-
BMC Neurology Mar 2019Aim to quantitatively analyze the clinical effectiveness for motor cortex stimulation (MCS) to refractory pain.
BACKGROUND
Aim to quantitatively analyze the clinical effectiveness for motor cortex stimulation (MCS) to refractory pain.
METHODS
The literatures were systematically searched in database of Cocharane library, Embase and PubMed, using relevant strategies. Data were extracted from eligible articles and pooled as mean with standard deviation (SD). Comparative analysis was measured by non-parametric t test and linear regression model.
RESULTS
The pooled effect estimate from 12 trials (n = 198) elucidated that MCS shown the positive effect on refractory pain, and the total percentage improvement was 35.2% in post-stroke pain and 46.5% in trigeminal neuropathic pain. There is no statistical differences between stroke involved thalamus or non-thalamus. The improvement of plexus avulsion (29.8%) and phantom pain (34.1%) was similar. The highest improvement rate was seen in post-radicular plexopathy (65.1%) and MCS may aggravate the pain induced by spinal cord injury, confirmed by small sample size. Concurrently, Both the duration of disease (r = 0.233, p = 0.019*) and the time of follow-up (r = 0.196, p = 0.016*) had small predicative value, while age (p = 0.125) had no correlation to post-operative pain relief.
CONCLUSIONS
MCS is conducive to the patients with refractory pain. The duration of disease and the time of follow-up can be regarded as predictive factor. Meanwhile, further studies are needed to reveal the mechanism of MCS and to reevaluate the cost-benefit aspect with better-designed clinical trials.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Humans; Motor Cortex; Pain Measurement; Pain, Intractable; Phantom Limb; Treatment Outcome; Trigeminal Neuralgia
PubMed: 30925914
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-019-1273-y -
Health Technology Assessment... Nov 2018Although many treatments exist for phantom limb pain (PLP), the evidence supporting them is limited and there are no guidelines for PLP management. Brain and spinal cord...
BACKGROUND
Although many treatments exist for phantom limb pain (PLP), the evidence supporting them is limited and there are no guidelines for PLP management. Brain and spinal cord neurostimulation therapies are targeted at patients with chronic PLP but have yet to be systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVE
To determine which types of brain and spinal stimulation therapy appear to be the best for treating chronic PLP.
DESIGN
Systematic reviews of effectiveness and epidemiology studies, and a survey of NHS practice.
POPULATION
All patients with PLP.
INTERVENTIONS
Invasive interventions - deep brain stimulation (DBS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. Non-invasive interventions - repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Phantom limb pain and quality of life.
DATA SOURCES
Twelve databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) and clinical trial registries were searched in May 2017, with no date limits applied.
REVIEW METHODS
Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full texts. Data extraction and quality assessments were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by another. A questionnaire was distributed to clinicians via established e-mail lists of two relevant clinical societies. All results were presented narratively with accompanying tables.
RESULTS
Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 30 non-comparative group studies, 18 case reports and 21 epidemiology studies were included. Results from a good-quality RCT suggested short-term benefits of rTMS in reducing PLP, but not in reducing anxiety or depression. Small randomised trials of tDCS suggested the possibility of modest, short-term reductions in PLP. No RCTs of invasive therapies were identified. Results from small, non-comparative group studies suggested that, although many patients benefited from short-term pain reduction, far fewer maintained their benefits. Most studies had important methodological or reporting limitations and few studies reported quality-of-life data. The evidence on prognostic factors for the development of chronic PLP from the longitudinal studies also had important limitations. The results from these studies suggested that pre-amputation pain and early PLP intensity are good predictors of chronic PLP. Results from the cross-sectional studies suggested that the proportion of patients with severe chronic PLP is between around 30% and 40% of the chronic PLP population, and that around one-quarter of chronic PLP patients find their PLP to be either moderately or severely limiting or bothersome. There were 37 responses to the questionnaire distributed to clinicians. SCS and DRG stimulation are frequently used in the NHS but the prevalence of use of DBS and MCS was low. Most responders considered SCS and DRG stimulation to be at least sometimes effective. Neurosurgeons had mixed views on DBS, but most considered MCS to rarely be effective. Most clinicians thought that a randomised trial design could be successfully used to study neurostimulation therapies.
