Search

In this study, we examined the onset and duration of local analgesic effects of bupivacaine incorporated into biodegradable microcapsules (extended-duration local anesthetic; EDLA) administered as subcutaneous infiltrations in different doses in humans. In 18 volunteers, the skin on the medial calf was infiltrated with 10 mL of EDLA, and the opposite calf was infiltrated with 10 mL of aqueous bupivacaine (5.0 mg/mL) in a double-blinded, randomized manner. Three different concentrations of EDLA were tested (6.25, 12.5, and 25 mg/mL), with 6 subjects in each group. Pain responses to mechanical and heat stimuli and sensory thresholds (touch, warm, and cold detection thresholds) were examined by von Frey hairs and contact thermodes. Assessments were made before and 2, 4, 6, 8, 24, 48, 72, 96, and 168 h after the injections. Safety evaluations were performed daily for the first week and at 2 wk, 6 wk, and 6 mo after the injections. The time to maximum effects was significantly shorter for aqueous bupivacaine (2-6 h) than for EDLA (4-24 h), but there were no significant differences between the maximum effects of EDLA and aqueous bupivacaine. From 24 to 96 h after the injections, EDLA was significantly more efficient than aqueous bupivacaine for all variables, and significant effects of EDLA were demonstrated for at least 96 h for all variables. In general, a dose-response gradient was seen in the EDLA group for 5 of 7 variables when the curves expressing effect over time for the different concentrations were evaluated. No serious side effects were observed for up to 6 mo after administration. In conclusion, bupivacaine incorporated in microcapsules provided analgesia for 96 h after subcutaneous infiltration.

Propofol has a greater amnesic effect than thiopental. In this study we tested whether different brain regions were affected by propofol and thiopental at similar drug effects. Changes in regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) were identified by using SPM99 analysis of images obtained with positron emission tomography with (15)O water. Ten right-handed male volunteers (age, 35 +/- 10 yr; weight, 74.1 +/- 7.5 kg; mean +/- sd) were randomized to receive thiopental (n = 4) or propofol (n = 6) to target sedative and hypnotic concentrations with bispectral index (BIS) monitoring. Four positron emission tomography images were obtained during various tasks at baseline and with sedative and hypnotic effects. Two participants receiving propofol were unresponsive at sedative concentrations and were not included in the final analyses. Median serum concentrations were 1.2 and 2.7 microg/mL for sedative and hypnotic propofol effects, respectively. Similarly, thiopental concentrations were 4.8 and 10.6 microg/mL. BIS decreased similarly in both groups. The pattern of rCBF change was markedly different for propofol and thiopental. Propofol decreased rCBF in the anterior (right-sided during sedation) brain regions, whereas thiopental decreased rCBF primarily in the cerebellar and posterior brain regions. At similar levels of drug effect, propofol and thiopental affect different regions of the brain. These differences may help to identify the loci of action for the nonsedative effects of propofol, such as amnesia.

One of the oldest methods of pain relief following a burn injury is local application of ice or cold water. Experimental data indicate that cooling may also reduce the severity of tissue injury and promote wound healing, but there are no controlled studies in humans evaluating the anti-inflammatory or anti-hyperalgesic potential of early cooling after thermal injury. Twenty-four healthy volunteers participated in this randomized, single-blinded study. Following baseline measurements, which included inflammatory variables (skin temperature, erythema index) and sensory variables (thermal and mechanical detection thresholds, thermal and mechanical pain responses, area of secondary hyperalgesia), first degree burn injuries were induced on both calves by contact thermodes (12.5 cm(2), 47 degrees C for 7 min). Eight minutes after the burn injury, contact thermodes (12.5 cm(2)) were again applied on the burns. One of the thermodes cooled the burn (8 degrees C for 30 min) whereas the other thermode was a non-active dummy on the control burn. Inflammatory and sensory variables were followed for 160 min after end of the cooling procedure. The burn injury induced significant increases in skin temperature (P<0.0005), erythema index (P<0.0001), thermal pain responses (P<0.0005), mechanical pain responses (P<0.005) and secondary hyperalgesia, and significant decreases in heat pain threshold (P<0.0005) and mechanical pain threshold (P<0.0005). There were no post-cooling effects on skin temperature (P>0.5), erythema (P>0.9), heat pain threshold (P>0.5), thermal or mechanical pain responses (P>0.5) or the development of secondary hyperalgesia (P>0.4) compared with the control burn. However, a significant, albeit transient, increase in cold detection threshold was observed on the cooled burn side (P<0.0001). In conclusion, cooling with 8 degrees C for 30 min following a first degree burn injury in humans does not attenuate inflammatory or hyperalgesic responses compared with a placebo-treated control burn.

