Sensory Examination

Spustit vědomostní test Česká verze

Authors: E. Vlčková ^1,2; I. Šrotová ^1,2
Authors place of work: Neurologická klinika LF MU a FN Brno ¹; CEITEC – Středoevropský technologický institut MU, Brno ²
Published in the journal: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2014; 77/110(4): 402-418
Category: Minimonografie

Summary

Sensory examination represents one of the most complicated parts of clinical neurological examination that requires detailed instructions to patients and their attentive cooperation. Using correct methodology of testing and precise evaluation of the results, sensory tests frequently disclose even very fine sensory abnormities which patients may not be able to describe or even may not be aware of. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of methods most frequently used to evaluate common sensory and pain modalities (touch, vibration and thermal sensation, thermoalgic sensation, deep pain pressure, mechanical detection threshold and sensitivity, evaluation of dynamic mechanical allodynia), including interpretation of the findings and recommended normal values (if applicable). In each of the tested modalities, most commonly used methods are described from the easiest qualitative and semiquantitative methods (usually more frequently used in clinical practice) up to more complicated quantitative tests. Main advantages of qualitative and semiquantitative methods include their low methodological and time burden and high availability of the equipment used. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is more demanding and requires the use of specialized, not widely available, equipment. These methods, however, provide quantified results with better diagnostic validity, may disclose even less pronounced sensory abnormities and are more useful in long-term follow-up as well as in inter-individual comparisons, both at individual and group level. These methods have been widely used in recent clinical and pharmacological studies and are essential in the diagnostic process of small fiber neuropathy.

Key words:
neurological examination – sensory threshold – pain threshold – normal values – small fiber neuropathy

Zdroje

1. Bednařík J. Senzitivní systém. In: Ambler Z, Bednařík J, Růžička E (eds). Klinická neurologie. I. Část obecná. Praha: Triton 2004: 167– 198.

2. Backonja MM, Attal N, Baron R, Bouhassira D, Drangholt M, Dyck PJ et al. Value of quantitative sensory testing in neurological and pain disorders: NeuPSIG consensus. Pain 2013; 154(9): 1807– 1819. doi: 10.1016/ j.pain.2013.05.047.

3. Yarnitsky D. Quantitative sensory testing. Muscle Nerve 1997; 20(2): 198– 204.

4. Dyck PJ, O’Brien PC, Johnson DM, Klein CJ, Dyck PJ. Quantitative sensation testing. In: Dyck PJ, Thomas PK (eds). Peripheral neuropathy. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier 2005: 1063– 1093.

5. Cruccu G, Sommer C, Anand P, Attal N, Baron R, Garcia‑ Larrea L et al. EFNS guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment: revised 2009. Eur J Neurol 2010; 17(8): 1010– 1018. doi: 10.1111/ j.1468‑ 1331.2010.02969.x.

6. Garcia‑ Larrea L. Objective pain diagnostics: clinical neurophysiology. Neurophysiol Clin 2012; 42(4): 187– 197. doi: 10.1016/ j.neucli.2012.03.001.

7. Valeriani M, Pazzaglia C, Cruccu G, Truini A. Clinical usefulness of laser evoked potentials. Neurophysiol Clin 2012; 42(5): 345– 353. doi: 10.1016/ j.neucli.2012.05.002.

8. Baumgärtner U, Greffrath W, Treede RD. Contact heat and cold, mechanical, electrical and chemical stimuli to elicit small fiber‑ evoked potentials: merits and limitations for basic science and clinical use. Neurophysiol Clin 2012; 42(5): 267– 280. doi: 10.1016/ j.neucli.2012.06.002.

9. Lefaucheur JP, Ahdab R, Ayache SS, Lefaucheur‑ Ménard I, Rouie D, Tebbal D et al. Pain‑related evoked potentials: a comparative study between electrical stimulation using a concentric planar electrode and laser stimulation using a CO2 laser. Neurophysiol Clin 2012; 42(4): 199– 206. doi: 10.1016/ j.neucli.2011.12.003.

10. Cruccu G, Pennisi E, Truini A, Iannetti GD, Romaniello A, Le Pera D et al. Unmyelinated trigeminal pathways as assessed by laser stimuli in humans. Brain 2003; 126(10): 2246– 2256.

11. Lauria G, Hsieh ST, Johansson O, Kennedy WR, Leger JM, Mellgren SI et al. European Federation of Neurological Societies/ Peripheral Nerve Society Guideline on the use of skin biopsy in the diagnosis of small fiber neuropathy. Report of a joint task force of the European Federation of Neurological Societies and the Peripheral Nerve Society. Eur J Neurol 2010; 17(7): 903– 912.

