Neurodynamic Solutions
  • Home, Info & Contact
    • Dr Julian WANG
    • Hybrid Courses
    • Joseph Gravino
    • NDS Team
    • 2023 Course Schedule
    • Courses General Info
    • Online Course Inquiry
    • Online Mentoring
    • Host a Course
    • Free Updates
    • Send Message
    • One-Touch Survey
    • Upper Quarter 1 Course
    • Lower Quarter 1 Course
    • Upper Quarter 2 Course
    • Lower Quarter 2 Course
  • Content
    • Neurodynamics Videos
    • Videos
    • Newsletters >
      • October 2022 Newsletter
      • July 2022 Newsletter
      • Original Neurodynamics 1995
      • Median Nerve Specific Movement
      • #nervefact 10
    • Articles >
      • Nerve and Muscle Movement?
      • Ulnar Nerve
      • Efficacy of Neurodynamics
      • Pain Matrix
      • Acute Lumbar Nerve Root - Reduce Force
      • Lumbar Disc Function - Flexion
      • 1. Do Nerves Get Stuck?
      • 3. Integrate the evidence >
        • 2. No evidence
      • Central Pain Mechanisms - part 1 >
        • Manual Therapy, neurodynamics, muscle mechanisms
      • Neurodynamic Aspect to Heel Pain
      • Research Awards for UEF and NDS
      • Louis Gifford
      • Whiplash, Neurodynamics and the Slump Test
      • Painless Nerve Root Mobilisations >
        • Plantar Fasciitis and Medial Calcaneal Neuropathy
      • Diane Jacobs - Cutaneous Innervation
      • 20th Anniversary Neurodynamics Video - specificity of nerve movement
      • Nerve Compression - Hour Glass Deformity
    • Policy

Central Pain Mechanisms and Musculoskeletal Pain

11/1/2015

2 Comments

 
Posted by Michael Shacklock

One of the fantastic developments in musculoskeletal medicine has been an increased awareness of central pain mechanisms.


From this have come many benefits, not the least of which is an understanding of how and why pain may not always match a specific musculoskeletal structure or pathology.  Clinically, the brain can now be treated as a key element of clinical  practice.

HOWEVER - even though significant benefits have come from this, concurrent is the development of obstacles to diagnosis and therefore valuable mechanical treatment is being lost to the central nervous system.

So the objective of this blog on central pain mechanisms is to explain how we arrived here and what reasoning has been used to treat our patients.
--

How We Got Here

When I first graduated, we had no idea of central pain mechanisms.  At that time, I was trained as a peripheralist (or tissue-based therapist) in which we applied the following statements, the essence of which I believe came from Cyriax and other colleagues, which were used in all methods of treatment at that time:

“All pain arises from a lesion.”

“All treatment must reach that lesion.”

“All treatment must exert a beneficial effect on that lesion.”

This was based on Cartesian reasoning in which pain was thought to be directly related to nociceptor activity.

"Fix the nociception and it will fix the pain."

As young therapists, we loved this because it was simple, direct and systematic.  We diligently followed these statements with all our patients which, for some, is effective.

But when we became aware of central pain mechanisms we developed a new ability to identify why certain patients do not fit this approach.  The following points out several characteristics that we used to achieve this:

- pain referral outside the normal area for a particular structure

- innocuous events (physical and psychosocial) evoking pain

- the same clinical pain could be reproduced with physical tests

- some patients’ pain behaviour did not match the mechanics of the relevant structure

- variable pain responses to the same physical testing.


For a time we scratched our heads and just made things fit as best we could, or we simply forgot about it.

Then came central pain mechanisms in which dorsal horn plasticity was an early focus. We continued into the brain and suddenly things started to fit.  Taking more notice of the patients' individualities, novel strategies emerged for diagnosis of a new clinical phenomenon called ‘central sensitisation’.  We accepted that the problem had spread from the tissues (nociceptive) to the central nervous system. And now we are starting to accept that the problem can start in the CNS.

Since the brain can produce such big changes in pain, and different treatment approaches can produce good responses in the same clinical problem, the response is NOT always specific to the treatment.   

A good example is an arc of pain with shoulder abduction. Manual treatment of the cervical spine can improve this, but so can glenohumeral mobilisations, rotator cuff or motor control exercises, visual imagery, cognitive strategies, manipulation of the thoracic spine and neurodynamic techniques.  Even pressing on the tummy button can help.

The brain was taken into account and a new statement created:

“A positive response to treatment does not  validate the diagnosis.”

In putting the tissue-based therapies in their rightful place, the CNS was now on the top with nociception underneath.  And, with our new-found faith in that big thing in the cranium, we created wonderful generalizations:

“No brain, no pain.”

“All pain comes from the brain.”

"PAIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NOCICEPTION"

Thus spoke the brain and many of us became centralists.
2 Comments

    Author

    Michael Shacklock is a musculoskeletal physiotherapist which special interests in clinical neurodynamics, pain and the musculoskeletal system.

    Archives

    January 2015

    Pain
    Central pain mechanisms
    Musculoskeletal medicine

    All

    RSS Feed

Plantar fasciitis and medial calcaneal nerve
Painless cervical nerve root mobilisations
Neural techniques and muscle function
Heel pain - neural aspect
Bilateral comparison in diagnosis

Contact 
Policy 
Unsubscribe
© Neurodynamic Solutions
Host a course
General course information
Upper quarter
Lower quarter
What's in store?