-
Frontiers in Neurology 2020Recently, clinicians have been using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating various pain conditions. This systematic narrative review aimed to... (Review)
Review
Recently, clinicians have been using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treating various pain conditions. This systematic narrative review aimed to examine the use and efficacy of rTMS for controlling various pain conditions. A PubMed search was conducted for articles that were published until June 7, 2019 and used rTMS for pain alleviation. The key search phrase for identifying potentially relevant articles was (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation AND pain). The following inclusion criteria were applied for article selection: (1) patients with pain, (2) rTMS was applied for pain management, and (3) follow-up evaluations were performed after rTMS stimulation to assess the reduction in pain. Review articles were excluded. Overall, 1,030 potentially relevant articles were identified. After reading the titles and abstracts and assessing eligibility based on the full-text articles, 106 publications were finally included in our analysis. Overall, our findings suggested that rTMS is beneficial for treating neuropathic pain of various origins, such as central pain, pain from peripheral nerve disorders, fibromyalgia, and migraine. Although data on the use of rTMS for orofacial pain, including trigeminal neuralgia, phantom pain, low back pain, myofascial pain syndrome, pelvic pain, and complex regional pain syndrome, were promising, there was insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of rTMS for treating these conditions. Therefore, further studies are needed to validate the effects of rTMS on pain relief in these conditions. Overall, this review will help guide clinicians in making informed decisions regarding whether rTMS is an appropriate option for managing various pain conditions.
PubMed: 32132973
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00114 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Aug 2015The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of using an intraoperatively placed perineural catheter (PNC) with a postoperative local... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of using an intraoperatively placed perineural catheter (PNC) with a postoperative local anaesthetic infusion on immediate and long-term outcomes after lower limb amputation.
METHODS
A systematic review of key electronic journal databases was undertaken from inception to January 2015. Studies comparing PNC use with either a control, or no PNC, were included. Meta-analysis was performed for postoperative opioid use, pain scores, mortality, and long-term incidence of stump and phantom limb pain. Sensitivity analysis was performed for opioid use. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE system.
RESULTS
Seven studies reporting on 416 patients undergoing lower limb amputation with PNC usage (n = 199) or not (n = 217) were included. Approximately 60% were transtibial amputations PNC use reduced postoperative opioid consumption (standardised mean difference: -0.59, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.07, p = .03), maintained on sensitivity analysis for large (p = .03) and high-quality (p = .003) studies, but was marginally lost (p = .06) on studies enrolling patients with peripheral arterial disease only. PNC treatment did not affect postoperative pain scores (p = .48), in-hospital mortality (p = .77), phantom limb pain (p = .28) or stump pain (p = .37). GRADE quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low.
CONCLUSION
There is poor-quality evidence that PNC usage significantly reduces opioid consumption following lower limb amputation, without affecting other short- or long-term outcomes. Well-performed randomised studies are required.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Catheterization; Catheters, Indwelling; Chi-Square Distribution; Humans; Infusions, Parenteral; Lower Extremity; Odds Ratio; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Phantom Limb; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26067167
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.04.030 -
Cureus Dec 2022A painful or non-painful trigeminal nerve lesion brought on by trauma that exhibits symptoms and/or clinical evidence of trigeminal nerve dysfunction is known as painful... (Review)
Review
A painful or non-painful trigeminal nerve lesion brought on by trauma that exhibits symptoms and/or clinical evidence of trigeminal nerve dysfunction is known as painful post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathy (PTTN). In relation to this, the term post-traumatic persistent dentoalveolar pain (PDAP) is an idiopathic condition of chronic neuropathic origin that manifests as a diagnostic challenge for dental practitioners. Neuropathic pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as "pain initiated or caused by a primary lesion or dysfunction in the nervous system." PDAP is located primarily in the teeth and jaws. This study systematically reviews how likely it is to get painful PTTN if the patient received endodontic therapy and the duration between doing root canal therapy (RCT) and getting PTTN. A systematic review was carried out using key search terms from PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) with English as the only permitted language. There were strict inclusion requirements. The 10 articles that were included showed a prevalence of an endodontic procedure anywhere from three to 48 months following post-endodontic treatment, and it mainly affects females in their mid-40s with no variation regarding the areas, whether it is in the maxilla or mandible. The lack of information about the association between RCT and PTTN led practitioners to make wrong diagnoses, which made the patient unwilling to seek further help. So, in this review, we identified some visible characteristics that can help in that process.