Unlabelled: BACKGROUND. This study examined the analgesic effect of local ketamine infiltration, compared with placebo and systemic ketamine, in a human model of inflammatory pain., Methods: Inflammatory pain was induced by a burn (at 47 degrees C for 7 min; wound size, 2.5 x 5 cm) on the calf in 15 volunteers on 3 separate days with 7-day intervals. They received either (1) subcutaneous infiltration with ketamine in the burn area (local treatment) and contralateral placebo injections, or (2) subcutaneous ketamine contralateral to the burn (systemic treatment) and placebo in the burn area, or (3) placebo on both sides. The study was double-blinded and the order of the treatments was randomized. Hyperalgesia to mechanical and heat stimuli was examined by von Frey hairs and contact thermodes (3.75 and 12.5 cm2), and pain was rated using a visual analog scale (0-100)., Results: The burns produced significant hyperalgesia. Local ketamine infiltration reduced pain during the burn injury compared with systemic treatment and placebo (P < 0.01). Heat pain thresholds were increased by local ketamine treatment compared with placebo immediately after injection (P < 0.03), and so were the mechanical pain thresholds (P = 0.02). Secondary hyperalgesia and suprathreshold pain responses to heat and mechanical stimuli were not significantly affected by local ketamine. No difference between local ketamine and placebo could be detected 1 h and 2 h after the burn., Conclusions: Ketamine infiltration had brief local analgesic effects, but several measures of pain and hyperalgesia were unaffected. Therefore, a clinically relevant effect of peripheral ketamine in acute pain seems unlikely.

The aim of the study was to examine the presence of hyperalgesia to heat stimuli within the zone of secondary hyperalgesia to punctate mechanical stimuli. A burn was produced on the medial part of the non-dominant crus in 15 healthy volunteers with a 50 x 25 mm thermode (47 degrees C, 7 min), and assessments were made 70 min and 40 min before, and 0, 1, and 2 h after the burn injury. Hyperalgesia to mechanical and heat stimuli were examined by von Frey hairs and contact thermodes (3.75 and 12.5 cm2), and pain responses were rated with a visual analog scale (0-100). The area of secondary hyperalgesia to punctate stimuli was assessed with a rigid von Frey hair (462 mN). The heat pain responses to 45 degrees C in 5 s (3.75 cm2) were tested in the area just outside the burn, where the subjects developed secondary hyperalgesia, and on the lateral crus where no subject developed secondary hyperalgesia (control area). The burns decreased pain thresholds and increased pain responses to both thermal and mechanical stimuli within the burn (P < 10(-5)). Further, the burns induced secondary hyperalgesia (mean 89 cm2) to punctate mechanical stimuli (P < 10(-5)), and increased the pain response to mechanical stimuli in the areas of secondary hyperalgesia (P < 10(-5)). The pain response to heat stimuli increased over time in the area of secondary hyperalgesia (P < 10(-5)), and so did the pain response to heat on the lateral part of the crus (P < 10(-3)). However, the heat pain response increased more (P = 0.006) and was more intense (P = 0.001) within the zone of secondary hyperalgesia than on the lateral part of the crus. Further, the heat pain response was more intense in the zone of primary hyperalgesia than in the zone of secondary hyperalgesia (P = 0.004), in contrast to the mechanical pain response, which was not significantly different between the two zones of hyperalgesia. In conclusion, secondary hyperalgesia in man is not restricted to mechanical stimuli, as significant hyperalgesia to heat developed within the zone of secondary hyperalgesia to punctate mechanical stimuli. The data, combined with other evidence, suggest differences in the mechanisms accounting for primary hyperalgesia to heat and mechanical stimuli, whereas secondary hyperalgesia to heat and mechanical stimuli may be explained by a common central mechanism.

The aim of the study was to examine reproducibility of primary and secondary hyperalgesia in a psychophysical model of human inflammatory pain. Mild burns were produced on the crura of 12 volunteers with a 50 x 25 mm thermode (47 degrees C, 7 min). Assessments of (i) cold and warm detection thresholds, (ii) mechanical and heat pain thresholds, (iii) pain to heat (43 degrees C and 45 degrees C, 5 s), (iv) secondary hyperalgesia, and (v) skin erythema were made 1.75 and 0.5 h before, and 0, 1, 2, 4, and 6 h after a burn injury. Sensory thresholds and hyperalgesia to heat and mechanical stimuli were examined by contact thermodes and von Frey hairs, and pain intensity was rated with a visual analog scale (0-100). To describe between-day reproducibility, the subjects were examined three times at intervals of 21 days. Within-day comparisons showed that a 20% change could be detected as significant for all variables with fewer than 12 subjects in a cross-over design (2alpha = 5% and power = 80%). Between-day comparisons demanded up to 25 subjects to detect changes of the same magnitude. The burns caused mild to moderate pain (VAS: mean 29, SD 14) and the subjects (all right-handed) were more sensitive to heat pain on their left side (P < 0.03). Hyperalgesia was induced instantaneously by the burn and outlasted the study period (6 h). However, no spontaneous pain was observed after the injury, and a brief period of hypoesthesia to warm and cold stimuli was induced by the burn. The painful measurements themselves evoked hyperalgesia to heat and mechanical stimuli on the arm, but only to mechanical stimuli on the legs. including secondary hyperalgesia. Hyperalgesia evoked by the measurements was significantly less intense than that induced by injury. Habituation to the painful stimuli was demonstrated by significantly higher pain thresholds and lower pain responses on the second and third day of the study. The burn model is a sensitive psychophysical model of acute inflammatory pain, when cross-over designs and within-day comparisons are used, and the model is suitable for double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of analgesics. In similar models, we recommend that analgesic and placebo are evenly divided between right and left sides and study days.

