Pınar DİKMEN-YALINAY, Elif AYDINLARILGAZ, Geysu KARLIKAYA

Pain levels of examined muscles and gender differences in pain during electromyography

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı EMG incelemesi sırasında kaslardaki ağrı düzeylerinini değerlendirmek ve ayrıca cinsiyet ile ağrı düzeyleri arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntem: İki yüz yirmi yedi olgu (166 kadın, 111 erkek) çalışmaya katıldı. Numerik analog skala (NAS)sı her kas için iğne EMGsi sonrasında öğrenildi. Bulgular: Toplamda 1242 kas incelendi. İncelenen kaslar arasında en yüksek NAS düzeyleri Abduktor Pollisis Brevis (APB) (5.8±2.6), 1. Dorsal Interosseöz (4.2±2.6) ve Vastus Lateralis (4.0±2.6) kaslarında bulundu. Kadın hastaların NAS düzeyleri (4.3±2.7) erkek hastaların NAS düzeylerinden (2.8±2.3) belirgin olarak yüksekti (p

Elektromiyografi sırasında incelenen kasların ağrı düzeyleri ve ağrıda cinsiyet farkları

Objectives: Te aim of this study was to evaluate the pain level of each muscle during an EMG study and also search for any association between the pain levels and gender. Methods: Two hundred and twenty-seven subjects (166 females and 111 males) participated in the present study. Numeric analogue scale (NAS) was obtained from the patients after needle EMG for each muscle. Results: In total, 1242 muscles were examined. Te highest pain levels among examined muscles were found on Abductor Pollicis Brevis (APB) (5.8±2.6), First Dorsal Interosseous (4.2±2.6) and Vastus Lateralis (4.0±2.6). NAS levels of the female patients (4.3±2.7) were apparently higher than those of the male patients (2.8±2.3) (p<0.01). Conclusion: First Dorsal Interosseous muscle was found less painful than APB muscle for the patients. Our study displayed greater pain sensitivity among females compared with males during the needle EMG; however, the pain levels of examined muscles were not higher than moderate for both genders.

PDF

___

1. Kothari MJ, Preston DC, Plotkin GM, Venkatesh S, Shefner JM, Logigian EL. Electromyography: do the diagnostic ends jus- tify the means? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995;76(10):947-9.
2. Gans BM, Kraft GH. Pain perception in clinical electromyog - raphy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1977;58(1):13-6.
3. Khoshbin S, Hallett M, Lunbeck R. Predictors of patients ex- perience of pain in EMG. Muscle Nerve 1987;10(7):629-32.
4. M eadows JC. Observations on muscle pain in man, with par- ticular reference to pain during needle electromyography. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1970;33(4):519-23.
5. Walker WC, Keyser-Marcus LA, Johns JS, Seel RT. Relation of electromyography-induced pain to type of recording elec- trodes. Muscle Nerve 2001;24(3):417-20.
6. Jan MM, S chwartz M, Benstead TJ. EMG related anxiety and pain: a prospective study. Can J Neurol Sci 1999;26(4):294-7.
7. S trommen JA, Daube JR. Determinants of pain in needle electromyography. Clin Neurophysiol 2001;112(8):1414-8.
8. P ease WS, Bowyer BL. Motor unit analysis. Comparison be - tween concentric and monopolar electrodes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1988;67(1):2-6.
9. Sherman HB, Walker FO, Donofrio PD. Sensitivity for de - tecting fbrillation potentials: a comparison between con- centric and monopolar needle electrodes. Muscle Nerve 1990;13(11):1023-6.
10. Cohen HL, Brumlik J. A Manual of Electroneuromyography. New York: Harper&Row Publishers; 1968. p.40.
11. P reston DC, Shapiro BE, (eds). Electromyography and neuro- muscular disorders. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: But- terworth Heinemann; 2005. p.184.
12. Talbot JD, Marrett S, Evans AC, Meyer E, Bushnell MC, Duncan GH. Multiple representations of pain in human cerebral cor- tex. Science 1991;251(4999):1355-8.
13. Jones AK, Friston K, Frackowiak RS. Localization of re - sponses to pain in human cerebral cortex. Science 1992;255(5041):215-6.
14. P eyron R, Laurent B, García-Larrea L. Functional imaging of brain responses to pain. A review and meta-analysis (2000). Neurophysiol Clin 2000;30(5):263-88.
15. I ngvar M. Pain and functional imaging. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1999;354(1387):1347-58.
16. Clear y PD, Mechanic D, Greenley JR. Sex diferences in medi- cal care utilization: an empirical investigation. J Health Soc Behav 1982;23(2):106-19.
17. H ibbard JH, Pope CR. Gender roles, illness orientation and use of medical services. Soc Sci Med 1983;17(3):129-37.
18. Waldron I. Sex diferences in illness incidence, prog - nosis and mortality: issues and evidence. Soc Sci Med 1983;17(16):1107-23.
19. Quiton RL, Greenspan JD. Sex diferences in endogenous pain modulation by distracting and painful conditioning stimulation. Pain 2007;132 Suppl 1:S134-49.
20. Wiesenfeld-Hallin Z. Sex diferences in pain perception. Gend Med 2005;2(3):137-45.