Induced Referred Pain as a Biomarker of Pain Sensitivity in Fibromyalgia.

BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia (FM) syndrome is characterized by widespread pain, fatigue, and generalized increased pain sensitivity. Appropriate and simple pain models are methods employed to assess pain mechanisms that can potentially lead to improved treatments. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) or mapping the referred pain area produced by pressure stimulation at suprathreshold intensities are used to assess pain mechanisms. The optimal suprathreshold stimulation intensity to elicit referred pain with minimal discomfort for patients with FM has yet to be determined. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the area and intensity of pressure-induced referred pain in patients with FM as elicited by systematic increases in PPTs, compared with controls. STUDY DESIGN: Observational, crossed-section study. SETTING: Research laboratory. METHODS: Twenty-six patients with FM and 26 healthy controls, age- and gender-matched, were included. Suprathreshold stimulation was applied to the infraspinatus muscle of the dominant side at 4 different intensities (PPT +20%, +30%, +40%, and +50%), after which referred pain was evaluated by measuring the area of pain in pixels using a digital body chart and its intensity on a Visual Analog Scale. Factors related to anxiety condition, pain catastrophizing, depression, and quality of life were recorded. RESULTS: The referred pain areas were larger in the FM group compared with healthy individuals at 120% (P = 0.024), 130% (P = 0.001), 140% (P = 0.001), and 150% (P = 0.001) PPT, however, within the FM group no differences were found between the intensity of suprathreshold stimulation and the size of the referred pain areas (P = 0.135) or pain intensity (P > 0.05). There was a positive correlation between the size of referred pain areas and pain catastrophizing in the FM group (r = 0.457, P = 0.032). LIMITATIONS: This study presents some limitations, among which is the variability found in the referred pain areas. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that referred pain induced by applying a suprathreshold pressure of 120% PPT can be a useful biomarker to assess sensitized pain mechanisms in patients suffering from FM. KEY WORDS: Referred pain, pain sensitivity, fibromyalgia, central sensitization, suprathreshold, pressure pain threshold, biomarker, facilitated pain mechanisms.

Ruptured Appendicitis and Retrocecal Abscess Masquerading as Knee Pain in a Pediatric Patient: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: Knee pain has a variety of etiologies in the pediatric population, including septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, fracture, ligamentous injury, and neoplasms. Extrinsic sources of knee pain may also be intra-abdominal, although abdominal pathology is much more likely to manifest as hip or proximal thigh musculature pain. CASE REPORT: A 5-year-old healthy male presented with atraumatic right knee pain, discomfort with weightbearing, fever, and elevated inflammatory laboratory markers. Physical examination and magnetic resonance imaging findings of the knee were benign, leading to low clinical suspicion for knee septic arthritis. Blood cultures were positive for a gastrointestinal organism, Granulicatella adiacens, suggesting abdominal pathology leading to referred pain. Ultrasound evaluation and computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen revealed a large abscess secondary to perforated appendicitis, which was treated with CT-guided drainage and i.v. antibiotics. The patient's musculoskeletal pain subsided with treatment of the appendicitis. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Acute appendicitis may present as knee pain, with other signs and symptoms mimicking septic arthritis, such as fever, inability to bear weight, and elevated inflammatory markers. Considering an array of differential diagnoses in pediatric patients with apparent knee septic arthritis is crucial to prevent delay in diagnosis of alternative infectious sources.

