| Abstract: | ![]()
This work was supported in part by Laval University (sabbatical leave of Dr. A.Y. Bélanger), the School of Kinesiology at Simon Fraser University, and Medtronic of Canada Inc. There is much speculation in athletic, physical therapy, and sports medicine circles about the relative cutaneous (superficial) vs. muscular (deep) perception of pain felt during maximum electrically evoked tetanic muscle contraction. To date, very few studies have addressed the basic question of whether pain perception during electrical stimulation is more superficial (cutaneous) or deep in muscular tissue. The purpose of this study was to determine, in a group of 10 healthy male subjects, the effect of a complete sensory nerve block at the thigh on the qualities (intensity, sensory, affective) of pain (elicited by electrically induced tetanic muscle contraction) as measured by the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire felt during high amplitude, 50-Hz electrical stimulation (ES) of the vastus lateralis muscle. The findings from this study provide clear evidence that a healthy individual's tolerance level to pain induced during electrically evoked maximum tetanic muscle contraction depends as much on deep muscle stimulation as it does on cutaneous or superficial stimulation. Indeed, the results show a statistically significant decrease of approximately 50% in all three qualities of pain (intensity, sensory, and affective) following the elimination of cutaneous pain pathways via the nerve blocking procedure (p < 0.05). Until it is demonstrated that the same results hold for patients who often experience pain prior to ES treatments, any clinical implications would seem to be premature. For now, clinicians must be aware that muscle, as much as skin, may limit one's ability to tolerate high amplitude ES treatments. Further research is needed on the cutaneous vs. muscular perception of electrically evoked pain in healthy and diseased populations as well as on the issue of subject and patient experience vs. nonexperience with ES. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1992;16(4):162-168. |