LIMITATION
There was a lack of robust research studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Currently available studies of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neurostimulation treatments do not provide robust, reliable results. Therefore, it is uncertain which treatments are best for chronic PLP.
FUTURE WORK
Randomised crossover trials, randomised N-of-1 trials and prospective registry trials are viable study designs for future research.
STUDY REGISTRATION
The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017065387.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Deep Brain Stimulation; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Humans; Pain Management; Phantom Limb; Quality of Life; Spinal Cord Stimulation; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
PubMed: 30407905
DOI: 10.3310/hta22620 -
Disability and Rehabilitation Dec 2019The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of virtual representation of body parts on pain perception in patients with pain and in pain-free...
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of virtual representation of body parts on pain perception in patients with pain and in pain-free participants exposed to experimentally induced pain. Databases searched: Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Studies investigating participants with clinical pain or those who were pain free and exposed to experimentally induced pain were analysed separately. Eighteen clinical studies and seven experimental studies were included. Randomised controlled clinical trials showed no significant difference between intervention and control groups for pain intensity. Clinical studies with a single group pretest-posttest design showed a reduction in pain after intervention. In the studies including a sample of pain free participants exposed to experimentally induced pain there was an increase in pain threshold when the virtual arm was collocated with the real arm, when it moved in synchrony with the real arm, and when the colour of the stimulated part of the virtual arm became blue. Observing a virtual arm covered with iron armour reduced pain. The use of virtual representations of body parts to reduce pain is promising. However, due to the poor methodological quality and limitations of primary studies, we could not find conclusive evidence.Implications for rehabilitationVirtual reality has been increasingly used in the rehabilitation of painful and dysfunctional limbs.Virtual reality can be used to distract attention away from acute pain and may also provide corrective psychological and physiological environments.Virtual representation of body parts has been used to provide a corrective re-embodiment of painful dysmorphic body parts, and primary research shows promising results.
Topics: Complex Regional Pain Syndromes; Humans; Neuralgia; Phantom Limb; Physical Therapy Modalities; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 30182760
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1485183 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Jan 2018Treatment of pain following major limb amputations is often a clinical challenge in a patient population consisting mainly of elderly with underlying diseases....
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Treatment of pain following major limb amputations is often a clinical challenge in a patient population consisting mainly of elderly with underlying diseases. Literature on management of acute post-amputation pain is scarce. We performed a systematic review on this topic to evaluate the efficacy and safety of analgesic interventions for acute pain following major limb amputation.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the following key words: [(amputation) AND (pain OR analgesi* OR pain relief)] AND (acute OR postoperative). Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and observational studies investigating treatment of acute pain following major amputations for any indication (peripheral vascular disease, malignant disease, trauma) were included. The review was performed according to the standards described in the PRISMA statement. The Cochrane quality assessment tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the RCTs.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies with total of 949 patients were included. The studies were generally small and heterogeneous on outcomes, study designs and quality. There were 16 studies on epidural or continuous perineural analgesia (CPI). Based on five RCTs (n=268) and two observational studies (n=49), epidural analgesia decreased the intensity of acute stump pain as compared to systemic analgesics, during the first 24 h after the operation. Based on one study epidural analgesia caused more adverse effects like sedation, nausea and motor block than continuous perineural local anesthetic infusion. Based on one RCT (n=21) and eight observational studies (n=501) CPI seemed to decrease opioid consumption as compared to systemic analgesics only, on the first three postoperative days, and was well tolerated. Only three trials investigated systemic analgesics (oral memantine, oral gabapentine, iv ketamine). Ketamine did not decrease acute pain or opioid consumption after amputation as compared to other systemic analgesics. Gabapentin did not decrease acute pain when combined to epidural analgesia as compared to epidural analgesia and opioid treatment, and caused adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS
The main finding of this systematic review is that evidence regarding pain management after major limb amputation is very limited. Epidural analgesia may be effective, but firm evidence is lacking. Epidural causes more adverse effects than CPI. The results on efficacy of CPI are indecisive. The data on adjuvant medications combined to epidural analgesia or CPI is limited. Studies on efficacy and adverse effects of systemic analgesics for amputation pain, especially concentrating on elderly patients, are needed.
