A review of the neuro- and systemic inflammatory responses in post concussion symptoms: Introduction of the "post-inflammatory brain syndrome" PIBS.

Post-concussion syndrome is an aggregate of symptoms that commonly present together after head injury. These symptoms, depending on definition, include headaches, dizziness, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and cognitive impairment. However, these symptoms are common, occurring frequently in non-head injured controls, leading some to question the existence of post-concussion syndrome as a unique syndrome. Therefore, some have attempted to explain post-concussion symptoms as post-traumatic stress disorder, as they share many similar symptoms and post-traumatic stress disorder does not require head injury. This explanation falls short as patients with post-concussion syndrome do not necessarily experience many key symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Therefore, other explanations must be sought to explain the prevalence of post-concussion like symptoms in non-head injury patients. Many of the situations in which post-concussion syndrome like symptoms may be experienced such as infection and post-surgery are associated with systemic inflammatory responses, and even neuroinflammation. Post-concussion syndrome itself has a significant neuroinflammatory component. In this review we examine the evidence of neuroinflammation in post-concussion syndrome and the potential role systemic inflammation plays in post-concussion syndrome like symptoms. We conclude that given the overlap between these conditions and the role of inflammation in their etiologies, a new term, post-inflammatory brain syndromes (PIBS), is necessary to describe the common outcomes of many different inflammatory insults. The concept of post-concussion syndrome is in its evolution therefore, the new term post-inflammatory brain syndromes provides a better understanding of etiology of its wide-array of symptoms and the wide array of conditions they can be seen in.

Pathophysiology and management of critical illness polyneuropathy and myopathy.

Critical illness-associated weakness (CIAW) is an umbrella term used to describe a group of neuromuscular disorders caused by severe illness. It can be subdivided into three major classifications based on the component of the neuromuscular system (i.e. peripheral nerves or skeletal muscle or both) that are affected. This includes critical illness polyneuropathy (CIP), critical illness myopathy (CIM), and an overlap syndrome, critical illness polyneuromyopathy (CIPNM). It is a common complication observed in people with critical illness requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Given CIAW is found in individuals experiencing grave illness, it can be challenging to study from a practical standpoint. However, over the past 2 decades, many insights into the pathophysiology of this condition have been made. Results from studies in both humans and animal models have found that a profound systemic inflammatory response and factors related to bioenergetic failure as well as microvascular, metabolic, and electrophysiological alterations underlie the development of CIAW. Current management strategies focus on early mobilization, achieving euglycemia, and nutritional optimization. Other interventions lack sufficient evidence, mainly due to a dearth of large trials. The goal of this Physiology in Medicine article is to highlight important aspects of the pathophysiology of these enigmatic conditions. It is hoped that improved understanding of the mechanisms underlying these disorders will lead to further study and new investigations for novel pharmacologic, nutritional, and exercise-based interventions to optimize patient outcomes.

Interrater Agreement of Manual Palpation for Identification of Myofascial Trigger Points: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To achieve a statistical estimate of the agreement of manual palpation for identification of myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) and secondarily to investigate potential factors impacting the agreement of this technique. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE(R) and Embase for studies examining the reproducibility of manual palpation for the identification of MTrPs from the year 2007 to present. In addition, we utilized studies identified by 2 comprehensive systematic reviews that covered the period before 2007. The included studies were original peer-reviewed research articles and included Cohen κ measures or data with which to calculate Cohen κ. Studies were excluded if they lacked a measure of variability or information required to calculate variability. Studies that examined palpation through body cavities were also excluded. Of the 18 potentially relevant articles only 6 met inclusion criteria including 363 patients. Modified QUADAS tool was used to assess study validity. Subgroup comparisons were made utilizing Q and Z tests. RESULTS: An estimate of κ=0.452 (95% confidence interval, 0.364-0.540) was obtained for interrater agreement of manual palpation of MTrPs. Localized tenderness (κ=0.676) and pain recognition (κ=0.575) were the most reliable criteria. Only 1 study met inclusion criteria for intrarater agreement and therefore no meta-analysis was performed. DISCUSSION: Use of manual palpation for identification of MTrPs is unreliable, and future investigation should focus on integration with more reliable techniques.

Clinicians' perspective of the current diagnostic criteria for myofascial pain syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is one of the most common chronic musculoskeletal pain disorders. However, MPS is often under-diagnosed. The purpose of this study was to characterize practicing clinicians' perspectives of the current diagnostic criteria for MPS. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was used with a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire evaluated clinicians' perspective of the current diagnostic criteria for MPS. The sample population (n= 119) consisted of 40% family physicians, 31% physical medicine (PM) and rehabilitation specialists, 11% rheumatologists, 10% emergency room (ER) physicians, and 8% anesthesiologists specializing in chronic pain. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrated that participating clinicians agree that ``point tenderness'' and ``pain reproduction'' are criteria for MPS. In contrast, the clinicians do not consider ``autonomic symptoms'' as an important criterion for MPS. The anesthesiologists view ``restricted range of motion'' as a criterion for MPS more than the other groups, and they tend to consider ``referred pain'' and ``pain reproduction'' as criteria. Physical medicine and rehabilitation specialists and anesthesiologists tend to view ``local twitch response'' more as a criterion for MPS compared with the other groups. Most groups of clinicians consider ``weakness without atrophy'' as an important MPS criterion except for family physicians. It is important to note that ``poor sleep'', ``daytime fatigue'' and ``cognitive symptoms'', which are not considered as MPS symptoms, are often mistaken for MPS among practicing clinicians. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the diagnostic criteria are not well known, highlighting the need for an expert consensus to determine the importance of each criterion for MPS diagnosis.