RESUMEN
Objectives: Pain as central symptom of osteoarthritis (OA) needs to be addressed as part of successful treatment. The assessment of pain as feature of disease or outcome in clinical practice and drug development remains a challenge due to its multidimensionality and the plethora of confounders. This article aims at providing insights into our understanding of OA pain-phenotypes and suggests a framework for systematic and comprehensive assessments. Methods: This narrative review is based on a search of current literature for various combinations of the search terms "pain-phenotype" and "knee OA" and summarizes current knowledge on OA pain-phenotypes, putting OA pain and its assessment into perspective of current research efforts. Results: Pain is a complex phenomenon, not necessarily associated with tissue damage. Various pain-phenotypes have been described in knee OA. Among those, a phenotype with high pain levels not necessarily matching structural changes and a phenotype with low pain levels and impact are relatively consistent. Further subgroups can be differentiated based on patient reported outcome measures, assessments of comorbidities, anxiety and depression, sleep, activity and objective measures such as quantitative sensory testing. Conclusions: The complexity of both OA as disease and pain in OA prompt the definition of a set of variables that facilitate assessments comparable across studies to maximize our understanding of pain, as central concern for the patient.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Neurectomy of the inguinal nerves may be considered for selected refractory cases of chronic postherniorrhaphy inguinal pain (CPIP). There is to date a paucity of easily applicable clinical tools to identify neuropathic pain and examine the neurosensory effects of remedial surgery. The present quantitative sensory testing (QST) pilot study evaluates a sensory mapping technique. METHODS: Longitudinal (preoperative, immediate postoperative, and late postoperative) dermatomal sensory mapping and a comprehensive QST protocol were conducted in CPIP patients with unilateral, predominantly neuropathic inguinodynia presenting for triple neurectomy (n = 13). QST was conducted in four areas on the affected, painful side and in one contralateral comparison site. QST variables were compared according to sensory mapping outcomes: (o)/normal sensation, (+)/pain, and (-)/numbness. Diagnostic ability of the sensory mapping outcomes to detect QST-assessed allodynia or hypoesthesia was estimated through calculation of specificity and sensitivity values. RESULTS: Preoperatively, patients exhibited mechanical hypoesthesia and allodynia and pressure allodynia and hyperalgesia in painful areas mapped (+) (p < .05); sensory mapping outcome (+) demonstrated high ability to detect mechanical allodynia [sensitivity 0.74 (95% CI 0.61-0.86), specificity 0.94 (0.84-1.00)] and pressure allodynia [sensitivity 0.96 (0.89-1.00), specificity 1.00 (1.00-1.00)], but not thermal allodynia. Postoperatively, mapped areas of numbness (-) were associated with mechanical and thermal hypoesthesia (p < .05); (-) showed high sensitivity and specificity to detect mechanical and cold hypoesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Sensory mapping provides an accurate clinical neuropathic assessment with strong correlation to QST findings of preoperative mechanical and pressure allodynia, and postoperative mechanical and thermal hypoesthesia in CPIP patients undergoing neurectomy.