Topics: Acute Pain; Amputation, Surgical; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 29794290
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2017-0170 -
The British Journal of Surgery Sep 2017Pain present for at least 3 months after a surgical procedure is considered chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) and affects 10-50 per cent of patients. Interventions for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain present for at least 3 months after a surgical procedure is considered chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) and affects 10-50 per cent of patients. Interventions for CPSP may focus on the underlying condition that indicated surgery, the aetiology of new-onset pain or be multifactorial in recognition of the diverse causes of this pain. The aim of this systematic review was to identify RCTs of interventions for the management of CPSP, and synthesize data across treatment type to estimate their effectiveness and safety.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 2016. Trials of pain interventions received by patients at 3 months or more after surgery were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.
RESULTS
Some 66 trials with data from 3149 participants were included. Most trials included patients with chronic pain after spinal surgery (25 trials) or phantom limb pain (21 trials). Interventions were predominantly pharmacological, including antiepileptics, capsaicin, epidural steroid injections, local anaesthetic, neurotoxins, N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonists and opioids. Other interventions included acupuncture, exercise, postamputation limb liner, spinal cord stimulation, further surgery, laser therapy, magnetic stimulation, mindfulness-based stress reduction, mirror therapy and sensory discrimination training. Opportunities for meta-analysis were limited by heterogeneity. For all interventions, there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on effectiveness.
CONCLUSION
There is a need for more evidence about interventions for CPSP. High-quality trials of multimodal interventions matched to pain characteristics are needed to provide robust evidence to guide management of CPSP.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Behavior Therapy; Chronic Pain; Combined Modality Therapy; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Laser Therapy; Pain, Postoperative; Spinal Cord Stimulation
PubMed: 28681962
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10601 -
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 -
Systematic Reviews Mar 2017Dysvascular partial foot amputation (PFA) is a common sequel to advanced peripheral vascular disease. Helping inform difficult discussions between patients and... (Review)
Review
Outcomes of dysvascular partial foot amputation and how these compare to transtibial amputation: a systematic review for the development of shared decision-making resources.
BACKGROUND
Dysvascular partial foot amputation (PFA) is a common sequel to advanced peripheral vascular disease. Helping inform difficult discussions between patients and practitioners about the level of PFA, or the decision to have a transtibial amputation (TTA) as an alternative, requires an understanding of the current research evidence on a wide range of topics including wound healing, reamputation, quality of life, mobility, functional ability, participation, pain and psychosocial outcomes, and mortality. The aim of this review was to describe a comprehensive range of outcomes of dysvascular PFA and compare these between levels of PFA and TTA.
