Search

Research supports the efficacy of therapeutic hypnosis for reducing acute and chronic pain. However, little is known about the mechanisms underlying these effects. This paper provides a review of the evidence regarding the role that electroencephalogram-assessed bandwidth power has in identifying who might benefit the most from hypnotic analgesia and how these effects occur. Findings are discussed in terms of the slow wave hypothesis, which posits that brain activity in slower bandwidths (e.g., theta and alpha) can facilitate hypnosis responsivity. Although the extant research is limited by small sample sizes, the findings from this research are generally consistent with the slow wave hypothesis. More research, including and especially studies with larger sample sizes, is needed to confirm these preliminary positive findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research supports the efficacy of therapeutic hypnosis for reducing acute and chronic pain. However, little is known about the mechanisms underlying these effects. This paper provides a review of the evidence regarding the role that electroencephalogram-assessed bandwidth power has in identifying who might benefit the most from hypnotic analgesia and how these effects occur. Findings are discussed in terms of the slow wave hypothesis, which posits that brain activity in slower bandwidths (e.g., theta and alpha) can facilitate hypnosis responsivity. Although the extant research is limited by small sample sizes, the findings from this research are generally consistent with the slow wave hypothesis. More research, including and especially studies with larger sample sizes, is needed to confirm these preliminary positive findings.

This blinded study evaluated the relative efficacy of three hypnosis sessions in 60 patients with chronic nociplastic pain allocated randomly to one of two conditions: hypnosis with analgesic suggestions, or hypnosis with nonspecific suggestions. Pain intensity, pain quality, and pain interference as outcome measures were assessed before and after treatment. A mixed-design analysis of the variance model showed no significant differences between groups. According to the adjusted model, large effect size improvements in pain intensity and pain quality emerged for both conditions but were only meaningful for patients not taking pain medications. Analgesic suggestions may not play a primary role in beneficial outcomes of hypnosis at the beginning of chronic pain management since both interventions demonstrated similar positive effects. Future studies should investigate the efficacy of the hypnosis components over longer treatment periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bruno Schein,1,2 Gerardo Beltran,1– 3 Bárbara Regina França,1,2 Paulo RS Sanches,4 Danton P Silva Jr,4 Iraci Lucena Torres,5,6 Felipe Fegni,7 Wolnei Caumo1,2,5,8 1Post-Graduate Program in Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul (RS), Brazil; 2Laboratory of Pain and Neuromodulation, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre (HCPA), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; 3Institute of Neurosciences, Universidad Catolica de Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador; 4Laboratory of Biomedical Engineer, HCPA, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; 5Pain and Palliative Care Service, HCPA, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; 6Laboratory of Pharmacology of Pain and Neuromodulation, Experimental Research Center, HCPA, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil; 7Laboratory of Neuromodulation and Center for Clinical Research Learning, Physics and Rehabilitation Department, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston, MA, USA; 8Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, UFRGS, Porto Alegre, RS, BrazilCorrespondence: Wolnei Caumo, Laboratory of Pain and Neuromodulation, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre at UFRGS, Ramiro Barcelos, 2350 - CEP 90035-003 Bairro Rio Branco, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, Tel/Fax +55 51- 33598083, Email wcaumo@hcpa.edu.brObjective: We compare the effect of HAS, a-tDCS on the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (l-DLPFC), and rest-testing on pain measures [(cold pressor test (CPT) (primary outcome) and heat pain threshold]. We also compare their effects on the motor evoked potential (MEP) (primary outcome), short intracortical inhibition (SICI), intracortical facilitation (ICF), and cortical silent period (CSP).Methods: This randomized, blind, crossover trial included 18 women with fibromyalgia, aged from 18 to 65 years old. They received at random and in a crossover order a-tDCS over the l-DLPFC (2mA), HAS, or a rest-testing.Results: HAS compared to a-tDCS increased the pain tolerance with a moderate effect size (ES) [Cohen’s f=− 0.78; (CI 95%; − 1.48 to − 0.12)]. While compared to rest-testing, HAS increased the CPT with a large ES [Cohen’s f=− 0.87; (CI 95%; − 1.84 to − 0.09)]. The a-tDCS compared to HAS increased the MEP amplitude with large ES [Cohen’s f=− 1.73 (CI 95%; − 2.17 to − 0.17)]. Likewise, its ES compared to rest-testing in the MEP size was large [Cohen’s f=− 1.03; (CI 95%; − 2.06 to − 0.08)].Conclusion: These findings revealed that HAS affects contra-regulating mechanisms involved in perception and pain tolerance, while the a-tDCS increased the excitability of the corticospinal pathways. They give a subsidy to investigate their effect as approaches to counter regulate the maladaptive neuroplasticity involved in fibromyalgia.Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier – NCT05066568.Keywords: tDCS, hypnosis, hypnotic analgesia, chronic pain, fibromyalgia, pain threshold, cold pressor test, CPM-test