Induced lumbosacral radicular symptom referral patterns: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbosacral radicular symptoms are commonly evaluated in clinical practice. Level-specific diagnosis is crucial for management. Clinical decisions are often made by correlating a patient's symptom distribution and imaging with sensory dermatomal maps. It is common for patients to describe non-dermatomal symptom patterns and for imaging to demonstrate pathology at levels not predicted by a dermatomal map. These observations suggest that the referred symptom distribution from lumbosacral nerve root provocation is different from dermatomal maps. This phenomenon has been demonstrated in the cervical spine but not in the lumbosacral spine. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to characterize potential lumbosacral radicular symptom referral patterns induced during transforaminal epidural injections. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This is an observational descriptive study. PATIENT SAMPLE: The patient sample included 71 consecutive patients with lumbosacral radicular pain undergoing lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections at an outpatient interventional spine practice. OUTCOME MEASURES: Each subject drew the location of provoked lumbosacral radicular symptoms on a pain diagram. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-one consecutive patients undergoing 125 fluoroscopically guided lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections at an outpatient interventional spine practice were included in the study. The described location of provoked symptoms was recorded (1) after final needle positioning, (2) after injection of up to 0.5 mL of contrast solution, and (3) after injection of up to a 1 mL test dose of 1% lidocaine. Each subject drew the location of provoked symptoms on a diagram. The provoked symptom diagrams for each lumbosacral segmental level were combined to create composite nerve root, level-specific, symptom referral pattern maps. RESULTS: Of the 125 injections, 87 provoked referred symptoms and were included in the analysis. Thirty-eight injections did not provoke referred pain symptoms and were excluded from further analysis. Four nerve roots were tested at L1 and eight were tested at L2. Because of the small number of subjects, composite diagrams and statistical analysis were not completed for these levels. Eleven nerve roots were analyzed at L3, 28 at L4, 34 at L5, and 11 at S1. Composite symptom referral pattern maps were created for levels L3, L4, L5, and S1. Although the symptom distribution occasionally followed the expected dermatomal maps, most often the referral was outside of the patterns expected for each level. The most common symptom referral pattern for levels L3-S1 was the buttock, the posterior thigh, and the posterior calf. CONCLUSIONS: The level-specific provoked symptom distribution during lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections is frequently different from that predicted by classic lumbosacral dermatomal maps. Referred pain to the buttock, the posterior thigh, or the posterior calf may come from L3, L4, L5, or S1 nerve root segmental irritation.

Clinical Decision-Making in Chronic Spine Pain: Dilemma of Image-Based Diagnosis of Degenerative Spine and Generation Mechanisms for Nociceptive, Radicular, and Referred Pain.

BACKGROUND: Spine-related pain is a complex heterogeneous condition. Excessive reliance on radiological imaging might lead to overdiagnosis of incidental asymptomatic spinal changes and unnecessary surgery. Approaches to the clinical management of spine pain should (1) identify pain generators, types, patterns, and mechanisms; (2) confirm clinical suspension with a diagnostic injection; and (3) ensure that treatment is aimed at controlling pain and improving patient function rather than image-based surgical success. METHOD: This case series (7 cases) discusses commonly seen clinical presentation of spine pain analytically, with illustrations of possible pain generators, mechanisms, pathways, and pain types. Each case discusses pain types and location (axial nociceptive, referred, and radicular neuropathic), generators (degenerated disc, herniated disc, facet joint, and sacroiliac joint), pathways (sinuvertebral ventral ramus and medial and lateral branches dorsal ramus), and radiculopathy versus radicular pain, elaborating on coccydynia and cervicogenic headaches, epimere versus hypomere muscle embryology, function, innervation, and role in spine-related pain. RESULTS: Multiple pain generators might coexist in the same patient causing mixed pain types and referral patterns with multiple mechanisms and pathways. History review, physical examination, and diagnostic injections are the mainstays of diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Image-detected spondylosis might be an asymptomatic process. Clinical presentation is related to stenosis or pain. The mechanism of pain is related to compression, inflammation, or microinstability. Spine pain can be nociceptive axial, neuropathic radicular, and/or referred pain. Although image findings are helpful in radicular neuropathic pain from disc herniation, they are unreliable in nociceptive pain, and correlation with clinical and diagnostic injections is mandatory.