PubMed: 36686068
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.32675 -
Clinical Rehabilitation Mar 2024Three-phase graded motor imagery (limb laterality, explicit motor imagery, and mirror therapy) has been successful in chronic pain populations. However, when applied to...
OBJECTIVE
Three-phase graded motor imagery (limb laterality, explicit motor imagery, and mirror therapy) has been successful in chronic pain populations. However, when applied to phantom limb pain, an amputation-related pain, investigations often use mirror therapy alone. We aimed to explore evidence for graded motor imagery and its phases to treat phantom limb pain.
DATA SOURCES
A scoping review was conducted following the JBI Manual of Synthesis and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Thirteen databases, registers, and websites were searched.
REVIEW METHODS
Published works on any date prior to the search (August 2023) were included that involved one or more graded motor imagery phases for participants ages 18+ with amputation and phantom limb pain. Extracted data included study characteristics, participant demographics, treatment characteristics, and outcomes.
RESULTS
Sixty-one works were included representing 19 countries. Most were uncontrolled studies (31%). Many participants were male (75%) and had unilateral amputations (90%) of varying levels, causes, and duration. Most works examined one treatment phase (92%), most often mirror therapy (84%). Few works (3%) reported three-phase intervention. Dosing was inconsistent across studies. The most measured outcome was pain intensity (95%).
CONCLUSION
Despite the success of three-phase graded motor imagery in other pain populations, phantom limb pain research focuses on mirror therapy, largely ignoring other phases. Participant demographics varied, making comparisons difficult. Future work should evaluate graded motor imagery effects and indicators of patient success. The represented countries indicate that graded motor imagery phases are implemented internationally, so future work could have a widespread impact.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Amputation, Surgical; Amputees; Imagery, Psychotherapy; Pain Management; Phantom Limb
PubMed: 37849299
DOI: 10.1177/02692155231204185 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Neuropathic pain often includes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Neuropathic pain, which is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system, may be central or peripheral in origin. Neuropathic pain often includes symptoms such as burning or shooting sensations, abnormal sensitivity to normally painless stimuli, or an increased sensitivity to normally painful stimuli. Neuropathic pain is a common symptom in many diseases of the nervous system. Opioid drugs, including morphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for morphine; other opioids are considered in separate reviews.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of morphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from inception to February 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing morphine (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified five randomised, double-blind, cross-over studies with treatment periods of four to seven weeks, involving 236 participants in suitably characterised neuropathic pain; 152 (64%) participants completed all treatment periods. Oral morphine was titrated to maximum daily doses of 90 mg to 180 mg or the maximum tolerated dose, and then maintained for the remainder of the study. Participants had experienced moderate or severe neuropathic pain for at least three months. Included studies involved people with painful diabetic neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia criteria, phantom limb or postamputation pain, and lumbar radiculopathy. Exclusions were typically people with other significant comorbidity or pain from other causes.Overall, we judged the studies to be at low risk of bias, but there were concerns over small study size and the imputation method used for participants who withdrew from the studies, both of which could lead to overestimation of treatment benefits and underestimation of harm.There was insufficient or no evidence for the primary outcomes of interest for efficacy or harm. Four studies reported an approximation of moderate pain improvement (any pain-related outcome indicating some improvement) comparing morphine with placebo in different types of neuropathic pain. We pooled these data in an exploratory analysis. Moderate improvement was experienced by 63% (87/138) of participants with morphine and 36% (45/125) with placebo; the risk difference (RD) was 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 0.38, fixed-effects analysis) and the NNT 3.7 (2.6 to 6.5). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low because of the small number of events; available information did not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect, and the likelihood that the effect will be substantially different was very high. A similar exploratory analysis for substantial pain relief on three studies (177 participants) showed no difference between morphine and placebo.All-cause withdrawals in four studies occurred in 16% (24/152) of participants with morphine and 12% (16/137) with placebo. The RD was 0.04 (-0.04 to 0.12, random-effects analysis). Adverse events were inconsistently reported, more common with morphine than with placebo, and typical of opioids. There were two serious adverse events, one with morphine, and one with a combination of morphine and nortriptyline. No deaths were reported. These outcomes were assessed as very low quality because of the limited number of participants and events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that morphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Humans; Middle Aged; Morphine; Neuralgia; Numbers Needed To Treat; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28530786
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011669.pub2 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Mar 2022Pain after amputation can be known as residual limb pain (RLP) or phantom limb pain (PLP); however, both can be disabling in daily life with reported incidences of 8%... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain after amputation can be known as residual limb pain (RLP) or phantom limb pain (PLP); however, both can be disabling in daily life with reported incidences of 8% for finger amputations and up to 85% for major limb amputations. The current treatment is focused on reducing the pain after neuropathic pain occurs. However, surgical techniques to prevent neuropathic pain after amputation are available and effective, but they are underutilized. The purpose of the review is to investigate the effects of techniques during amputation to prevent neuropathic pain.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed in multiple databases (Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar) and following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies that reported surgical techniques to prevent neuropathic pain during limb amputation were included.
