Cited by 112Pain Management and TreatmentPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsAnesthesia and Pain Management

NMDA-receptor antagonist and morphine decrease CRPS-pain and cerebral pain representation

Gustin, S. M., Schwarz, A., Birbaumer, N., Sines, N., Schmidt, A. C., Veit, R., Larbig, W., Flor, H. +1 more·2010·Pain

Abstract

A combination therapy of morphine with an NMDA-receptor antagonist might be more effective than morphine without a NMDA-receptor antagonist for the relief of neuropathic pain in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). In order to test the efficacy of this combination therapy we performed a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study on patients suffering from CRPS of the upper extremity. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging during movement of the affected and unaffected upper hand before and after a treatment regimen of 49 days that contrasted morphine and an NMDA-receptor antagonist with morphine and placebo. We postulated superior pain relief for the combination therapy and concomitant changes in brain areas associated with nociceptive processing. Only the combination therapy reduced pain at rest and during movement, and disability. After treatment, activation in the contralateral primary somatosensory (cS1) and anterior cingulate cortex was significantly reduced when the affected hand was moved. Pain relief during therapy was related to decreased activation in cS1 and secondary somatosensory cortex (S2). Our data suggest that the combination of morphine with an NMDA-receptor antagonist significantly affects the cerebral processing of nociceptive information in CRPS. The correlation of pain relief and decrease in cortical activity in cS1 and S2 is in accordance with the expected impact of the NMDA-receptor antagonist on cerebral pain processing with emphasis on sensory-discriminative aspects of pain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2010.06.022

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gustin, S. M., Schwarz, A., Birbaumer, N., Sines, N., Schmidt, A. C., Veit, R., Larbig, W., Flor, H., & Lotze, M.
Affiliations
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • IRCCS San Camillo Hospital (IT)
  • Universitätsmedizin Greifswald (DE)
Corresponding author
Lotze, M.
Venue
Pain
Published
2010-10
Volume
151
Issue
1
Pages
69-76
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171946774
Cited by
112
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
FWCI
12.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
Keywords
complex regional pain syndrome, neuropathic pain, morphine, NMDA receptor antagonists, combination therapy, primary somatosensory cortex, secondary somatosensory cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, nociceptive processing, analgesia, sensory-discriminative pain
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Analgesics, Analysis of Variance, Brain Mapping, Cerebral Cortex, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Memantine, Middle Aged, Morphine, Oxygen, Pain, Pain Measurement, Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, Time Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review