I know that it is standard treatment to reduce inflamation of sore joints, sprained ankles, tennis elbow, etc. We use ice packs and anti-inflammatories such as Ibuprofen.
Why does this work? My gut feel is that, after a million years of evolution, the human body does a pretty good job of fixing injuries, and inflammation of the damaged area is it’s typical response. Why are we overriding that response?
An extremely good question, K364. People spend their entire lives studying this one question: “Is inflammation good or bad?”
Hey Rick,
Would you sacrifice the long-term use of a joint to be able to move it for the next day or two? Spraining an ankle, loading up on pain-killers and anti-inflammatories, and going back to using the joint as before is a very bad idea.
Well, I just wrote a long and overly-complicated attempt to address the question. However, I think it’s easiest to simply say this: prolonged inflammation can lead to tissue destruction. This is obviously one of those bad things. In some cases, your body can overreact to an injury, and inflammation (which is supposed to be an acute response) turns into a chronic problem. In these cases, it may be beneficial to suppress the inflammation in order to aid healing.
The inflammatory response is a favourite topic of mine, so please feel free to post any more questions you have. You have already asked the most difficult one.
It is analogous to the question you posed. Like joint inflammation, fever is, at heart, a mechanism set up by your body to promote healing. However, elevated fevers can cause a number of complications, especially in children. Therefore, in some cases, it may be beneficial for the patient if s/he uses antipyretics.
Note that, entirely separate from whether reducing inflammation/fever is good or bad, long-term use of NSAIDs introduces other complications.