12. Moravcová E, Bednařík J, Feit J, Sommer C. Hodnocení intraepidermální hustoty tenkých nervových vláken z kožní biopsie u pacientů s polyneuropatií. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2005; 68/ 101: 219– 226.

13. Tavakoli M, Petropoulos IN, Malik RA. Assessing corneal nerve structure and function in diabetic neuropathy. Clin Exp Optom 2012; 95(3): 338– 347. doi: 10.1111/ j.1444‑ 0938.2012.00743.x.

14. Krumova EK, Geber C, Westermann A, Maier C.Neuropathic pain: is quantitative sensory testing helpful? Curr Diab Rep 2012; 12(4): 393– 402. doi: 10.1007/ s11892‑ 012‑ 0282‑ 7.

15. Rolke R, Magerl W, Campbell KA, Schalber C, Caspari S, Birklein F et al. Quantitative sensory testing: a comprehensive protocol for clinical trials. Eur J Pain 2006; 10(1): 77– 88.

16. Rolke R, Baron R, Maier C, Tölle TR, Treede RD, Beyer A et al. Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): standardized protocol and reference values. Pain 2006; 123(3): 231– 243.

17. Moravcová E, Bednařík J. Počítačem asistované stanovení termického prahu. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2003; 66/ 99: 263– 269.

18. Moravcová E, Bednařík J, Svobodník A, Dušek L. Reproducibility of thermal threshold assessment in small‑fibre neuropathy patients. Scripta Medica (Brno) 2005; 78(3): 177– 184.

19. Moloney NA, Hall TM, Doody CM. Reliability of thermal quantitative sensory testing: a systematic review. J Rehabil Res Dev 2012; 49(2): 191– 207.

20. Yarnitsky D, Sprecher E. Thermal testing: normative data and repeatability for various test algorithms. J Neurol Sci 1994; 125(1): 39– 45.

21. Geber C, Klein T, Azad S, Birklein F, Gierthmühlen J,Huge V et al. Test‑ retest and interobserver reliability of quantitative sensory testing according to the protocol of the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): a multi‑centre study. Pain 2011; 152(3): 548– 556. doi: 10.1016/ j.pain.2010.11.013.

22. Magerl W, Krumova EK, Baron R, Tölle T, Treede RD, Maier C. Reference data for quantitative sensory testing (QST): refined stratification for age and a novel method for statistical comparison of group data. Pain 2010; 151(3): 598– 605. doi: 10.1016/ j.pain.2010.07.026.

23. Blankenburg M, Boekens H, Hechler T, Maier C,Krumova E, Scherens A et al. Reference values for quantitative sensory testing in children and adolescents: developmental and gender differences in somatosensory perception. Schmerz 2010; 24(4): 380– 382. doi: 10.1007/ s00482‑ 010‑ 0943‑ x.

24. Pfau DB, Krumova EK, Treede RD, Baron R, Toelle T, Birklein F et al. Quantitative sensory testing in the German Research Network on Neuropathic Pain (DFNS): reference data for the trunk and application in patients with chronic postherpetic neuralgia. Pain 2014; 155(5): 1002– 1015. doi: 10.1016/ j.pain.2014.02.004.

25. Shaffer SW, Harrison AL. Aging of the somatosensory system: a translational perspective. Phys Ther 2007; 87(2): 193– 207.

26. Bartley EJ, Fillingim RB. Sex differences in pain: a brief review of clinical and experimental findings. Br J Anaesth 2013; 111(1): 52– 58. doi: 10.1093/ bja/ aet127.

27. Konopka KH, Harbers M, Houghton A, Kortekaas R,van Vliet A, Timmerman W et al. Bilateral sensory abnormalities in patients with unilateral neuropathic pain; a quantitative sensory testing (QST) study. PLoS One 2012; 7(5): e37524. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0037524.

28. Haanpää M, Attal N, Backonja M, Baron R, Bennett M, Bouhassira et al. NeuPSIG guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment. Pain 2011; 152(1): 14– 27. doi: 10.1016/ j.pain.2010.07.031.

29. Westermann A, Rönnau AK, Krumova E, Regeniter S, Schwenkreis P, Rolke R et al. Pain‑associated mild sensory deficits without hyperalgesia in chronic non‑neuropathic pain. Clin J Pain 2011; 27(9): 782– 789. doi: 10.1097/ AJP.0b013e31821d8fce.

30. Buršová Š, Vlčková E, Hnojčíková M, Němec M, Mičánková Adamová B, Bednařík J. Přístrojově asistované kvantitativní testování senzitivity – normativní data. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2012; 75/ 108(4): 444– 453.

31. Semmes J, Weinstein S, Ghent L, Teuber HL. Performance on complex tactual tasks after brain injury in man: analyses by locus of lesion. Am J Psychol 1954; 67(2): 220– 240.

32. Feng Y, Schlösser FJ, Sumpio BE. The Semmes Weinstein monofilament examination as a screening tool for diabetic peripheral neuropathy. J Vasc Surg 2009; 50(3): 675– 682. doi: 10.1016/ j.jvs.2009.05.017.

33. Fruhstorfer H, Gross W, Selbmann O. Von Frey hairs: new materials for a new design. Eur J Pain 2001; 5(3): 341– 342.

34. Litzelman DK, Marriott DJ, Vinicor F. Independent physiological predictors of foot lesions in patients with NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1997; 20(8): 1273– 1278.

35. Paisley AN, Abbott CA, van Schie CH, Boulton AJ.A comparison of the Neuropen against standard quantitative sensory‑ threshold measures for assessing peripheral nerve function. Diabet Med 2002; 19(5): 400– 405.

36. Slater RA, Koren S, Ramot Y, Buchs A, Rapoport MJ.Pilot study on the significance of random intrasite placement of the Semmes‑ Weinstein monofilament. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2013; 29(3): 235– 238. doi: 10.1002/ dmrr.2388.

37. Baumgartner U, Magerl W, Klein T, Hopf HC, Treede RD. Neurogenic hyperalgesia versus painful hypoalgesia: two distinct mechanisms of neuropathic pain. Pain 2002; 96(1– 2): 141– 151.

38. Viswanathan V, Snehalatha C, Seena R, Ramachandran A. Early recognition of diabetic neuropathy: evaluation of a simple outpatient procedure using thermal perception. Postgrad Med J 2002; 78(923): 541– 542.

39. Ziegler D, Siekierka‑ Kleiser E, Meyer B, Schweers M.Validation of a novel screening device (NeuroQuick) for quantitative assessment of small nerve fiber dysfunction as an early feature of diabetic polyneuropathy. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 1169– 1174.

40. Feldman EL, Stevens MJ, Thomas PK, Brown MB, Canal N, Greene DA. A practical two‑step quantitative clinical and electrophysiological assessment for the diagnosis and staging of diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Care 1994; 17(11): 1281– 1289.

41. Hilz MJ, Axelrod FB, Hermann K, Haertl U, Duetsch M, Neundörfer B. Normative values of vibratory perception in 530 children, juveniles and adults aged 3– 79 years. J Neurol Sci 1998; 159(2): 219– 225.

42. Martina IS, van Koningsveld R, Schmitz PI, van der Meché FG, van Doorn PA. Measuring vibration thresh-old with a graduated tuning fork in normal aging and in patients with polyneuropathy. European Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) group. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1998; 65(5): 743– 747.

43. Beckmann YY, Çiftçi Y, Ertekin C. The detection of sensitivity of proprioception by a new clinical test: the dual joint position test. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2013; 115(7): 1023– 1027. doi: 10.1016/ j.clineuro.2012.10.017.

44. Kalisch T, Kattenstroth JC, Kowalewski R, Tegenthoff M, Dinse HR. Age‑related changes in the joint position sense of the human hand. Clin Interv Aging 2012; 7: 499– 507.

45. Leibowitz N, Levy N, Weingarten S, Grinberg Y, Karniel A, Sacher Y et al. Automated measurement of proprioception following stroke. Disabil Rehabil 2008; 30(24): 1829– 1836. doi: 10.1080/ 09638280701640145.

46. Mainka T, Bischoff FS, Baron R, Krumova EK, Nicolas V, Pennekamp W et al. Comparison of muscle and joint pressure‑pain thresholds in patients with complex regional pain syndrome and upper limb pain of other origin. Pain 2014; 155(3): 591– 597. doi: 10.1016/ j.pain.2013.12.014.

47. Carvalho B, Zheng M, Aiono‑ Le Tagaloa L. Evaluation of experimental pain tests to predict labour pain and epidural analgesic consumption. Br J Anaesth 2013; 110(4): 600– 606. doi: 10.1093/ bja/ aes423.

48. Somedic Algometer – Technical Specifications. [online] Available from: http:/ / en.somedic.com/ default.asp?pid=37.