Normalization of widespread pressure pain hypersensitivity after total hip replacement in patients with hip osteoarthritis is associated with clinical and functional improvements.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relevance of ongoing nociceptive joint inputs to the maintenance of widespread pain hypersensitivity in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) and to determine whether a reversal in the widespread pressure hypersensitivity together with an improvement in pain and function occurs after total hip replacement in these patients. METHODS: Forty patients with hip OA participated. Twenty patients underwent total hip replacement, and the other 20 patients were assigned to a waiting list. Pressure-pain thresholds (PPTs) over the second metacarpal bone and the gluteus medius, vastus medialis, vastus lateralis, and tibialis anterior muscles were assessed bilaterally with a pressure algometer before and 3 months after total hip replacement surgery. Assessments of pain intensity (by visual analog scale [VAS]), physical function (by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index), and health status (by the Short Form 12 health survey and the EuroQol 5-domain index) were also performed. RESULTS: Patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty exhibited a reduction in widespread pressure pain hyperalgesia (increases in PPTs) over local and distant pain-free areas, as compared with before surgery and as compared with the patients assigned to the waiting list. PPTs were related to hip pain intensity, and significant correlations were found between higher VAS scores and lower average PPTs over all points assessed (-0.409 < r < -0.306, P < 0.05). Patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty exhibited a greater decrease in pain intensity and greater increases in function and health status than did those who were on the waiting list. Changes in the intensity of hip pain were moderately associated with changes in pressure pain sensitivity in the hip arthroplasty group. CONCLUSION: Normalization of widespread pressure pain hyperalgesia was found after successful hip joint replacement in patients with hip OA. Altered pain processing seems to be driven by ongoing peripheral joint pathology, which stresses the importance of reducing pain in OA.

Effectiveness and costs of phototest in dementia and cognitive impairment screening.

BACKGROUND: To assess and compare the effectiveness and costs of Phototest, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Memory Impairment Screen (MIS) to screen for dementia (DEM) and cognitive impairment (CI). METHODS: A phase III study was conducted over one year in consecutive patients with suspicion of CI or DEM at four Primary Care (PC) centers. After undergoing all screening tests at the PC center, participants were extensively evaluated by researchers blinded to screening test results in a Cognitive-Behavioral Neurology Unit (CBNU). The gold standard diagnosis was established by consensus of expert neurologists. Effectiveness was assessed by the proportion of correct diagnoses (diagnostic accuracy [DA]) and by the kappa index of concordance between test results and gold standard diagnoses. Costs were based on public prices and hospital accounts. RESULTS: The study included 140 subjects (48 with DEM, 37 with CI without DEM, and 55 without CI). The MIS could not be applied to 23 illiterate subjects (16.4%). For DEM, the maximum effectiveness of the MMSE was obtained with different cutoff points as a function of educational level [k = 0.31 (95% Confidence interval [95%CI], 0.19-0.43), DA = 0.60 (95%CI, 0.52-0.68)], and that of the MIS with a cutoff of 3/4 [k = 0.63 (95%CI, 0.48-0.78), DA = 0.83 (95%CI, 0.80-0.92)]. Effectiveness of the Phototest [k = 0.71 (95%CI, 0.59-0.83), DA = 0.87 (95%CI, 0.80-0.92)] was similar to that of the MIS and higher than that of the MMSE. Costs were higher with MMSE (275.9 ± 193.3€ [mean ± sd euros]) than with Phototest (208.2 ± 196.8€) or MIS (201.3 ± 193.4€), whose costs did not significantly differ. For CI, the effectiveness did not significantly differ between MIS [k = 0.59 (95%CI, 0.45-0.74), DA = 0.79 (95%CI, 0.64-0.97)] and Phototest [k = 0.58 (95%CI, 0.45-0.74), DA = 0.78 (95%CI, 0.64-0.95)] and was lowest for the MMSE [k = 0.27 (95%CI, 0.09-0.45), DA = 0.69 (95%CI, 0.56-0.84)]. Costs were higher for MMSE (393.4 ± 121.8€) than for Phototest (287.0 ± 197.4€) or MIS (300.1 ± 165.6€), whose costs did not significantly differ. CONCLUSION: MMSE is not an effective instrument in our setting. For both DEM and CI, the Phototest and MIS are more effective and less costly, with no difference between them. However, MIS could not be applied to the appreciable percentage of our population who were illiterate.