Muscle Trigger Points and Pressure Pain Sensitivity Maps of the Feet in Women with Fibromyalgia Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE : To investigate the presence of trigger points (TrPs) in feet musculature and topographical pressure sensitivity maps of the feet as well as the relationship between TrPs, pressure pain maps, and clinical variables in women with fibromyalgia (FMS). METHODS : Fifty-one FMS women and 24 comparable healthy women participated. TrPs within the flexor hallucis brevis, adductor hallucis, dorsal interossei, extensor digitorum brevis, and quadratus plantae, as well as external and internal gastrocnemius, were explored. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were assessed in a blind manner over seven locations on each foot. Topographical pressure sensitivity maps of the plantar region were generated using the averaged PPT of each location. RESULTS : The prevalence rate of foot pain was 63% (n = 32). The number of active TrPs for each FMS woman with foot pain was 5 ± 1.5 without any latent TrPs. Women with FMS without foot pain and healthy controls had only latent TrPs (2.2 ± 0.8 and 1.5 ± 1.3, respectively). Active TrPs in the flexor hallucis brevis and adductor hallucis muscles were the most prevalent. Topographical pressure pain sensitivity maps revealed that FMS women with foot pain had lower PPT than FMS women without pain and healthy controls, and higher PPT on the calcaneus bone (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS : The presence of foot pain in women with FMS is high. The referred pain elicited by active TrPs in the foot muscles reproduced the symptoms in these patients. FMS women suffering foot pain showed higher pressure hypersensitivity in the plantar region than those FMS women without pain.

Referred facial sensation on the hand after full face transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Using a single patient case study, we aimed to look at the interaction between full face transplantation and subsequent somatosensory representation in the cortex. METHODS: We present a patient with full face transplantation who has recovered primary sensory modalities. The patient also has facial sensations such as touch perception in sensory examinations of the hands and fingers. RESULTS: fMRI findings show interactions between the cortical representations of the face and hand. CONCLUSION: This phenomenon is one of the well-known referred sensations and reveals how face transplantation relates to cortical plasticity.

Cancer and Referred Facial Pain.

Orofacial pain may be a symptom of diverse types of cancers as a result of local or distant tumor effects. The pain can be presented with the same characteristics as any other orofacial pain disorder, and this should be recognized by the clinician. Orofacial pain also can arise as a consequence of cancer therapy. In the present article, we review the mechanisms of cancer-associated facial pain, its clinical presentation, and cancer therapy associated with orofacial pain.

Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD) for Clinical and Research Applications: recommendations of the International RDC/TMD Consortium Network* and Orofacial Pain Special Interest Group†.

