• Guangyou Duan, Guifang Xiang, Xianwei Zhang, Shanna Guo, and Yuhao Zhang.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
• Pain Med. 2014 Feb 1;15(2):272-80.

ObjectiveOn the basis of our experience in the application of the mechanical algometer and a number of pilot experiments, we speculated that 0.1- and 0.01-cm(2) probes might improve the measurement of mechanical pain sensitivity relative to the conventional 1-cm(2) probe. Here, we examined the accuracy, feasibility, and applicability of these probes in detecting the mechanical pain sensitivity.DesignMechanical pain threshold and tolerance tests were performed on subjects using the three probes of 1, 0.1, and 0.01 cm(2) in random order. We compared the application of these probes.SettingThe study was set at the Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.SubjectsFifty healthy male Han Chinese subjects were recruited.Outcome MeasuresWe compared the qualities of stimulus-evoked pain, test stability, the measuring time, the subjects' acceptance level of the procedure, the validity of pain measurement, and the arduousness of the task for the investigator among the three different size probes.ResultsCompared with the conventional 1-cm(2) probe, the 0.01- and 0.1-cm(2) probes resulted in the subjects responding to stimulus-evoked pain more quickly, accurately, and consistently, and also made the measurement more comfortable for investigators. Up to 80% of the subjects reported the pain quality as a pricking sensation when the 0.01-cm(2) probe was used.ConclusionThe use of the 0.1-cm(2) probe might be more suitable as an optimized method for the detection of pressure pain sensitivity in clinical studies. In addition, the 0.01-cm(2) probe could potentially serve as an alternative to the weighted needle pinprick, providing continuous quantizing detection for pricking pain sensitivity.Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

13 keywords...

hide…