Gerardo Beltran Serrano,1– 3 Laura Pooch Rodrigues,2 Bruno Schein,1,2 Maxciel Zortea,1,2 Iraci Lucenada Silva Torres,1,4,5 Felipe Fregni,6 Wolnei Caumo1,2,5 1Post-Graduate Program in Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil; 2Laboratory of Pain and Neuromodulation at Hospital De Clínicas De Porto Alegre (HCPA), Porto Alegre, Brazil; 3Psychology Department, Universidad Catolica De Cuenca, UCACUE, Cuenca, Ecuador; 4Department of Pharmacology, Institute of Health Sciences (ICBS), Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil; 5Pharmacology of Pain and Neuromodulation: Pre-Clinical Investigations Research Group, Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, Brazil; 6Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USACorrespondence: Wolnei Caumo Fax + (55) 51- 3359.8083Email wcaumo@hcpa.edu.brObjective: We evaluated whether active(a)-tDCS combined with hypnotic analgesia suggestion (HS) would be more effective than a single active(a)-tDCS, and/or sham-(s)-tDCS and s-tDCS/HS on the following outcomes: function of descending pain modulatory system (DPMS) during the conditioned pain modulation test (CPM-test) (primary outcome), heat pain threshold (HPT), heat pain tolerance (HPTo) and cold pressor test (CPT) (secondary outcomes). We also examined whether their effects are related to neuroplasticity state evaluated by serum brain-derived-neurotropic factor (BDNF).Materials and Methods: Forty-eight females received one session of one of the four interventions (a-tDCS/HS, s-tDCS/HS, a-tDCS, and s-tDCS) in an incomplete randomized crossover sequence. The a-tDCS or s-tDCS was applied over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) for 30 minutes at 2mA.Results: A generalized linear model revealed a significant main effect for the intervention group (P < 0.032). The delta-(Δ) pain score on the Numerical Pain Scale (NPS0-10) during CPM-test in the a-tDCS/HS group was − 0.25 (0.43). The (Δ) pain score on NPS (0– 10) during CPM-test in the other three groups was a-tDCS=− 0.54 (0.41), HS − 0.01 (0.41) and s-tDCS/HS=− 0.19 (0.43). A-tDCS/HS intervention increased the CPT substantially compared to all other interventions. Also, higher baseline levels of BDNF were associated with a larger change in CPT and HPTo.Conclusion: These findings indicate that the HS combined with a-tDCS mitigated the effect of the a-tDCS on the DPMS. The a-tDCS up-regulates the inhibition on DPMS, and the HS improved pain tolerance. And, together they enhanced the reaction time substantially upon the CPT.Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03744897.Keywords: tDCS, hypnotic analgesia, conditioned pain modulation, pain perception

Objectives: This paper aims to determine if hypnotic analgesia suggestion and transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) have a differential effect on pain perception. We hypothesized that transcranial direct-current stimulation would be more effective than hypnotic analgesia suggestion at changing the descending pain modulating system, whereas the hypnotic suggestion would have a greater effect in quantitative sensory testing.Design: This is a randomized, double blind and crossover trial.Settings: All stages of this clinical trial were performed at the Laboratory of Pain and Neuromodulation of the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre.Subjects: Were included 24 healthy females aged from 18 to 45 years old, with a high susceptibility to hypnosis, according to the Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form C (15).Methods: The subjects received a random and crossover transcranial direct-current stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (2 mA for 20 min) and hypnotic analgesia (20 min).Results: Only hypnotic suggestion produced changes that are statistically significant from pre- to post-intervention in the following outcomes measures: heat pain threshold, heat pain tolerance, cold pressure test, and serum brain-derivate-neurotrophic-factor. The analysis showed a significant main effect for treatment (F = 4.32; P = 0.04) when we compared the delta-(Δ) of conditioned pain modulation task between the transcranial direct-current stimulation and hypnotic suggestion groups. Also, the change in the brain-derivate-neurotrophic-factor was positively correlated with the conditioned pain modulation task.Conclusion: The results confirm a differential effect between hypnotic suggestion and transcranial direct-current stimulation on the pain measures. They suggest that the impact of the interventions has differential neural mechanisms, since the hypnotic suggestion improved pain perception, whereas the transcranial direct-current stimulation increased inhibition of the descending pain modulating system.Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03744897.Perspective: These findings highlight the effect of hypnotic suggestion on contra-regulating mechanisms involved in pain perception, while the transcranial direct-current stimulation increased inhibition of the descending pain modulating system. They could help clinicians comprehend the mechanisms involved in hypnotic analgesia and transcranial direct-current stimulation and thus may contribute to pain and disability management.

