Zhurnal nevrologii i psikhiatrii imeni S.S. Korsakova · 2026
[Central sensitization in patients with cerebral small vessel disease].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Esin R G, Zamaletdinov R R, Fatykhova A F, Bolgarova R M, Gorobets E A, Mardugalyamova M V
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical manifestations of central sensitization in patients with cerebral small vessel disease (CSVD) (with Fazekas II-III white matter hyperintensity).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included four groups (two test groups and two comparison groups). The test group 1 (TG-Rus) included 50 Russian-speaking patients with a history of CSVD of more than 3 years and a tension and/or cervicogenic headache. The test group 2 (TG-Tat) included 50 Tatar-speaking patients with a history of CSVD of more than 3 years and a tension and/or cervicogenic headache. The comparison groups (CG-Rus and CG-Tat) included 50 Russian-speaking and Tatar-speaking patients with tension and/or cervicogenic headache without CSVD. To assess the central sensitization, the Russian-language and Tatar-language versions of the Central Sensitization Inventory were used.
RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between the test and comparison groups. Significant differences were found in subclinical central sensitization between the TG-Rus and CG-Rus groups (p=0.002), TG-Tat and CG-Tat groups (p=0.001), pronounced differences between the TG-Rus and CG-Rus groups (p=0.03), TG-Tat and CG-Tat groups (p=0.046), and critical differences between TG-Tat and CG-Tat groups (p=0.046).
CONCLUSION: When providing medical care to patients with CSVD, it is necessary to consider the possible comorbidity of pain syndromes and central sensitization, which can burden the clinical presentation and require a special therapeutic strategy.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included four groups (two test groups and two comparison groups). The test group 1 (TG-Rus) included 50 Russian-speaking patients with a history of CSVD of more than 3 years and a tension and/or cervicogenic headache. The test group 2 (TG-Tat) included 50 Tatar-speaking patients with a history of CSVD of more than 3 years and a tension and/or cervicogenic headache. The comparison groups (CG-Rus and CG-Tat) included 50 Russian-speaking and Tatar-speaking patients with tension and/or cervicogenic headache without CSVD. To assess the central sensitization, the Russian-language and Tatar-language versions of the Central Sensitization Inventory were used.
RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between the test and comparison groups. Significant differences were found in subclinical central sensitization between the TG-Rus and CG-Rus groups (p=0.002), TG-Tat and CG-Tat groups (p=0.001), pronounced differences between the TG-Rus and CG-Rus groups (p=0.03), TG-Tat and CG-Tat groups (p=0.046), and critical differences between TG-Tat and CG-Tat groups (p=0.046).
CONCLUSION: When providing medical care to patients with CSVD, it is necessary to consider the possible comorbidity of pain syndromes and central sensitization, which can burden the clinical presentation and require a special therapeutic strategy.