AIMS: The original Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis I diagnostic algorithms have been demonstrated to be reliable. However, the Validation Project determined that the RDC/TMD Axis I validity was below the target sensitivity of ≥ 0.70 and specificity of ≥ 0.95. Consequently, these empirical results supported the development of revised RDC/TMD Axis I diagnostic algorithms that were subsequently demonstrated to be valid for the most common pain-related TMD and for one temporomandibular joint (TMJ) intra-articular disorder. The original RDC/TMD Axis II instruments were shown to be both reliable and valid. Working from these findings and revisions, two international consensus workshops were convened, from which recommendations were obtained for the finalization of new Axis I diagnostic algorithms and new Axis II instruments. METHODS: Through a series of workshops and symposia, a panel of clinical and basic science pain experts modified the revised RDC/TMD Axis I algorithms by using comprehensive searches of published TMD diagnostic literature followed by review and consensus via a formal structured process. The panel's recommendations for further revision of the Axis I diagnostic algorithms were assessed for validity by using the Validation Project's data set, and for reliability by using newly collected data from the ongoing TMJ Impact Project-the follow-up study to the Validation Project. New Axis II instruments were identified through a comprehensive search of the literature providing valid instruments that, relative to the RDC/TMD, are shorter in length, are available in the public domain, and currently are being used in medical settings. RESULTS: The newly recommended Diagnostic Criteria for TMD (DC/TMD) Axis I protocol includes both a valid screener for detecting any pain-related TMD as well as valid diagnostic criteria for differentiating the most common pain-related TMD (sensitivity ≥ 0.86, specificity ≥ 0.98) and for one intra-articular disorder (sensitivity of 0.80 and specificity of 0.97). Diagnostic criteria for other common intra-articular disorders lack adequate validity for clinical diagnoses but can be used for screening purposes. Inter-examiner reliability for the clinical assessment associated with the validated DC/TMD criteria for pain-related TMD is excellent (kappa ≥ 0.85). Finally, a comprehensive classification system that includes both the common and less common TMD is also presented. The Axis II protocol retains selected original RDC/TMD screening instruments augmented with new instruments to assess jaw function as well as behavioral and additional psychosocial factors. The Axis II protocol is divided into screening and comprehensive self report instrument sets. The screening instruments' 41 questions assess pain intensity, pain-related disability, psychological distress, jaw functional limitations, and parafunctional behaviors, and a pain drawing is used to assess locations of pain. The comprehensive instruments, composed of 81 questions, assess in further detail jaw functional limitations and psychological distress as well as additional constructs of anxiety and presence of comorbid pain conditions. CONCLUSION: The recommended evidence-based new DC/TMD protocol is appropriate for use in both clinical and research settings. More comprehensive instruments augment short and simple screening instruments for Axis I and Axis II. These validated instruments allow for identification of patients with a range of simple to complex TMD presentations.

Validity of a single-item measure to assess leg or back pain as the predominant symptom in patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine.

PURPOSE: Recent studies suggest that the location of predominant pain (back or leg) can be a significant predictor of the outcome of surgery for degenerative spinal disorders. However, others challenge the notion that the predominant symptom can be reliably identified. This study examined the validity of a single item used to determine the most troublesome symptom. METHODS: A total of 2,778 patients with degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine scheduled for surgery with the goal of pain relief completed a questionnaire enquiring as to their most troublesome symptom ["main symptom"; back pain (BACK) or leg/buttock pain (LEG)]. They also completed separate 0-10 graphic rating scales for back pain (LBP) and leg/buttock pain (LP) intensity. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to determine the accuracy with which the "LP minus LBP" score was able to classify patients into their declared "main symptom" group. Sub-studies evaluated the test-retest reliability of the patients' self-rated pain scores (N = 45) and the agreement between the main symptom declared by the patient in the questionnaire and that documented by the surgeon after the clinical consultation (N = 118). RESULTS: Test-retest reliability of the back and leg pain scores was good (ICC2,1 of 0.8 for each), as was patient-surgeon agreement regarding the main symptom (BACK or LEG) (κ value 0.79). In the BACK group, the mean values for pain intensity were 7.3 ± 2.0 (LBP) and 5.2 ± 2.9 (LP); in the LEG group, they were 4.3 ± 2.9 (LBP) and 7.5 ± 1.9 (LP). The area under the curve for the ROC was 0.95 (95 % CI 0.94-0.95), indicating excellent discrimination between the BACK and LEG groups based on the "LP minus LBP" scores. A cutoff score >0.0 for "LP minus LBP" score gave optimal sensitivity and specificity for indicating membership of the LEG group (sensitivity 79.1%, specificity 95.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The responses on the single item for the "main symptom" were in good agreement with the differential ratings on the 0-10 pain scales for LBP and LP intensity. The cutoff >0 for "LP minus LBP" for classifying patients as LEG pain predominant seemed appropriate and suggests good concurrent validity for the single-item measure. The single item may be of use in sub-grouping patients with the same disorder (e.g. spondylolisthesis) or as an indication in surgical decision-making.

Characteristics of referred muscle pain to the head from active trigger points in women with myofascial temporomandibular pain and fibromyalgia syndrome.

