• Maria Palacios-Cena, Victor Gomez-Mayordomo, David Garcia-Azorin, Nuria Gonzalez-Garcia, Maria L Cuadrado, Cesar Fernandez-de-Las-Penas, Lars Arendt-Nielsen, and Angel L Guerrero.
• Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Alcorcón, Spain; Center for Sensory-Motor Interaction (SMI), Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
• Pain Physician. 2020 Mar 1; 23 (2): 219-227.

BackgroundA method for assessing dynamic muscle hyperalgesia (dynamic pressure algometry) has been developed and applied in tension-type and migraine headaches.ObjectivesTo investigate differences in dynamic pressure pain assessment over the trigeminal area between men with cluster headache (CH) and headache-free controls, and the association between dynamic and static pressure pain sensitivity.Study DesignA case-control study.SettingTertiary urban hospital.MethodsForty men with episodic CH and 40 matched controls participated. Dynamic pressure pain sensitivity was assessed with a dynamic pressure algometry set consisting of 8 rollers with different fixed levels (500, 700, 850, 1,350, 1,550, 2,200, 3,850, and 5,300 g). Each roller was moved at a speed of 0.5 cm/sec over a diagonal line covering the temporalis muscle from an anterior to posterior direction. The dynamic pressure threshold (DPT; load level of the first painful roller) and the pain intensity perceived at the DPT level (roller-evoked pain) were assessed. Static pressure pain thresholds (PPT) were also assessed with a digital pressure algometer applied statically over the mid-muscle belly of the temporalis. Patients were assessed in a remission phase, at least 3 months from the last cluster attack, and without preventive medication.ResultsSide-to-side consistency between DPTs (r = 0.781, P < 0.001), roller-evoked pain on DPT (r = 0.586; P < 0.001), and PPTs (r = 0.874; P < 0.001) were found in men with CH. DPT was moderately, bilaterally, and side-to-side associated with PPTs (0.663 > r > 0.793, all P < 0.001). Men with CH had bilateral lower DPT and PPT and reported higher levels of roller-evoked pain (all P < 0.001) than headache-free controls.LimitationsOnly men with episodic CH were included.ConclusionsThis study supports that a dynamic pressure algometry is as valid as a static pressure algometry for assessing pressure pain sensitivity in patients with CH. Assessing both dynamic and static pain sensitivity may provide new opportunities for differentiated diagnostics.Key WordsCluster headache, dynamic pressure pain, pressure pain threshold.

22 keywords...

hide…