Temporal summation of pain occurs when repeated stimuli become increasingly painful in spite of unchanged stimulus intensity. Summation can be quantified as the difference in pain between the first and the last stimulus in a train of stimuli. The aim of the study was to compare temporal summation of pain in normal skin with summation of pain in skin with primary and secondary hyperalgesia evoked by a heat injury. A heat injury was produced on the crus of 12 volunteers with a 50 x 25 mm thermode (47 degrees C, 7 min). Measurements were made before, and 0, 1, 2, and 4 h after the heat injury, in three areas: primary and secondary mechanical hyperalgesia induced by the heat injury, and in a mirror image of the injury on the opposite leg. Temporal summation of pain was induced by repeated electrical stimuli (five stimuli at 2 Hz) and assessed by visual analog scale (VAS). Primary hyperalgesia was evaluated by von Frey hairs and electrical stimuli, and the areas of secondary hyperalgesia with a rigid von Frey hair (314 mN). Significant primary (P < 0.000001) and secondary (P < 0.00006) mechanical hyperalgesia were evoked by the heat injury. The pain threshold to single electrical stimuli was reduced within the injury (P < 0.03), but not outside. The pain responses to single and repeated electrical stimuli were not significantly altered by the injury. Temporal summation of pain occurred in 418 stimulus trains out of 576 (73%), but no significant changes in summation developed in skin with primary or secondary mechanical hyperalgesia compared with normal skin (baseline measurements). Temporal summation at high stimulus intensities was more pronounced than at lower intensities (P < 0.0002). We found no correlation between either temporal summation and area of secondary hyperalgesia, or temporal summation and pain intensity during the induction of heat injury. We conclude that the development of primary and secondary mechanical hyperalgesia after heat injury in man was not associated with changes in temporal summation of painful electrical stimuli.

Background: Sympathetic nerve blocks relieve pain in certain chronic pain states, but the role of the sympathetic pathways in acute pain is unclear. Thus the authors wanted to determine whether a sympathetic block could reduce acute pain and hyperalgesia after a heat injury in healthy volunteers., Methods: The study was made as a randomized, single blinded investigation, in which the volunteers served as their own controls. A lumbar sympathetic nerve block and a contralateral placebo block were performed in 24 persons by injecting 10 ml bupivacaine (0.5%) and 10 ml saline, respectively. The duration and quality of blocks were evaluated by the sympatogalvanic skin response and skin temperature. Bilateral heat injuries were produced on the medial surfaces of the calves with a 50 x 25 mm thermode (47 degrees C, 7 min) 45 min after the blocks. Pain intensity induced by heat, pain thresholds to thermal and mechanical stimulation, and secondary hyperalgesia were assessed before block, after block, and 1, 2, 4, and 6 h after the heat injuries., Results: Of the 24 volunteers, eight were excluded because of somatic block or incomplete sympathetic block. The study revealed no significant differences between sympathetic block and placebo for pain or mechanical allodynia during injury, or pain thresholds, pain responses to heat, or areas of secondary hyperalgesia after the injury. The comparisons were done for the period when the block was effective., Conclusion: Sympathetic nerve block did not change acute inflammatory pain or hyperalgesia after a heat injury in human skin.

Background: Postoperative pain relief may be improved by reducing sensitization of nociceptive pathways caused by surgical trauma. Such a reduction may depend on the timing and efficacy of analgesia and the duration of the nociceptive block versus the duration of the nociceptive input. We examined whether a prolonged nerve block administered before a superficial burn injury could reduce local inflammation and late hyperalgesia after recovery from the block., Methods: The effects of a preemptive saphenous nerve block on primary and secondary hyperalgesia, skin erythema, and blister formation, were compared to the opposite unblocked leg for 12 h after bilateral thermal injuries (15 x 25 mm, 49 degrees C for 5 min) in 20 healthy volunteers. Recovery from the block was identified by return of sensation to cold., Results: Six subjects were excluded because of insufficient initial block (2 subjects) or because the block lasted beyond the study period (4 subjects). The remaining 14 subjects experienced significantly reduced primary (P = 0.005) and secondary hyperplasia (P = 0.01) in the blocked leg after return of cold sensation compared to the unblocked leg. Erythema intensity and blister formation were not significantly affected by the blockade (P = 0.94 and P = 0.07, respectively)., Conclusions: These data suggest that a prolonged, preemptive nerve block reduced late hyperalgesia after thermal injury, whereas the erythema and blister formation were not significantly affected.