Our aim was to compare the differences in the prevalence and the anatomical localization of referred pain areas of active trigger points (TrPs) between women with myofascial temporomandibular disorder (TMD) or fibromyalgia (FMS). Twenty women (age 46 ± 8 years) with TMD and 20 (age 48 ± 6 years) with FMS were recruited from specialized clinic. Bilateral temporalis, masseter, sternocleidomastoid, upper trapezius, and suboccipital muscles were examined for TrPs. TrPs were identified by palpation and considered active when the pain reproduced familiar pain symptom experienced by the patient. The referred pain areas were drawn on anatomical maps, digitalized and also measured. A new analysis technique based on a center of gravity (COG) method was used to quantitative estimate of the localization of the TrP referred pain areas. Women with FMS exhibited larger areas of usual pain symptoms than women with myofascial TMD (P < 0.001). The COG coordinates of the usual pain on the frontal and posterior pain maps were located more superior in TMD than in FMS. The number of active TrPs was significantly higher in TMD (mean ± SD 6 ± 1) than in FMS (4 ± 1) (P = 0.002). Women with TMD exhibited more active TrPs in the temporalis and masseter muscles than FMS (P < 0.01). Women with FMS had larger referred pain areas than those with TMD for sternocleidomastoid and suboccipital muscles (P < 0.001). Significant differences within COG coordinates of TrP referred pain areas were found in TMD, the referred pain was more pronounced in the orofacial region, whereas the referred pain in FMS was more pronounced in the cervical spine. This study showed that the referred pain elicited from active TrPs shared similar patterns as usual pain symptoms in women with TMD or FMS, but that distinct differences in TrP prevalence and location of the referred pain areas could be observed. Differences in location of referred pain areas may help clinicians to determine the most relevant TrPs for each pain syndrome in spite of overlaps in pain areas.

Myofascial pain syndromes and their evaluation.

This article reviews the available published knowledge about the diagnosis, pathophysiology and treatment of myofascial pain syndromes from trigger points. Furthermore, epidemiologic data and clinical characteristics of these syndromes are described, including a detailed account of sensory changes that occur at both painful and nonpainful sites and their utility for diagnosis and differential diagnosis; the identification/diagnostic criteria available so far are critically reviewed. The key role played by myofascial trigger points as activating factors of pain symptoms in other algogenic conditions--headache, fibromyalgia and visceral disease--is also addressed. Current hypotheses on the pathophysiology of myofascial pain syndromes are presented, including mechanisms of formation and persistence of primary and secondary trigger points as well as mechanisms beyond referred pain and hyperalgesia from trigger points. Conventional and most recent therapeutic options for these syndromes are described, and their validity is discussed on the basis of results from clinical controlled studies.

[Differences between myofascial trigger points and tender points]. / Unterschiede zwischen myofazialen Triggerpunkten und "tender points".

The article describes and compares the characteristics of myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) of the myofascial pain syndrome and the tender points (TePs) of the fibromyalgia syndrome. Many statements are hypothetical, because not all aspects of the disorders have been clarified in solid studies. Signs and symptoms of MTrPs: (1) palpable nodule, often located close to the muscle belly, (2) often single, (3) allodynia and hyperalgesia at the MTrP, (4) referral of the MTrP pain, (5) normal pain sensitivity outside the MTrPs, (6) local twitch response, (7) local contracture in biopsy material, (8) peripheral mechanism probable. Signs and symptoms of TePs: (1) no palpable nodule, (2) location often close to the muscle attachments, (3) multiple by definition, (4) allodynia and hyperalgesia also outside the TePs, (5) enhanced pain under psychic stress, (6) unspecific histological changes in biopsy material, (7) central nervous mechanism probable. The multitude of differences speak against a common aetiology and pathophysiology.

Endometriosis: a possible cause of right shoulder pain.

Although endometriosis is a common condition it can present with a wide range of symptoms. We report a case of chronic right hypochondrial and shoulder pain which proved to be due to endometriosis.