RESULTS
Of the 6188 selected studies, 13 eligible articles were selected. Five articles reported techniques for finger amputation: neurovascular island flap, centro-central union (CCU), and epineural ligatures, and flaps. For finger amputations, the use of prevention techniques resulted in a decrease of incidences from 8% to 0-3% with CCU being the most beneficial. For major limb amputations, the incidences for RLP were decreased to 0 to 55% with TMR and RPNI and compared to 64-91% for the control group. Eight articles reported techniques for amputations on major limbs: targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR), targeted nerve implantation, concomitant nerve coaptation, and regenerative peripheral nerve interface (RPNI).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current literature, we state that during finger and major limb amputation, the techniques to prevent neuropathic pain and PLP should be performed.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Humans; Muscle, Skeletal; Neuralgia; Phantom Limb; Upper Extremity
PubMed: 34955394
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.11.076 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Aug 2021Controlling pain after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) is of critical importance to patients and clinicians. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Controlling pain after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) is of critical importance to patients and clinicians. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of perineural catheters (PNCs) on post-operative pain, post-operative morphine requirement, in-hospital mortality, long term phantom limb pain, and chronic stump pain.
METHODS
A systematic review using PubMed, EMBASE via OVID and the Cochrane library from database inception (1946) to 20 October 2020 was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies involving patients undergoing MLLA which reported on post-operative morphine requirement, pain scores, in-hospital mortality, phantom limb pain (PLP), and chronic stump pain were included. Studies comparing PNC use with epidural or wound site local anaesthetic infusions were excluded. Outcome data were extracted from individual studies and meta-analysis was performed using a random effects (Mantel-Haenszel) model for dichotomous data using an odds ratio (OR) summary statistic with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and with an inverse variance random effects model for continuous data using a standardised mean difference (SMD) summary statistic with 95% CIs. Sensitivity analyses were performed for post-operative pain scores and post-operative morphine requirement. Study quality was assessed using the Downs and Black score, and outcomes were assessed using the GRADE tool.
RESULTS
Ten studies reporting on 731 patients were included, with 350 patients receiving a PNC and 381 receiving standard care. PNC use is associated with a reduction in post-operative pain (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.58 - -0.01, p = .040, I = 54%, GRADE quality of evidence: low) and post-operative morphine requirements (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -1.03 - -0.23, p = .002, I = 75%, GRADE quality of evidence: moderate), although the effect of PNC on reduced post-operative morphine requirements is lost on sensitivity analysis of randomised trials only (p = .40). No demonstrable effect was found on in-hospital mortality, PLP, or chronic stump pain (GRADE quality of evidence: low).