Introduction: Patients undergoing minimally invasive procedures under a light conscious sedation perceive pain and anxiety. Hypnosis used together with analgesics has been investigated in numerous studies. Aims and methods: To assess the effectiveness of hypnotic analgesia in management of pain, anxiety, analgesic consumption, procedure length and adverse events in adults undergoing minimally invasive procedures. Clinical controlled trials in which hypnosis was used together with pharmacological analgesia compared to pharmacological analgesia alone during invasive procedures were included. Seven databases were searched. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by two reviewers using a standardised instrument for critical appraisal from Joanna Briggs Institute, 'Meta‐Analysis of statistics assessment and review Instrument'. Meta‐analyses using the review manager version 5.3 software were conducted on procedure length and adverse events. Results for pain, anxiety and analgesics were synthesised in narrative summaries. Conduction of the review adheres to the PRISMA checklist. Results: Ten studies comprising 1,365 participants were included. A reduction in the consumption of pain medication was found between 21%–86% without aggravating pain intensity and anxiety. In few studies, significant reduction in pain intensity and anxiety was found. Meta‐analysis including seven studies revealed a small beneficial effect on reducing procedure length. A meta‐analysis on adverse events showed no significant reduction. Statistical heterogeneity was found among the studies included. Conclusion: For patients undergoing invasive procedures, hypnotic analgesia was effective in reducing consumption of analgesics. Only a slight effect was, however, found on experienced anxiety and pain intensity. It did not prolong the procedure and was safe to provide. Relevance to clinical practice: Hypnosis is recommended as pain management for adults during invasive procedures. A reduced consumption of pain medication potentially has a major impact on monitoring and observation of patients following the procedure, thus improving patient safety and reducing resource consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This paper aims to determine if hypnotic analgesia suggestion and transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) have a differential effect on pain perception. We hypothesized that transcranial direct-current stimulation would be more effective than hypnotic analgesia suggestion at changing the descending pain modulating system, whereas the hypnotic suggestion would have a greater effect in quantitative sensory testing. Design: This is a randomized, double blind and crossover trial. Settings: All stages of this clinical trial were performed at the Laboratory of Pain and Neuromodulation of the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre. Subjects: Were included 24 healthy females aged from 18 to 45 years old, with a high susceptibility to hypnosis, according to the Waterloo-Stanford Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility, Form C (15). Methods: The subjects received a random and crossover transcranial direct-current stimulation over the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (2 mA for 20 min) and hypnotic analgesia (20 min). Results: Only hypnotic suggestion produced changes that are statistically significant from pre- to post-intervention in the following outcomes measures: heat pain threshold, heat pain tolerance, cold pressure test, and serum brain-derivate-neurotrophic-factor. The analysis showed a significant main effect for treatment (F = 4.32; P = 0.04) when we compared the delta-(Δ) of conditioned pain modulation task between the transcranial direct-current stimulation and hypnotic suggestion groups. Also, the change in the brain-derivate-neurotrophic-factor was positively correlated with the conditioned pain modulation task. Conclusion: The results confirm a differential effect between hypnotic suggestion and transcranial direct-current stimulation on the pain measures. They suggest that the impact of the interventions has differential neural mechanisms, since the hypnotic suggestion improved pain perception, whereas the transcranial direct-current stimulation increased inhibition of the descending pain modulating system. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03744897. Perspective: These findings highlight the effect of hypnotic suggestion on contra-regulating mechanisms involved in pain perception, while the transcranial direct-current stimulation increased inhibition of the descending pain modulating system. They could help clinicians comprehend the mechanisms involved in hypnotic analgesia and transcranial direct-current stimulation and thus may contribute to pain and disability management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interest in hypnotic treatment for pain conditions seems to be on the rise. Recent evidence shows that hypnotic analgesia interventions result in substantial cost savings following medical procedures. Experimental studies suggest that hypnosis can differentially modulate the sensory or affective dimension of pain, depending on the nature of the suggestions. However, there have been few systematic approaches to quantifying this effect across literature and less attention has been given to the specific procedures and suggestions used in hypnotic treatment in research. The present paper evaluates the magnitude of the effect of hypnosis on the affective component of pain. A scientific background presents the usefulness of a hypnotic approach that uses emotion-specific wording that would elicit prior positive experience to intervene at both the sensory and affective dimensions of pain. Such an approach would enable patients who cannot effectively dissociate from the sensation of pain to diminish their affective response. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings for future hypnosis research and for the clinical applications of hypnotic analgesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the belief that hypnotizability is a mental dysfunction has been refuted over time, there is still research today that seeks to explore and clarify this preconception. The results of recent research indicate that, on the contrary, greater psychopathology is more frequent in subjects with low hypnotic susceptibility. Using the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale type A (SHSS-A) for hypnotizability, Symptom Checklist-Revised (SCL-90-R) for psychopathology, and the Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS) and Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) for psychosomatic dimensions, we found no relationship between baseline psychopathology, alexithymia and hypnotizability in 69 subjects with chronic pain in this retrospective observational study. Psychopathology did not affect the 2-month outcomes of hypnotic suggestions for pain in terms of either pain (assess using Italian Pain Questionnaire), anxiety or depression (assessed through Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) scores. Furthermore, i) no relationships were found between hypnotizability and degree of either psychopathology or alexithymia, definitively eliminating any doubts about the belief that hypnosis is a mental dysfunction; ii) only single hypnotic phenomena (SHSS-A) could be linked to some psychopathological dimensions; iii) analgesia suggestions also acted on anxiety and depression; and iv) the use of hypnotic suggestions for analgesia revealed a close relationship between improvements in sensorial and evaluative dimensions of pain and mitigation of anxiety. Hypnosis thereby seems to be a powerful tool in psychosomatic medicine whose effects on mind and body are inextricably linked.

The article focuses on the management of chronic pain through hypnotic approaches. Topics discussed include the reason for the limited general acceptance of and research on hypnosis, findings from hypnosis clinical trials, and the benefits of hypnosis treatment beyond pain relief. Also mentioned are clinical implications of findings from hypnosis clinical trials and the effects of hypnotic analgesia on pain-related brain activity.

Hypnosis is a hetero-induced or self-induced altered state of consciousness that involves focused attention and reduced peripheral awareness. It is determined by response to suggestions and can be used in the management of various clinical conditions. Nowadays there is growing attention to the neurobiological correlates of hypnosis because of its future clinical applications. The greater attention is due to the wide range of applications that might stem from its knowledge. Functional neuroimaging studies show that hypnosis affects attention by modulating the activation of the anterior cingulate cortex and other brain areas, modifying the conflict monitoring and cognitive control. During hypnoanalgesia, several changes in brain functions occur in all the areas of the pain network, and other brain areas. Among these, the anterior cingulate cortex is significantly involved in modulating the activity of pain circuits under hypnosis, both in the affective, sensory-cognitive, and behavioral aspects. The study of the functionality of the cingulate cortices, mainly the anterior and medial portions, appears to be crucial for better understanding the hypnotic phenomena, related to both the neurocognitive and somatosensory aspects.

Many medical conditions are claimed to benefit when hypnosis is incorporated into their treatment. For some conditions, the claims are largely anecdotal, but the treatment of pain stands out in two ways. First, there is a strong body of evidence that hypnosis can produce clinically useful analgesic effects. Second, since innocuous pain can be induced in the laboratory, the process can be explored rigorously. This idea assumes that experimentally induced pain and clinical pain behave identically. We describe using experimentally induced pain in patients already suffering from temporomandibular disorders. Scanning results indicate that the pain and its amelioration are the same in the two circumstances. Moreover, the absence of any impact upon a nociceptive trigemino-facial reflex implies that the impact of hypnosis is purely cortical. Finally, we address the observation that clinical success correlates poorly with hypnotic susceptibility scores. It is proposed that a painful experimental situation induces anxiety. This, like hypnosis, has been associated with an emphasis on right hemisphere activity. Thus, clinical anxiety may render a person more responsive to hypnosis than would be indicated by a susceptibility test delivered in stress-free circumstances.

