Central Sensitization and Neuropathic Pain Cumulatively Affect Patients Reporting Inferior Outcomes Following Total Knee Arthroplasty
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Update This article was updated on November 17, 2023, because of previous errors, which were discovered after the preliminary version of the article was posted online. On page 102, the text that had read “In a post hoc analysis of the preoperative results, Group 1 showed significantly inferior WOMAC pain, function, and total scores compared with Group 4 (p < 0.05 for all). Groups 2 and 3 showed worse preoperative WOMAC pain, function, and total subscores compared with Group 4 (p < 0.05 for all). These results remained the same at 2 years after surgery.” now reads “In a post hoc analysis of the preoperative results, Groups 1, 2, and 3 showed significantly inferior WOMAC pain, function, and total scores compared with Group 4 (p < 0.05 for all). At 2 years postoperatively, Group 1 showed inferior WOMAC pain, function, and total scores compared with the other groups (p < 0.05 for all). Also, Groups 2 and 3 had worse WOMAC pain, function and total scores compared with Group 4 (p < 0.05 for all).” Also, on page 106, the title of Table IV, which had previously read “Inter-Group Comparison of Preoperative Scores (Post Hoc Analysis)” now reads “Inter-Group Comparison of Postoperative Scores (Post Hoc Analysis).” Background: Available studies on the relationship between central sensitization and neuropathic pain, and on their association with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are insufficient. The purpose of the present study was to investigate this association. Methods: A total of 316 patients who underwent primary unilateral TKA for the treatment of end-stage osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee were enrolled. Central sensitization was defined as a score of ≥40 on the Central Sensitization Inventory. Neuropathic pain was defined as a score of ≥19 on the painDETECT Questionnaire (PDQ). PROMs were also evaluated on the basis of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively. The patients were divided into 4 groups: Group 1 had both central sensitization and neuropathic pain, Group 2 had central sensitization only, Group 3 had neuropathic pain only, and Group 4 had neither central sensitization nor neuropathic pain. Preoperative and postoperative PROMs were compared among the groups. Results: All individuals who participated in the study were Asian, especially Korean. Fifty-five patients (17.4%) had both central sensitization and neuropathic pain, 68 (21.5%) had central sensitization only, 35 (11.1%) had neuropathic pain only, and 158 (50.0%) had neither condition. All WOMAC subscores showed significant differences among the 4 groups before and after surgery (p < 0.05 for all). In a post hoc analysis of the preoperative results, Groups 1, 2, and 3 showed significantly inferior WOMAC pain, function, and total scores compared with Group 4 (p < 0.05 for all). At 2 years postoperatively, Group 1 showed inferior WOMAC pain, function, and total scores compared with the other groups (p < 0.05 for all). Also, Groups 2 and 3 had worse WOMAC pain, function and total scores compared with Group 4 (p < 0.05 for all). Conclusions: Each condition, central sensitization and neuropathic pain, was associated with inferior PROMs following TKA. Furthermore, patients with both central sensitization and neuropathic pain showed worse PROMs compared with patients with either condition alone or without either condition. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».