Psychological profile of pain I s61

EFFECTS OF LONG LASTING PAIN ON SOME PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES. R. Schleberger and J. Gundelach, Ortho- pedic Department, Ruhr-University, 4630 Bochum, FRG.

Aim of Investigation: Psychogenic modulations of low back pain and sciatica is commonly agreed with. Psychological stu- dies deal with functional and somatic groups of patien.ts. We dealt only with somatic (or ex-somatic) patients with. bad re- sults after operations when there has been proven disc hernia- tion at least at the time first operation and scar tissue rela- ted pain (the so called Postdiscotomie-Syndrome) at the time of investigations to study the effect of long lasting sciatica.

Methods: 42 patients both sexes aged from 30 to 58 years were examined with the Freiburg Personality Inventory (FPI, edi- tion A 1) the stress coping questionnaise (SVF) by Janke et al. and the complaint list (v. Zerssen).

Results: In FPI our patients resemble mean and standard de- viation equal to the normal population except in those scales (1,M) announcing that they are prone to vegetative symptomes and complaining. In SVF our patients presented no differences in comparison to normality though we found differences in an ear- lier study in males with repeated disc operations. In the com- plaint list our patients scored high.

Conclusions: As the other scales present normal values, the changes found in our somatic patients must be taken as secon- dary to long lasting pain.

PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERIST CS OF CHRONIC PERINEAL PAIN PATIENTS. J E Drinkwater* 1 J M G Foster?.

, R y Blunden*l,R Jenkins*' & Departments of Psychology, 2Psychiatry

and 'Pain Clinic, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London EC~A JBE, UK.

Aim of Investigations: This study examines the profile of pain, personality, non-pain problems, and attitude to treatment parameters in perineal pain patients who have gained no lasting relief from treatment and are now on "nothing further can be done" status.

Methods: Fourteen chronic perineal pain patients were administered the McGill Pain Questionnaire, Cattell's 16PF Questionnaire and the Claybury Battery in addition to the Clinical Interview Schedule prior to psycho- logical and psychiatric interventions.

Results: The means of all Melzack Pain Questionnaire variables exceeded (indicated more pain) those quoted by Melzack for menstrual, arthritic, cancer, dental, back, phantom limb and post-herpetic pain. On average the affective subclasses were more frequently used than the sensory subclasses. Other results indicated that all fourteen patients were more suited to behavioural than to psychotherapeutic interventions. Mean other-problem total was low compared to psychiatric groups. The mean 16PF profile showed significant desurgency and conscientiousness.

Conclusions: The greater use of affective than of sensory subclasses (the reverse of many pain groups) suggests that behavioural psychological interventions may have more value for chronic perineal pain patients than has been supposed.