METHODS
The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015029186). A systematic search of the literature was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, psychINFO, AMED, CINAHL, ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, and Web of Science. These databases were searched using MeSH terms and keywords relating to different amputation levels and outcomes of interest. Peer reviewed studies of original research-irrespective of the study design-were included if published in English between 1 January 2000, and 31 December 2015, and included discrete cohort(s) with dysvascular PFA or PFA and TTA. Outcomes of interest were rate of wound healing and complications, rate of ipsilateral reamputation, quality of life, functional ability, mobility, pain (i.e., residual limb or phantom pain), psychosocial outcomes (i.e., depression, anxiety, body image and self-esteem), participation, and mortality rate. Included studies were independently appraised by two reviewers. The McMaster Critical Review Forms were used to assess methodological quality and identify sources of bias. Data were extracted based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group's data extraction template by a primary reviewer and checked for accuracy and clarity by a second reviewer. Findings are reported as narrative summaries given the heterogeneity of the literature, except for mortality and ipsilateral reamputation where data allowed for proportional meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine unique articles were included in the review, acknowledging that some studies reported multiple outcomes. Eighteen studies reported all-cause proportionate mortality. A smaller number of studies reported outcomes related to functional ability (two), mobility (four), quality of life (three), ipsilateral reamputation (six) as well as wound healing and complications (four). No studies related to pain, participation or psychosocial outcomes met the inclusion criteria. Subjects were typically older and male and had diabetes among other comorbidities. More detailed information about the cohorts such as race or sociodemographic factors were reported in an ad hoc manner. Common sources of bias included contamination, co-intervention, or lack of operational definition for some outcomes (e.g., wound healing) as illustrative examples.
CONCLUSIONS
Aside from mortality, there was limited evidence regarding outcomes of dysvascular PFA, particularly how outcomes differ between levels of PFA and TTA. Acknowledging that there is considerable uncertainty given the small body of literature on many topics where the risk of bias is high, the available evidence suggests that a large proportion of people with PFA experience delayed wound healing and ipsilateral reamputation. People with TTA have increased risk of mortality compared to those with PFA, which may reflect that those considered suitable candidates for TTA have more advanced systemic disease that also increases the risk of dying. Mobility and quality of life may be similar in people with PFA and TTA.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
CRD42015029186.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Amputation, Surgical; Decision Making; Foot; Humans; Mobility Limitation; Peripheral Vascular Diseases; Quality of Life; Research Design
PubMed: 28288686
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0433-7 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2011. Phantom limb pain (PLP) is pain that arises in the missing limb after amputation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2011. Phantom limb pain (PLP) is pain that arises in the missing limb after amputation and can be severe, intractable, and disabling. Various medications have been studied in the treatment of phantom pain. There is currently uncertainty in the optimal pharmacologic management of PLP.
OBJECTIVES
This review aimed to summarise the evidence of effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions in treating PLP.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and Embase for relevant studies. We ran the searches for the original review in September 2011 and subsequent searches for this update up to April 2016. We sought additional studies from clinical trials databases and reference lists of retrieved papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials studying the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions compared with placebo, another active treatment, or no treatment, in established PLP. We considered the following outcomes: change in pain intensity, function, sleep, depression or mood, quality of life, adverse events, treatment satisfaction, and withdrawals from the study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently assessed issues of study quality and extracted efficacy and adverse event data. Due to the wide variability in the studies, we did not perform a meta-analysis for all the interventions and outcomes, but attempted to pool the results of some studies where possible. We prepared a qualitative description and narrative summary of results. We assessed clinical heterogeneity by making qualitative comparisons of the populations, interventions, outcomes/outcome measures, and methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We added only one new study with 14 participants to this updated review. We included a 14 studies (10 with low risk of bias and 4 with unclear risk of bias overall) with a total of 269 participants. We added another drug class, botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs), in particular botulinum toxin A (BoNT/A), to the group of medications reviewed previously. Our primary outcome was change in pain