Indication for spinal sensitization in chronic low back pain: mechanical hyperalgesia adjacent to but not within the most painful body area.

INTRODUCTION

In 85% of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), no specific pathoanatomical cause can be identified. Besides primary peripheral drivers within the lower back, spinal or supraspinal sensitization processes might contribute to the patients' pain.

OBJECTIVES

The present study conceptualized the most painful area (MP) of patients with nonspecific CLBP as primarily affected area and assessed signs of peripheral, spinal, and supraspinal sensitization using quantitative sensory testing (QST) in MP, a pain-free area adjacent to MP (AD), and a remote, pain-free control area (CON).

METHODS

Fifty-nine patients with CLBP (51 years, SD = 16.6, 22 female patients) and 35 pain-free control participants individually matched for age, sex, and testing areas (49 years, SD = 17.5, 19 female participants) underwent a full QST protocol in MP and a reduced QST protocol assessing sensory gain in AD and CON. Quantitative sensory testing measures, except paradoxical heat sensations and dynamic mechanical allodynia (DMA), were Z-transformed to the matched control participants and tested for significance using Z-tests (α = 0.001). Paradoxical heat sensations and DMA occurrence were compared between cohorts using Fisher's exact tests (α = 0.05). The same analyses were performed with a high-pain and a low-pain CLBP subsample (50% quantile).

RESULTS

Patients showed cold and vibration hypoesthesia in MP (all Ps < 0.001) and mechanical hyperalgesia (P < 0.001) and more frequent DMA (P = 0.044) in AD. The results were mainly driven by the high-pain CLBP subsample. In CON, no sensory alterations were observed.

CONCLUSION

Mechanical hyperalgesia and DMA adjacent to but not within MP, the supposedly primarily affected area, might reflect secondary hyperalgesia originating from spinal sensitization in patients with CLBP.