This article summarizes the key points of a conversation between Basil Finer and Mark P. Jensen in which Dr Finer discussed his thoughts about hypnosis and hypnotic analgesia with respect to the work of Giancarlo Carli. These ideas were also expressed during a conference entitled 'Pain, Hypnosis and Sport Physiology: A Tribute to Giancarlo Carli', which was held in honour of Dr Carli upon his retirement as a Professor and Chair of the Department of Physiology, University of Siena. Dr Finer begins by discussing how his research in the neurophysiology of hypnosis overlaps with Dr Carli's research interests. Dr Finer goes on to describe how his training as an anaesthesiologist informed his clinical practice and research programme. He notes that Dr Carli's work in the area of animal hypnosis has important practical implications for easing suffering in patients. Dr Finer concludes by describing a number of cases in which he found hypnotic analgesia to be particularly helpful, and noting some of the more exciting new trends in hypnosis research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypnosis has been an elusive concept for science for a long time. Moreover, the search for objective indicators of the trance state proved to be unsuccessful in the early studies. However, the explosive advances in neuroscience in the last few decades have provided a 'bridge of understanding' between classical neurophysiological studies and psychophysiological studies. These studies have shed new light on the neural basis of the hypnotic experience. Conversely, neuroscience research is beginning to consider and use hypnosis as an attractive, viable, and appropriate physiological tool to explore and modulate the cognitive and emotional determinants of complex human experiences. Neuroimaging techniques offer new opportunities to use hypnosis as a probe into brain mechanisms and as a means of studying hypnosis itself. Furthermore, an ambitious new area of research is focusing on mapping the core processes of psychotherapy and the neurobiology underlying them. Hypnosis research offers powerful techniques to isolate psychological processes in ways that allow their neural bases to be mapped. The 'hypnotic brain' can serve as a way to tap neurocognitive questions and our cognitive assays can in turn shed new light on the neural bases of hypnosis. This cross-talk should enhance research and clinical applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article summarizes one of a number of talks presented at a conference entitled 'Pain, Hypnosis and Sport Physiology: A Tribute to Giancarlo Carli', which was held in honour of Dr Carli upon his retirement as a Professor and Chair of the Department of Physiology, University of Siena. Professor Giancarlo Carli is a true Renaissance Man who has developed a translational research programme that spans multiple fields (e.g. hypnosis, pain, exercise physiology), different species (e.g. humans, cats, rats, rabbits), and different foci of study (e.g. behaviour, beliefs, neuroendocrine systems, neuroelectrical responses, brain chemistry). This article reviews his important contributions to just one of these many areas: hypnotic analgesia. His research in this area has shown that: (1) hypnotic analgesia has multiple underlying mechanisms that can impact all components of the pain matrix; (2) individuals with low hypnotic ability can, and do, benefit from hypnotic analgesia treatment; although, (3) individuals with low versus high hypnotic ability display important differences in the neurophysiological and psychological mechanisms underlying hypnotic responding. These critical discoveries have contributed to the scientific understanding of hypnosis and hypnotic analgesia, and also have important practical clinical implications for using hypnosis to treat patients with pain conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past decade there has been a dramatic increase in (1) understanding the neurophysiological components of the pain experiences, (2) randomized clinical trials testing the efficacy of hypnotic treatments on chronic pain, and (3) laboratory research examining the effects of hypnosis on the neurophysiological processes implicated in pain. Work done in these areas has not only demonstrated the efficacy of hypnosis for treating chronic pain but is beginning to shed light on neurophysiological processes that may play a role in its effectiveness. This paper reviews a selection of published studies from these areas of research, focusing on recent findings that have the most potential to inform both clinical work and research in this area. The paper concludes with research and clinical recommendations for maximizing treatment efficacy based on the research findings that are available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article both summarizes the previous reviews of randomized, controlled trials of hypnotic analgesia for the treatment of chronic and acute pain in adults, and reviews similar trials which have recently been published in the scientific literature. The