intensity. Most studies did not report our secondary outcomes of sleep, depression or mood, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, or withdrawals from the study.BoNT/A did not improve phantom limb pain intensity during the six months of follow-up compared with lidocaine/methylprednisolone.Compared with placebo, morphine (oral and intravenous) was effective in decreasing pain intensity in the short term with reported adverse events being constipation, sedation, tiredness, dizziness, sweating, voiding difficulty, vertigo, itching, and respiratory problems.The N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists ketamine (versus placebo; versus calcitonin) and dextromethorphan (versus placebo), but not memantine, had analgesic effects. The adverse events of ketamine were more serious than placebo and calcitonin and included loss of consciousness, sedation, hallucinations, hearing and position impairment, and insobriety.The results for gabapentin in terms of pain relief were conflicting, but combining the results favoured treatment group (gabapentin) over control group (placebo) (mean difference -1.16, 95% confidence interval -1.94 to -0.38; 2 studies). However, gabapentin did not improve function, depression score, or sleep quality. Adverse events experienced were somnolence, dizziness, headache, and nausea.Compared with an active control benztropine mesylate, amitriptyline was not effective in PLP, with dry mouth and dizziness as the most frequent adverse events based on one study.The findings for calcitonin (versus placebo; versus ketamine) and local anaesthetics (versus placebo) were variable. Adverse events of calcitonin were headache, vertigo, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, and hot and cold flushes. Most of the studies were limited by their small sample sizes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, we identified another study that added another form of medical therapy, BoNTs, specifically BoNT/A, to the list of pharmacologic interventions being reviewed for clinical efficacy in phantom limb pain. However, the results of this study did not substantially change the main conclusions. The short- and long-term effectiveness of BoNT/A, opioids, NMDA receptor antagonists, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, calcitonins, and local anaesthetics for clinically relevant outcomes including pain, function, mood, sleep, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and adverse events remain unclear. Based on a small study, BoNT/A (versus lidocaine/methylprednisolone) does not decrease phantom limb pain. Morphine, gabapentin, and ketamine demonstrate favourable short-term analgesic efficacy compared with placebo. Memantine and amitriptyline may not be effective for PLP. However, results must be interpreted with caution, as they were based mostly on a small number of studies with limited sample sizes that varied considerably and also lacked long-term efficacy and safety outcomes. The direction of efficacy of calcitonin, local anaesthetics, and dextromethorphan needs further clarification. Overall, the efficacy evidence for the reviewed medications is thus far inconclusive. Larger and more rigorous randomised controlled trials are needed for us to reach more definitive conclusions about which medications would be useful for clinical practice.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics; Anticonvulsants; Antidepressive Agents; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Calcitonin; Humans; Neurotoxins; Phantom Limb; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 27737513
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006380.pub3 -
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation... Sep 2016Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a major problem after limb amputation. Mirror therapy (MT) is a non-pharmacological treatment using representations of movement, the efficacy... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a major problem after limb amputation. Mirror therapy (MT) is a non-pharmacological treatment using representations of movement, the efficacy of which in reducing PLP remains to be clarified. Here, we present the first systematic review on MT efficacy in PLP and phantom limb movement (PLM) in amputees (lower or upper limb).
METHODS
A search on Medline, Cochrane Database and Embase, crossing the keywords "Phantom Limb" and "Mirror Therapy" found studies which were read and analyzed according the PRISMA statement.
RESULTS
Twenty studies were selected, 12 on the subject of MT and PLP, 3 on MT and PLM, 5 on MT and both (PLP and PLM). Among these 20 studies, 5 were randomized controlled trials (163 patients), 6 prospective studies (55 patients), 9 case studies (40 patients) and methodologies were heterogeneous. Seventeen of the 18 studies reported the efficacy of MT on PLP, but with low levels of evidence. One randomized controlled trial did not show any significant effect of MT. As to the effect of MT on PLM, the 8 studies concerned reported effectiveness of MT: 4 with a low level of evidence and 4 with a high level of evidence. An alternative to visual illusion seems to be tactile or auditory stimulation.
CONCLUSION
We cannot recommend MT as a first intention treatment in PLP. The level of evidence is insufficient. Further research is needed to assess the effect of MT on pain, prosthesis use, and body representation, and to standardize protocols.
Topics: Adult; Amputees; Female; Humans; Imagery, Psychotherapy; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Management; Phantom Limb; Physical Therapy Modalities; Psychomotor Performance
PubMed: 27256539
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2016.04.001