Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2rsb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T08:47:22.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Central versus peripheral substrates of persistent pain: Which contributes more?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 1997

Marshall Devor
Affiliation:
Department of Cell and Animal Biology, Life Sciences Institute, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel 91904 marshlu@vms.huji.ac.il
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Evidence that central sensitization needs to be maintained in an ongoing manner by nociceptive input from the periphery makes the peripheral drive, rather than the central amplification process, the highest priority target for understanding and control. To stop the peripheral drives to kill two birds with one stone. Moreover, the amplification that central sensitization does provide is selective and not necessarily striking in intensity. A “magic bullet” that neutralized central sensitization would probably be less effective in controlling persistent pain than many investigators would like to believe. [berkley; blumberg et al.; coderre & katz; dickenson; mcmahon; weisenfeld-hallin et al.]

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
© 1997 Cambridge University Press