results indicate that for both chronic and acute pain conditions: (1) hypnotic analgesia consistently results in greater decreases in a variety of pain outcomes compared to no treatment/standard care; (2) hypnosis frequently out-performs non-hypnotic interventions (e.g. education, supportive therapy) in terms of reductions in pain-related outcomes; and (3) hypnosis performs similarly to treatments that contain hypnotic elements (such as progressive muscle relaxation), but is not surpassed in efficacy by these alternative treatments. Factors that may influence the efficacy of hypnotic analgesia interventions are discussed, including, but not limited to, the patient's level of suggestibility, treatment outcome expectancy, and provider expertise. Based upon this body of literature, suggestions are offered for practitioners who are using, or would like to use, hypnosis for the amelioration of pain problems in their patients or clients. Copyright © 2008 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific evidence for the viability of hypnosis as a treatment for pain has flourished over the past two decades (Rainville, Duncan, Price, Carrier and Bushnell, 1997; Montgomery, DuHamel and Redd, 2000; Lang and Rosen, 2002; Patterson and Jensen, 2003). However its widespread use has been limited by factors such as the advanced expertise, time and effort required by clinicians to provide hypnosis, and the cognitive effort required by patients to engage in hypnosis. The theory in developing virtual reality hypnosis was to apply three-dimensional, immersive, virtual reality technology to guide the patient through the same steps used when hypnosis is induced through an interpersonal process. Virtual reality replaces many of the stimuli that the patients have to struggle to imagine via verbal cueing from the therapist. The purpose of this paper is to explore how virtual reality may be useful in delivering hypnosis, and to summarize the scientific literature to date. We will also explore various theoretical and methodological issues that can guide future research. In spite of the encouraging scientific and clinical findings, hypnosis for analgesia is not universally used in medical centres. One reason for the slow acceptance is the extensive provider training required in order for hypnosis to be an effective pain management modality. Training in hypnosis is not commonly offered in medical schools or even psychology graduate curricula. Another reason is that hypnosis requires far more time and effort to administer than an analgesic pill or injection. Hypnosis requires training, skill and patience to deliver in medical centres that are often fast-paced and highly demanding of clinician time. Finally, the attention and cognitive effort required for hypnosis may be more than patients in an acute care setting, who may be under the influence of opiates and benzodiazepines, are able to impart. It is a challenge to make hypnosis a standard part of care in this environment. Over the past 25 years, researchers have been investigating ways to make hypnosis more standardized and accessible. There have been a handful of studies that have looked at the efficacy of using audiotapes to provide the hypnotic intervention (Johnson and Wiese, 1979; Hart, 1980; Block, Ghoneim, Sum Ping and Ali, 1991; Enqvist, Bjorklund, Engman and Jakobsson, 1997; Eberhart, Doring, Holzrichter, Roscher and Seeling, 1998; Perugini, Kirsch, Allen, et al., 1998; Forbes, MacAuley, Chiotakakou-Faliakou, 2000; Ghoneim, Block, Sarasin, Davis and Marchman, 2000). These studies have yielded mixed results. Generally, we can conclude that audio-taped hypnosis is more effective than no treatment at all, but less effective than the presence of a live hypnotherapist. Grant and Nash (1995) were the first to use computer-assisted hypnosis as a behavioural measure to assess hypnotizability. They used a digitized voice that guided subjects through a procedure and tailored software according to the subject's unique responses and reactions. However, it utilized conventional two-dimensional screen technology that required patients to focus their attention on a computer screen, making them vulnerable to any type of distraction that might enter the environment. Further, the two-dimensional technology did not present compelling visual stimuli for capturing the user's attention. Copyright © 2009 British Society of Experimental & Clinical Hypnosis. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the study which seeks to determine whether a single audio administration of a recorded hypnotic induction would reduce pain or anxiety associated with the electromyogram (EMG). The study performed a prospective randomized, controlled clinical trial at outpatient electrodiagnostic clinics in teaching hospitals to 26 respondents with analgesic suggestion. The result of the study revealed that the mean values for the education about EMG, hypnotic induction without analgesic suggestion and hypnotic induction with analgesic suggestion were not different compared with the EDU condition.

Hypnosis has been used for centuries to treat various types of pain problems. Anecdotal reports of its efficacy have been around since the early 1800s, but only recently has sophisticated research advanced the field. This paper will summarize the theoretical and clinical foundations of hypnotic analgesia, as well as offer recommendations for increasing its efficacy and improving future research to advance the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose/Objective: There have been few randomized controlled studies on the effectiveness of clinical hypnotic analgesia. The authors' goal was to improve on previous methodologies and gain a better understanding of the effects of hypnosis on different components of pain in a clinical setting. Research Method/Design: This study used a randomized controlled design in which the nurses and data collectors were unaware of treatment condition to compare hypnotic analgesia with an attention-only placebo for burn pain during wound debridements. Data were analyzed on a total of 46 adult participants. Results: The authors found that the group receiving hypnosis had a significant drop in pain compared with the control group when measured by the McGill Pain Questionnaire but not when measured by other pain rating scales. Conclusion: The McGill Pain Questionnaire total score reflects multiple pain components, such as its affective component and various qualitative components, and is not merely a measure of pain intensity. Thus, the findings suggest that hypnosis affects multiple pain domains and that measures that assess these multiple domains may be more sensitive to the effects of hypnotic analgesia treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Suggestion for hypnotic analgesia aimed at a specific body area is termed “focused hypnotic analgesia”. It is not clear, however, whether this analgesia is limited to a specific body location or spread all over the body. Focused hypnotic analgesia was studied, in response to ascending electrical stimuli, when analgesia and stimulation were applied to the same area (local), and when analgesia was applied to one location and stimulation was delivered to a different area (remote). The face or leg served alternately as the local or remote areas, and the effect was tested in 12 high-hypnotizable (HH) and 13 low-hypnotizable (LH) subjects. Hypnotic analgesia in the local site produced a significant pain reduction compared to the remote site in HH subjects (P <0.0001) but not in LH subjects (P =0.68). As stimuli increased in intensity the reduction in pain as a result of hypnosis was larger both in HH and LH subjects (P <0.0001). Nevertheless, significant analgesia occurred in the 3 highest intensities in the local and remote location of HH subjects, but only in 2 highest intensities in the local and 1 in the remote of LH subjects. We conclude that in HH subjects focused hypnotic analgesia is mostly confined to the area aimed at, but some spread of analgesia to remote areas cannot be dismissed all together. Alternatively, this “spread” of analgesia could be due to a placebo effect in the remote area. Focused hypnotic analgesia requires increased attention to the body area aimed at, unlike analgesia achieved by distraction of attention. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This study was designed in order to examine the effects of different types of hypnotic suggestion on hypnotic analgesia. Generalized relaxation and focused analgesia were induced in seven high-hypnotizable (HH) and eight low-hypnotizable (LH) subjects. Subjects were not aware to which group they belonged. The two groups did not differ in their expectation rates to achieve analgesia under hypnosis. Pain intensity and unpleasantness were rated on visual analogue scales in response to painful electrical stimuli, delivered in random order in five ascending intensities. Both focused analgesia and generalized relaxation decreased pain intensity significantly (P<0.01). However, stimulus-intensity response curves differed under the two hypnotic conditions. As stimulus intensity became higher pain reduction was enhanced under focused analgesia, while a constant reduction occurred under generalized relaxation. The interaction between hypnotic state and stimulus intensity was significant for focused analgesia (P<0.05) but not for generalized relaxation (P>0.07), difference became more pronounced when analyzed for HH subjects only (P<0.002 for analgesia, P>0.10 for relaxation). Pain reduction was significantly higher in HH than in LH subjects under focused analgesia (P<0.02) but not under generalized relaxation (P>0.5). We conclude that by utilizing two modes of hypnotic suggestions in response to ascending stimuli, we were able to discover two components of hypnotic analgesia. One shows a parallel shift in the stimulus–response function, has features similar to placebo and bears no clear relationship to hypnotic susceptibility. The other shows a slope change in the stimulus–response curve and has a positive relationship to hypnotic susceptibility. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The assumption that hypnotic analgesia produces placebo effects is controversial. The cognitive dimension that can distinguish hypnosis from placebo analgesia has been suggested as hypnotic susceptibility. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of the relationship between patient and therapist, assumed to produce the placebo effect, in the clinical context of hypnotic treatment for pain. Seventy subjects were given hypnosis administered by the therapist in person (Group A) and 37 practiced self-hypnosis (Group B) for 8 weeks. The Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS), Stanford hypnotic susceptibility scale type A, Cold pressor test (CPT) and SCL-90 were administered at baseline, and Italian Pain Questionnaire (IPQ) dimensions were used as outcome measures. The SSAS did appear to reflect the efficacy of hypnotic analgesia in all pain variables explored, but only in Group B. An improvement in pain intensity and all IPQ dimensions were found at 8 weeks. In particular, an improvement in the affective dimension of pain, with a medium-high effect size (η2 = .774), was recorded after hypnotic analgesia, with the outcome being better in Group A than in Group B ( p = .001). This outcome was independent of hypnotic susceptibility in both groups. Considering our hypothesis that, given the administration of the same suggestions, the therapist could promote the placebo response, contributing to the improvement in the affective dimension of pain outcome, which exhibited a response to the hypnotic treatment independently of hypnotic susceptibility.

