Reply to Goebel and Molloy.
Reply to Goebel and Molloy.
复制标题
回复戈贝尔和莫洛伊。
DOI:
10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002132
复制
发表时间:
2021
期刊:
影响因子:
7.4
通讯作者:
Häuser,Winfried
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Baranowski,Andrew;Messelink,Bert;Wesselmann,Ursula;Häuser,Winfried
The letter by Drs Goebel and Molloy2 once more illustrates the ongoing concerns on the validity and clinical utility of the concept of primary and secondary pain and is consistent, as raised in our article. 3 This team is well known and respected for their work around complex regional pain, a condition that under the ICD-11 would be considered a “primary” pain syndrome. The UK guidelines were led by Dr Goebel. 5 There are many questions around the relationship of secondary pain and primary pain, for instance: Can secondary pain become primary if the “cause” has gone? In our area of expertise, consider bladder pain syndromes, where the condition was associated with an infection in the early days but is no longer present. How should vulvodynia, where the association between recurrent candida infections and chronic vulvovaginal pain is still being investigated, be labelled in the context of primary and secondary pain? 1Is there such a thing as a “primary pain” without a “cause,” maybe we just have not found the cause? What about predisposing factors, genetics and epigenetics, as well as a failure to remember the index event, or multiple subliminal index events7, 8? Thus, the question can also be raised if primary pain can become secondary, when in a later phase a cause is found. This depends, for instance, on the diagnostics performed. Also causes can be obscure for some time and later on became visible and then offer opportunities for treatment. A classic example is the discovery of Helicobacter pylori infections in the context of some gastric and duodenal ulcers. 6