Preoperative dynamic quantitative sensory testing in remote pain-free areas is associated with axial pain after posterior cervical spinal surgeries

Abstract

Abstract Background Postoperative axial pain (PAP), characterized by pain and/or stiffness around the posterior neck, periscapular areas and/or shoulder region, is a vexing complication affecting 5–60% of patients undergoing posterior cervical decompression. Given its relatively high frequency and negative impact on patients’ physical and mental status, efforts preoperatively to confirm patients at risk of developing PAP to offer more efficient pain management to minimize this complication have a high priority. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of preoperative dynamic quantitative sensory testing (QST) in predicting the PAP after posterior cervical decompression. Methods This longitudinal observational study included 122 patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy undergoing laminoplasty or laminectomy. Preoperatively, all patients underwent the assessment of pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) at local and remote pain-free areas and both temporal summation (TS) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) at remote pain free-areas. These patients underwent further pain-related, psychosocial and clinical function assessments before and/or after operation. Results In the present study, 21 patients (21/122, 17.2%) developed PAP, and the 6-month postoperative follow-up demonstrated that 8 of these 21 patients developed chronic PAP (CPAP). All preoperative covariates with significant differences between the PAP and non-PAP groups were subjected to multivariate logistic regression, and the presence of preoperative axial pain, surgical plan including C2 decompression, total international physical activity questionnaire score (cutoff value [CV]: 2205.5, sensitivity: 82.4%; specificity: 61.1%) and TS value (CV: 2.5, sensitivity: 42.9%; specificity: 83.2%) were independently associated with PAP (P < 0.05). Logistic regression further revealed that the presence of preoperative axial pain, TS value (CV: 2.5, sensitivity: 62.5%; specificity: 83.2%) and CPM value (CV: 0.65, sensitivity: 87.5%; specificity: 61.4%) were significant predictors of CPAP (P < 0.05). Conclusions The findings of this study support the hypothesis that preoperative endogenous pain modulation efficiency may be associated with axial pain after posterior cervical decompression. Clinically, preoperative estimation of both TS and CPM in remote pain-free areas may provide additional useful information for identifying patients who may be at risk of developing both PAP and CPAP, which may be beneficial in enabling stratification in the perioperative period of patients based on individual vulnerabilities to avoid/reduce this complication.

Keywords

• Postoperative axial pain
• Quantitative sensory testing
• Temporal summation
• Conditioned pain modulation
• Posterior cervical spinal surgery