CONCLUSION
PNC use in amputees is associated with a significant reduction in post-operative pain scores and post-operative morphine requirements, although this latter finding is lost on sensitivity analysis of randomised trials only.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Amputation Stumps; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Catheters; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Lower Extremity; Morphine; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Peripheral Nerves; Phantom Limb
PubMed: 34088614
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.03.008 -
EFORT Open Reviews Sep 2019The majority of included studies (8 out of 11, = 54) supported the concept of considering amputation for selected, unresponsive cases of complex regional pain syndrome... (Review)
Review
The majority of included studies (8 out of 11, = 54) supported the concept of considering amputation for selected, unresponsive cases of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) as a justifiable alternative to an unsuccessful multimodality nonoperative option.Of patients who underwent amputation, 66% experienced improvement in quality of life (QOL) and 37% were able to use a prosthesis, 16% had an obvious decline in QOL and for 12% of patients, no clear details were given, although it was suggested by authors that these patients also encountered deterioration after amputation.Complications of phantom limb pain, recurrence of CRPS and stump pain were predominant risks and were noticed in 65%, 45% and 30% of cases after amputation, respectively and two-thirds of patients were satisfied.Amputation can be considered by clinicians and patients as an option to improve QOL and to relieve agonizing, excruciating pain of severe, resistant CRPS at a specialized centre after multidisclipinary involvement but it must be acknowledged that evidence is limited, and the there are risks of aggravating or recurrence of CRPS, phantom pain and unpredictable consequences of rehabilitation.Amputation, if considered for resistant CRPS, should be carried out at specialist centres and after MDT involvement before and after surgery. It should only be considered if requested by patients with poor quality of life who have failed to improve after multiple treatment modalities.Further high quality and comprehensive research is needed to understand the severe form of CRPS which behaves differently form less severe stages. Cite this article: 2019;4:533-540. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190008.
PubMed: 31598331
DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190008 -
Journal of Neural Engineering Sep 2022Electrical stimulation can induce sensation in the phantom limb of individuals with amputation. It is difficult to generalize existing findings as there are many... (Review)
Review
Electrical stimulation can induce sensation in the phantom limb of individuals with amputation. It is difficult to generalize existing findings as there are many approaches to delivering stimulation and to assessing the characteristics and benefits of sensation. Therefore, the goal of this systematic review was to explore the stimulation parameters that effectively elicited referred sensation, the qualities of elicited sensation, and how the utility of referred sensation was assessed.We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Engineering Village through January of 2022 to identify relevant papers. We included papers which electrically induced referred sensation in individuals with limb loss and excluded papers that did not contain stimulation parameters or outcome measures pertaining to stimulation. We extracted information on participant demographics, stimulation approaches, and participant outcomes.After applying exclusion criteria, 49 papers were included covering nine stimulation methods. Amplitude was the most commonly adjusted parameter (= 25), followed by frequency (= 22), and pulse width (= 15). Of the 63 reports of sensation quality, most reported feelings of pressure (= 52), paresthesia (= 48), or vibration (= 40) while less than half (= 29) reported a sense of position or movement. Most papers evaluated the functional benefits of sensation (= 33) using force matching or object identification tasks, while fewer papers quantified subjective measures (= 16) such as pain or embodiment. Only 15 studies (36%) observed percept intensity, quality, or location over multiple sessions.Most studies that measured functional performance demonstrated some benefit to providing participants with sensory feedback. However, few studies could experimentally manipulate sensation location or quality. Direct comparisons between studies were limited by variability in methodologies and outcome measures. As such, we offer recommendations to aid in more standardized reporting for future research.
Topics: Amputees; Artificial Limbs; Feedback, Sensory; Humans; Phantom Limb; Sensation
PubMed: 36001115
DOI: 10.1088/1741-2552/ac8c38 -
Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 2016To evaluate and point out the importance of prosthetic rehabilitation of upper extremity. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate and point out the importance of prosthetic rehabilitation of upper extremity.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed to identify studies concerning prosthetic rehabilitation in upper extremity. The PRISMA Statement 2009 was used to establish the study and the methodological quality was assessed.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 620 studies. Of these 620, 9 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included for data extraction. The studies pointed out the upper limb prosthetic rehabilitation protocols consist of general exercise programme, motor tasks, phantom exercises, Muscle Training System, edema control, functional activities, signal strengthening, prosthetic education exercises, neuromuscular reeducation, virtual image and virtual reality exercises.
CONCLUSIONS
The current systematic literature review has shown that the prosthetic rehabilitation seems promising especially for upper extremity amputees.
PubMed: 27882044
DOI: 10.12669/pjms.325.9922