Screening for head, neck, and shoulder pathology in patients with upper extremity signs and symptoms.

UNLABELLED: NARRATIVE REVIEW: Conditions of the head, neck, thorax, and shoulder may occur simultaneously with arm pathology or produce symptoms perceived by the patient to originate in the elbow, wrist, or hand. Identification of the tissue disorder and associated impairments, followed by matching the rehabilitative intervention to address these issues, leads to optimal outcomes. With this goal in mind, the hand therapist needs to recognize clinical findings that signal potentially serious medical conditions of the brain, cervical region, chest, or shoulder. Additionally, less serious but potentially debilitating, musculoskeletal or neurogenic pain from proximal sources must also be differentiated from somatic pain originating in the elbow, wrist, or hand so that the clinician can decide to further examine and intervene or refer to an appropriate health care provider. This article describes clinical findings that suggest the presence of serious medical pathology in the head, neck, or thorax and presents a screening algorithm to assist in discriminating pain derived from local structures in the distal arm from referred pain originating in the more proximal regions of the shoulder, thorax, neck, or brain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Screening for gastrointestinal, hepatic/biliary, and renal/urologic disease.

UNLABELLED: NARRATIVE REVIEW: Many organ systems in the body can demonstrate signs and symptoms of impairment that mimic integumentary, musculoskeletal, and/or neuromuscular conditions commonly evaluated and treated by the hand therapist. In this review, diseases and disorders affecting the gastrointestinal (GI), hepatic/biliary, and renal/urologic systems capable of referring pain and other symptoms to the upper quadrant are presented. Specifically, these organ systems can refer pain to the sternum, neck, shoulder, scapulae, and subscapular and interscapular regions. Symptom referral from the viscera to the elbow and hand is extremely rare. Symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome/paresthesias can occur in renal disorders and with hepatic/biliary problems. Following the screening model proposed by Goodman and Snyder, potential origins from the GI, hepatic/biliary, and renal/urologic systems are discussed. The goal is to identify patients with referred pain patterns and associated signs and symptoms of conditions that require referral to a physician or other appropriate health care professional. The alert hand therapist will recognize red flag histories, clinical presentation, and risk factors suggesting the need for a more thorough examination to ensure that the patient/client has a condition requiring intervention that is within the scope of the therapist's practice. Screening principles and tips for physician referral are offered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

The predetermined sites of examination for tender points in fibromyalgia syndrome are frequently associated with myofascial trigger points.

UNLABELLED: The aim of this present study is to test the hypotheses that the 18 predetermined sites of examination for tender points (TP sites) in fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) are myofascial trigger points (MTrPs), and that the induced pain from active MTrPs at TP sites may mimic fibromyalgia pain. Each TP site was evaluated with manual palpation followed by intramuscular electromyographic (EMG) registration of spontaneous electrical activity to confirm or refute the existence of an MTrP in 30 FMS patients. Overall spontaneous pain intensity and pain pattern were recorded before manual identification of MTrPs. Local and referred pain pattern from active MTrPs were drawn following manual palpation at TP sites. RESULTS: Showed that most of the TP sites are MTrPs. Local and referred pain from active MTrPs reproduced partly the overall spontaneous pain pattern. The total number of active MTrPs (r = .78, P < .0001), but not latent MTrPs (r = -.001, P = .99), was positively correlated with spontaneous pain intensity in FMS. The current study provides first evidence that pain from active MTrPs at TP sites mimics fibromyalgia pain. MTrPs may relate to generalized increased sensitivity in FMS due to central sensitization. PERSPECTIVE: This article underlies the importance of active MTrPs in FMS patients. Most of the TP sites in FMS are MTrPs. Active MTrPs may serve as a peripheral generator of fibromyalgia pain and inactivation of active MTrPs may thus be an alternative for the treatment of FMS.

