Facial recognition, laterality judgement, alexithymia and resulting central nervous system adaptations in chronic primary headache and facial pain-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with chronic headaches and chronic oro-facial pain commonly present psychosocial issues that can affect social interactions. A possible reason could be that patients with these disorders might present impairments in facial recognition, laterality judgement and also alexithymia. However, a systematic review summarizing the effects of facial emotion recognition, laterality judgement and alexithymia in individuals with headaches and oro-facial pain is still not available. AIM: The main objective of this systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) was to compile and synthesize the evidence on the occurrence of alexithymia, deficits in laterality or left-right (LR) recognition and/or facial emotion recognition (FER) in patients with chronic headache and facial pain. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in five databases (up to September 2023) and a manual search to identify relevant studies. The outcomes of interest were alexithymia scores, speed and accuracy in LR and/or FER, or any other quantitative data assessing body image distortions. The screening process, data extraction, risk of bias and data analysis were performed by two independent assessors following standards for systematic reviews. RESULTS: From 1395 manuscripts found, only 34 studies met the criteria. The overall quality/certainty of the evidence was very low. Although the results should be interpreted carefully, individuals with chronic headaches showed significantly higher levels of alexithymia when compared to healthy individuals. No conclusive results were found for the other variables of interest. CONCLUSION: Although the overall evidence from this review is very low, people with chronic primary headaches and oro-facial pain could be regularly screened for alexithymia to guarantee appropriate management.

[Physiotherapeutic differential diagnosis of back pain associated with endometriosis]. / Physiotherapeutische Differenzialdiagnose von Rückenschmerzen im Zusammenhang mit Endometriose.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis (EM) is one of the most common gynecologic conditions in our society. The diagnosis takes an average of 7 to 10 years. To shorten this period, this syndrome needs more attention. The aim of this article is to show overlaps between EM and low back pain (LBP) and to describe their relevance for physiotherapeutic screening. OBJECTIVES: What clinical signs do the syndromes EM and LBP have in common and to what extent can physiotherapeutic screening take gynecological aspects into account and be adapted accordingly? RESULTS: To answer this question, the two syndromes were screened for overlaps. These overlaps were then related to the existing literature and case studies. The current research situation shows overlaps of the two syndromes with regard to the etiology, the pain mechanism as well as a psychosocial aspect. The literature shows that more women than men are affected by LBP and other chronic pain syndromes. EM occurs almost exclusively in women and, like LBP, is considered a chronic pain syndrome. Thus, a common pain mechanism of the two syndromes is discussed in the literature. The most frequent overlap of the two syndromes is shown by the occurrence of LBP as a frequent symptom of EM. This connection can be justified by structural causes as well as by a reflex pain presentation. CONCLUSION: In a physiotherapeutic setting, evidence of EM can be observed in the history and physical examination. Considering these factors may help shorten the diagnosis time of endometriosis by referring for further evaluation if gynecologic involvement is suspected in LBP. A comprehensive history is important and should cover urologic, gynecologic, as well as sexual history. In this article, the term woman is used to refer to the biological female sex and is not related to individual gender identity. The clinical picture mainly affects women, which is why in the following work, as far as it concerns the people suffering from the disease, it is not used in the opposite sense.

[Quantitative sensory testing for neuropathic pain and its relevance for physiotherapy]. / Quantitative sensorische Testung im Rahmen neuropathischer Schmerzen und ihre Bedeutung für die Physiotherapie.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic pain syndromes are typically characterized by high chronification rates as well as long and intensive pain episodes. Early and accurate diagnosis of neuropathic pain is a basic skill of physiotherapists and other medical professionals, may allow for appropriate medical treatment and help to prevent possible consequential damage. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) can be applied as a supplement to conventional neurological bedside testing in the evaluation of neuropathic pain. Over recent decades, QST has come to hold a significant position in the field of pain research. However, despite these developments, the application of QST in clinical practice has lagged behind. OBJECTIVES: What is the value of QST in the study of neuropathic pain? Have the conditions for personal clinical use of the QST been established in physiotherapy practice? Have the pathways for specific implementation of the QST been defined? METHOD: Literature research as part of a Bachelor thesis in Physiotherapy. RESULTS: QST constitutes a valid examination tool that is able to evaluate the complete somatosensory profile. In this way, QST may provide substantial additional benefit in the examination of neuropathic pain patients compared to other conventional testing procedures, especially when it comes to small-fibre neuropathies. These small fibres seem to be particularly affected in asymptomatic patients as well as early phases of neuropathies and cannot be investigated via conventional testing procedures. This makes the use of partial aspects of the QST a proven instrument for physiotherapists and medical staff, which was particularly useful in the decision-making process for neuropathies. DISCUSSION: Nonetheless, regarding the results, there are still several limiting factors that hamper the routine use of QST. Some of these can be resolved by precisely adhering to testing protocols and taking precautions. Other highly relevant issues for clinical practice, such as the immense cost of equipment and the excessive time required for testing, have not been satisfactorily overcome as yet. Less comprehensive testing protocols as well as the innovation of handy and cost-effective testing devices might offer initial approaches to enhance the widespread use of QST. Complementing conventional bedside testing by adding thermal discrimination tests and pain detection threshold tests might prove to be another possibility to integrate the benefit of QST into clinical practice. CONCLUSION: QST makes a significant contribution to the investigation and diagnosis of neuropathies. Physiotherapists are encouraged to implement partial aspects of the QST in a standard examination in order to have a positive effect on both early detection and treatment.