Heart rate was measured in four experiments using the cold pressor test, with the following results: (1) the heart rate rise between relaxation and stress levels was significant when the water was sufficiently cold (significant in 0°C and 5°C water, not 10°C); (2) the amount of heart rate rise in the normal waking state in 0° C water is unrelated to the hypnotizability of the subject; (3) there is a significant difference in heart rate following a hypnotic induction with suggestions of analgesia, although the reduction in heart rate rise is unrelated to the amount of reduction in felt pain; (4) heart rate rise during hallucinated pain in highly hypnotizable subjects is not significantly different from the rise recorded during normal waking or hypnotically analgesic conditions. These moderately confusing results take on some semblance of order if it is assumed (1) that the control of voluntary processes through hypnotic analgesia (agitation, grimacing) accounts for some reduction in heart response even though uncorrelated with reduced pain, (2) that the homeostatic and sensory-information aspects of the cold water pain are probably little reduced, even though subjectively the pain may be absent altogether, and (3) the motivational-emotional aspects of pain are more labile than the sensory-discriminative aspects, in accordance with the Melzack-Wall Gate Theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effect of psychological pain reduction on the cutaneous inflammatory process was investigated by studying the effect of hypnotically induced analgesia on the flare reaction of cutaneous histamine prick tests. Ten highly hypnotically susceptible volunteers had their cutaneous reactivity against histamine prick tests on both arms measured before hypnosis. Their pain-related brain potentials were measured on the basis of eight argon laser stimulations. These measurements were repeated in the hypnotic condition, where subjects were given repeated suggestions of analgesia in one arm. Final measurements were performed in the post-hypnotic condition. Subjectively felt pain was measured on a visual analogue scale. Results showed a mean reduction in subjectively felt pain of 71.7% compared to the baseline condition. A significant ( P<0.01) mean reduction of the evoked potentials was found in the hypnotic analgesic condition compared to both the pre-hypnotic (49.9%) and the post-hypnotic condition (36.9%). A significant difference was measured in the histamine flare area between the pre-hypnotic and the hypnotic analgesic condition ( P=0.01−0.02) and between the hypnotic analgesic and the post-hypnotic condition when compared with the control arm. The mean ratio of flare area between the analgesic arm and the control arm was 1.04 (SD, 0.16) in the pre-hypnotic condition, 0.78 (SD, 0.22) in the hypnotic analgesic condition, and 1.37 (SD, 0.49) in the post-hypnotic condition. The results support the hypothesis that higher cortical processes can be involved in the interaction of inflammatory and pain processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The hypothesis that the alleviation of chronic pain with hypnosis is mediated by endorphins was tested. Six patients with chronic pain secondary to peripheral nerve irritation were taught to control the pain utilizing selfhypnosis. Each subject was tested at 5-min intervals during four 1-h sessions for the amount of reduction of pain sensation and suffering associated with hypnosis while being given, in a random double-blind crossover fashion, an IV injection of either 10 mg naloxone or a saline placebo through an indwelling catheter. The patients demonstrated significant alleviation of the pain with hypnosis, but this effect was not significantly diminished in the naloxone condition. These findings contradict the hypothesis that endorphins are involved in hypnotic analgesia [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study the hypothesis that hypnotic analgesia under conditions of stress is mediated through a neurochemical mechanism involving the release of opioid peptides in the CNS was investigated. Ten highly hypnotizable subjects participated in a 2×2 factorial design, which involved hypnotic analgesia, stress and double blind administration of naloxone (an opiate antagonist) or placebo. Analysis of post-hypnosis results indicates that hypnotic analgesia was significantly reversed by the interactive effects of stress and naloxone. It is inferred that stress may be the common psychological denominator of the various analgesic methods which effectively engage this endogenous pain inhibitory system. Additional analyses of anxiety measures reveals no significant association between trait and state anxiety, but significant relationships between state anxiety and time tolerance to ischemic pain. These results suggest that anxiety remains a definitional problem and that previous conceptualizations may not have satisfactorily explained the affect's adaptive function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]