Early intra-articular hip disease presenting with posterior pelvic and groin pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether posterior pelvic pain is associated with intra-articular hip abnormalities (labral tears and early degenerative changes) in patients with minimal-to-no radiographic abnormalities. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study of prospectively collected data collected from patients with an arthroscopy-confirmed diagnosis of acetabular labral tear or femoral and/or acetabular chondrosis, without severe deformity. SETTING: An academic orthopedic clinic at a tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: All patients, having failed to respond to conservative treatment, required surgical intervention for definitive structural diagnosis and treatment because of pain and dysfunction. Within this group, patients with posterior pelvic pain were included. One hundred thirty consecutive patients, 93 women and 37 men with mean age 31.16 years (range, 10-65.5 years), entered the study, and observational findings were reported. INTERVENTIONS: University instructional review board approval was obtained before conducting the study. Patients completed medical information questionnaires, pain diagrams, severity of pain, and validated hip questionnaires that focused on symptoms and function. Postoperatively, patients who had posterior pelvic pain before surgery completed a phone interview regarding their clinical progress. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENT: A numeric pain scale, description of location of continued pain, Modified Harris Hip Score, and satisfaction with the procedure were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-six (20%) of the 130 patients complained of posterior pelvic pain as a component of their clinical presentation. Of these patients, the mean duration of symptoms was 29.5 months. A total of 92% related that their pain was moderate or marked. The preoperative mean modified Harris Hip Score was 61.6 (range, 27-85) and showed postoperative improvement with a mean of 84.5 (range, 45-100; P < .001). The Modified Harris Hip Score was completed a mean 15.9 months postoperatively. Pain diagrams and questionnaires revealed that of the 26 patients with posterior pelvic pain, 92.3% (24/26) also had associated groin pain (P < .001), 57.7% (15/26) had lateral thigh pain, and 7.7% (2/26) had anterior thigh pain (P < .001). A total of 12 of 26 patients with an initial presentation including posterior pelvic pain agreed to a phone interview. The mean time after surgery in this group of patients was 56.9 months (range, 39-65 months). Five of 12 patients reported no pain and no activity limitations. The Visual Analog Scale representing their self-reported average daily pain was 1.4 (range, 0-3). The mean Modified Harris Hip Score was 10.4 (range, 8-13). All 7 patients with continued pain described the pain in more than one location. Ten of 12 patients were very satisfied with hip arthroscopy, 1 of 12 was somewhat satisfied, and 1 of 12 was dissatisfied. This latter patient went on to have total hip arthroplasty and was very satisfied with that procedure. All 12 patients would recommend the procedure to a friend. CONCLUSIONS: Twenty percent of patients at the authors' institution who required surgical intervention to treat their pain after not responding to conservative management had posterior pelvic pain in addition to groin or lateral and anterior hip pain. Of those respondents, 33% had complete resolution of symptoms at 4.75 years after surgery, and all had reduction in pain as compared with completion of conservative care. Patients with early intra-articular hip pathology, such as acetabular labral tears with no or mild hip deformity, and patients with arthrosis and mild hip deformity may experience groin and posterior pelvic pain as part of their clinical presentation.

Neurovascular pains: implications of migraine for the oral and maxillofacial surgeon.

Epidemiologic studies have shown that migraine headaches are a common finding in the general population, often associated with a high degree of disability. Additionally, migraine has a reported comorbidity with other medical conditions, most notably with chronic pains, such as temporomandibular disorders. The pathophysiologic mechanisms involved with migraine are suggestive of an increased and prolonged hyperexcitability to stimuli, especially within the trigeminal distribution. Because migraine is mediated by branches of the trigeminal nerve it has the potential to mimic other types of pains, such as toothache or sinusitis. It is therefore recommended that oral and maxillofacial surgeons be familiar with the diagnostic criteria for migraine headaches to identify and appropriately treat such individuals who present to their clinics.