tical c
play

TICAL C C HANGES HANGES IN IN B B RACHIAL RACHIAL P P LEXUS LEXUS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Ncleo de Pesquisa em Neurocincia e Reabilitao C OR TICAL C C HANGES HANGES IN IN B B RACHIAL RACHIAL P P LEXUS LEXUS ORTICAL I NJUR NJURY P P ATIENTS TIENTS WITH WITH C C HRONIC HRONIC P P AIN AIN Fernanda de


  1. Núcleo ¡de ¡Pesquisa ¡em ¡ ¡ Neurociência ¡e ¡Reabilitação C OR TICAL C C HANGES HANGES IN IN B B RACHIAL RACHIAL P P LEXUS LEXUS ORTICAL I NJUR NJURY P P ATIENTS TIENTS WITH WITH C C HRONIC HRONIC P P AIN AIN Fernanda ¡de ¡Figueiredo ¡Torres ¡ Novembro/2016 ¡

  2. Pain after Brachial Plexus Injury No ¡pain ¡ Chronic ¡pain ¡ No ¡treatment ¡ Severe ¡pain ¡+ ¡ ¡ Mild ¡pain ¡< ¡4 ¡ Recurrent ¡acute ¡pain ¡ No ¡ No ¡ Treatment ¡ Treatment ¡ treatment ¡ treatment ¡ No ¡opioids ¡ Opioids ¡ Vannier et al. , 2008

  3. Brain Plasticity after Peripheral Injuries Nor Normal mal Amputee Amputee Cohen et al. , 1991; PascualLeone et al ., 1996; Flor et al. , 1995; Ojemann & Silbergeld, 1995

  4. Brain Plasticity in Chronic Pain

  5. Brain Plasticity in Chronic Pain Lotze et al. , 2001

  6. Brain Plasticity in Chronic Pain Lotze et al. , 2001

  7. Brain Plasticity in Chronic Pain Buttler & Moseley, 2013

  8. Brain Plasticity after BPI

  9. General Objective To investigate pain influence over cortical representations in brachial plexus injury patients using transcranial magnetic stimulation.

  10. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (Baker et al ., 1985)

  11. Methods 1. Identification of intact cortical motor connections after injury of different brachial plexus trunks through the presence of motor evoked potentials. Superior Trunk Inferior Trunk Biceps Brachii Abductor Digiti Minimi Superior and Middle Trunks Extensor Carpi Radialis

  12. Methods 2. To assess cortical plasticity on the muscle groups of interest representation areas (changes in resting motor treshold and in MEP amplitude). Hot Spot Hot Spot Resting Motor Thr Resting Motor Threshold (RMT) eshold (RMT) Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) Recruitment Curves (RC) Recruitment Curves (RC) Cortical Mapping Cortical Mapping

  13. Methods 2. To assess cortical plasticity on the muscle groups of interest representation areas (changes in resting motor treshold and in MEP amplitude). Hot Spot Hot Spot Pulse Resting Motor Thr Resting Motor Threshold (RMT) eshold (RMT) Latency Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) Amplitude Recruitment Curves (RC) Recruitment Curves (RC) Cortical Mapping Cortical Mapping

  14. Methods 2. To assess cortical plasticity on the muscle groups of interest representation areas (changes in resting motor treshold and in MEP amplitude). Hot Spot Hot Spot Resting Motor Thr Resting Motor Threshold (RMT) eshold (RMT) Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) Recruitment Curves (RC) Recruitment Curves (RC) Cortical Mapping Cortical Mapping

  15. Methods 2. To assess cortical plasticity on the muscle groups of interest representation areas (changes in resting motor treshold and in MEP amplitude). Hot Spot Hot Spot Resting Motor Thr Resting Motor Threshold (RMT) eshold (RMT) Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) Recruitment Curves (RC) Recruitment Curves (RC) Cortical Mapping Cortical Mapping

  16. Methods 3. To verify any differences between cortical representations in brachial plexus injury patients with or without pain. Patients Patients WITH P WITH PAIN AIN Any degree, type or time since unilateral traumatic injury Presence of chronic pain Age ≥ 18 e ≤ 40 Both genders Patients Patients WITHOUT P WITHOUT PAIN AIN Any degree, type or time of unilateral traumatic injury Absence of chronic pain Age ≥ 18 e ≤ 40 Healthy V Healthy Volunteers olunteers Both genders Healthy subjects Age ≥ 18 e ≤ 40 Both genders No Nervous System or Motor System disorders

  17. Methods Exclusion criteria: • Cranioencephalic trauma sequelae; • Cognitive deficits; • History of CNS and PNS diseases; • History of chronic pain before injury. Clinical Evaluation: • Subjective evaluation; • Identification of type of injury, complementary exams; • Objective evaluation (strength, sensibility, ROM); • Pain evaluation: Map Map and and Intensity Intensity, BPI, DN-4, , BPI, DN-4, McGill McGill Appr Approved oved by by the the INDC-UFRJ INDC-UFRJ Reaser Reaserch ch Ethics Ethics Committee Committee (CAAE: 21549913.4.0000.5261, (CAAE: 21549913.4.0000.5261, report eport # 642.803) # 642.803)

  18. Expected Results ? ¡

  19. Thank you!

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend