High prevalence of neuropathic pain in the hand of patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the pain profile of patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury. METHODS: We enrolled 65 patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury. The Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire was used to classify pain and the SF-36 was used to evaluate quality of life. RESULTS: The patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury were predominantly young male victims of motorcycle accidents. Pain was present in 75.4% of the individuals and 79% presented with neuropathic pain, mostly located in the hands (30.41%). The use of auxiliary devices (p = 0.05) and marital status (p = 0.03) were both independent predictors of pain. Pain also impacted negatively on the quality of life (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pain is frequent in patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury. Despite the peripheral nervous system injury, nociceptive pain is not unusual. Pain evaluation, including validated instruments, is essential to guide optimal clinical management of patients with the condition.

High prevalence of neuropathic pain in the hand of patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury: a cross-sectional study / Alta prevalência de dor neuropática em sujeitos com lesão traumática do plexo braquial: um estudo de corte transversal

ABSTRACT Objective To describe the pain profile of patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury. Methods We enrolled 65 patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury. The Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire was used to classify pain and the SF-36 was used to evaluate quality of life. Results The patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury were predominantly young male victims of motorcycle accidents. Pain was present in 75.4% of the individuals and 79% presented with neuropathic pain, mostly located in the hands (30.41%). The use of auxiliary devices (p = 0.05) and marital status (p = 0.03) were both independent predictors of pain. Pain also impacted negatively on the quality of life (p = 0.001). Conclusions Pain is frequent in patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury. Despite the peripheral nervous system injury, nociceptive pain is not unusual. Pain evaluation, including validated instruments, is essential to guide optimal clinical management of patients with the condition.

RESUMO Objetivo Descrever o perfil de dor de sujeitos com lesão traumática do plexo braquial. Métodos Nós incluímos 65 indivíduos com lesão traumática do plexo braquial. O Douleur Neuropathique 4 foi usado para classificar a dor e o SF-36 foi usado para avaliar a qualidade de vida. Resultados Sujeitos com lesão traumática do plexo braquial eram em sua maioria homens jovens, vítimas de acidentes motociclísticos. A dor esteve presete em 75.4% dos indivíduos e 79% deles apresentaram dor neuropática, mais frequentemente localizada nas mãos (30.41%). O uso de dispositivos auxiliares (p = 0.05) e o estado civil foram, ambos, preditores independentes de dor. A dor ainda impactou negativamente da qualidade de vida (p = 0.001). Conclusões A dor é frequente em sujeitos com lesão traumática do plexo braquial. Apesar de envolver uma lesão do sistema nervoso a dor nociceptiva não é infrequente. A avaliação da dor, incluindo instrumentos validados, é essencial para direcionar as condutas clínicas de sujeitos com esta condição.

Biological markers in noninvasive brain stimulation trials in major depressive disorder: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The therapeutic effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation in patients with major depression have shown promising results; however, there is a lack of mechanistic studies using biological markers (BMs) as an outcome. Therefore, our aim was to review noninvasive brain stimulation trials in depression using BMs. METHODS: The following databases were used for our systematic review: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and SCIELO. We examined articles published before November 2012 that used TMS and transcranial direct current stimulation as an intervention for depression and had BM as an outcome measure. The search was limited to human studies written in English. RESULTS: Of 1234 potential articles, 52 articles were included. Only studies using TMS were found. Biological markers included immune and endocrine serum markers, neuroimaging techniques, and electrophysiological outcomes. In 12 articles (21.4%), end point BM measurements were not significantly associated with clinical outcomes. All studies reached significant results in the main clinical rating scales. Biological marker outcomes were used as predictors of response, to understand mechanisms of TMS, and as a surrogate of safety. CONCLUSIONS: Functional magnetic resonance imaging, single-photon emission computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance spectroscopy, cortical excitability, and brain-derived neurotrophic factor consistently showed positive results. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor was the best predictor of patients' likeliness to respond. These initial results are promising; however, all studies investigating BMs are small, used heterogeneous samples, and did not take into account confounders such as age, sex, or family history. Based on our findings, we recommend further studies to validate BMs in noninvasive brain stimulation trials in MDD.