Dataset Information

Ocular Neuropathic Pain: An Overview Focusing on Ocular Surface Pains

ABSTRACT: Objective This paper reviews ocular pain with the main focus on ocular surface discomfort and dry eye pain. Anatomy, physiology, epidemiology, assessment, and treatment are discussed in this paper. Methods A PubMed search was conducted for studies published from 2000 to 2019 on the anatomy, pathophysiology, epidemiology, assessment, and treatment of ocular pain. Reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized clinical trials were included. Inclusion criteria focused on ocular surface discomfort, dry eye pain and neuropathic pain. Results A total of 112 articles were found through searches, 45 of which were selected and studied in this review. Discussion Pain in general can be acute or chronic. Acute pain is usually a physiologic response to a serious damage to the tissues and alleviates with pain relief treatments. Chronic pain is defined as the persistence of pain for more than three months. From another point of view, pain has been classified into either nociceptive or neuropathic. Nociceptive pain is a physiologic response to a noxious stimulus. Both central and peripheral nervous systems can be involved in the development of a neuropathic pain, which is characterized by positive or negative sensory signs, a pain perceived disproportionate to a noxious stimulus, and/or not responsive to analgesics. Chronic pain usually has a neuropathic component. Ocular surface pain is a well-known complaint after any corneal surgery. This is mainly due to abnormal regeneration of damaged corneal nerve endings and abnormal connections with adjacent nerve endings which produce spontaneous activity. Tear hyperosmolarity and the resultant ocular surface inflammation can also trigger voluntary activity of corneal nerve endings. Referral pain to the first and second division of the trigeminal nerve has been reported. Interference with vision and even sleep, which is out of proportion to the examination are among patients’ complaints. All of these elements proposed the new concept of ocular neuropathic pain syndrome. The first step in conventional evaluation of ocular discomfort is search for tear insufficiency. Pathologies of lid and blinking as well as conjunctival irregularities should be addressed. Anti-inflammatory agents and, in resistant cases, systemic neuromodulators are shown to be helpful. Education on behavioral changes and reassurance are essential steps. Considering the neuropathic origin for the ocular pain, treatment modalities used for such pain in other parts of the body can be considered for this syndrome.

SUBMITTER: Ebrahimiadib N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7524198 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Dysfunction at the ocular system via nociceptive or neuropathic mechanisms can lead to chronic ocular pain. While many studies have reported on responses to treatment for nociceptive pain, fewer have focused on neuropathic ocular pain. This retrospective study assessed clinical responses to pain treatment modalities in individuals with neuropathic component ocular surface pain. Methods: 101 individuals seen at the University of Miami Oculofacial Pain Clinic from January 2015 to August 2021 with ≥3 months of clinically diagnosed neuropathic pain were included. Patients were subcategorized (postsurgical, post-traumatic, migraine-like, and laterality) and self-reported treatment outcomes were assessed (no change, mild, moderate, or marked improvement). One-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) was used to examine relationships between follow up time and number of treatments attempted with pain improvement, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess which modalities led to pain improvement. Results: The mean age was 55 years, and most patients were female (64.4%) and non-Hispanic (68.3%). Migraine-like pain (40.6%) was most common, followed by postsurgical (26.7%), post-traumatic (16.8%) and unilateral pain (15.8%). The most common oral therapies were α2δ ligands (48.5%), the m common topical therapies were autologous serum tears (20.8%) and topical corticosteroids (19.8%), and the most common adjuvant was periocular nerve block (24.8%). Oral therapies reduced pain in post-traumatic (81.2%), migraine-like (73%), and unilateral (72.7%) patients, but only in a minority of postsurgical (38.5%) patients. Similarly, topicals improved pain in post-traumatic (66.7%), migraine-like (78.6%), and unilateral (70%) compared to postsurgical (43.7%) patients. Non-oral/topical adjuvants reduced pain in postsurgical (54.5%), post-traumatic (71.4%), and migraine-like patients (73.3%) only. Multivariable analyses indicated migraine-like pain improved with concomitant oral α2δ ligands and adjuvant therapies, while postsurgical pain improved with topical anti-inflammatories. Those with no improvement in pain had a shorter mean follow-up (266.25 ± 262.56 days) than those with mild (396.65 ± 283.44), moderate (652 ± 413.92), or marked improvement (837.93 ± 709.35) (p < 0.005). Identical patterns were noted for number of attempted medications. Conclusion: Patients with migraine-like pain frequently experienced pain improvement, while postsurgical patients had the lowest response rates. Patients with a longer follow-up and who tried more therapies experienced more significant relief, suggesting multiple trials were necessary for pain reduction.

Project description:To validate the Ocular Pain Assessment Survey (OPAS), specifically designed to measure ocular pain and quality of life for use by eye care practitioners and researchers.A single-center cohort study was conducted among patients with and without corneal and ocular surface pain at initial and follow-up visits over a 6-month period. The content of the OPAS was guided by literature review, a body of experts, and incorporating conceptual frameworks from existing pain questionnaires. The Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale served as the gold standard for measuring the intensity of ocular pain.A total of 102 patients aged 18 to 80 years completed the OPAS at the initial visit. A total of 21 patients were followed up after treatment.Indices of validity and internal consistency (Spearman's rank-order, rs, or Pearson's correlation coefficients, rp), and coefficient of reliability (Cronbach's ?) were determined in addition to equivalence testing, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and diagnostic analysis.Eye pain intensity was the primary outcome measure, and interference with quality of life (QoL), aggravating factors, associated factors, associated non-eye pain intensity, and self-reported symptomatic relief were the secondary outcome measures.The OPAS had criterion validity at both initial (rs = 0.71; n = 102; P < 0.01) and follow-up visits (rs = 0.97; n = 21; P < 0.01). Equivalence tests yielded OPAS and gold standard equivalence for both the initial and follow-up visits. The EFA supported 6 subscales (eye pain intensity at 24 hours and 2 weeks, non-eye pain intensity, QoL, aggravating factors, and associated factors) confirming multidimensionality. Cronbach's ? >0.83 for all subscales established strong internal consistency, which correlated with the gold standard, including 24-hour eye pain intensity and QoL interference scores (rp = 0.81, 0.64, respectively P < 0.001). At follow-up, reduction in pain scores was accompanied by improvement in all dimensions of the OPAS. Percentage change in QoL correlated to percentage change in the gold standard (rp = 0.53; P < 0.05). The OPAS was sensitive (94%), specific (81%), and accurate (91%), with a diagnostic odds ratio >50.The OPAS is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool with strong psychometric and diagnostic properties in the multidimensional quantification of corneal and ocular surface pain intensity, and QoL.

Dataset Information

Ocular Neuropathic Pain: An Overview Focusing on Ocular Surface Pains

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets