-
Archives of Rehabilitation Research and... Jun 2019This systematic review aims to evaluate current literature for the prevalence, causes, and effect of low back pain (LBP) in traumatic lower limb amputees, specifically... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review aims to evaluate current literature for the prevalence, causes, and effect of low back pain (LBP) in traumatic lower limb amputees, specifically its association with the kinematics and kinetics of the lumbar spine and lower extremities.
DATA SOURCES
Databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched systematically for eligible studies from inception to January 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
The inclusion terms were synonyms of , , and , whereas studies involving nontraumatic amputee populations, single cases, or reviews were excluded. 1822 studies were initially identified, of which 44 progressed to full-text reading, and 11 studies were included in the review.
DATA EXTRACTION
Two independent reviewers reviewed the included studies, which were evaluated using a quality assessment tool and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system for risk of bias, prior to analyzing results and conclusions.
DATA SYNTHESIS
There was an LBP prevalence of 52%-64% in traumatic amputees, compared to 48%-77% in the general amputee population (predominantly vascular, tumor, trauma), attributed to a mixture of biomechanical, psychosocial, and personal factors. These factors determined the presence, frequency, and severity of the pain in the amputees, significantly affecting their quality of life. However, little evidence was available on causality.
CONCLUSION
The high prevalence of LBP in traumatic amputees highlights the necessity to advance research into the underlying mechanics behind LBP, specifically the spinal kinematics and kinetics. This may facilitate improvements in rehabilitation, with the potential to improve quality of life in traumatic amputees.
PubMed: 33543047
DOI: 10.1016/j.arrct.2019.100007 -
Disability and Rehabilitation Dec 2020The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of immersive and non-immersive interactive virtual reality on pain perception in patients with a clinical...
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of immersive and non-immersive interactive virtual reality on pain perception in patients with a clinical pain condition. The following databases were searched from inception: Medline (Ovid), PsychInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane library and Web of Science. Two reviewers screened reports and extracted the data. A third reviewer acted as an arbiter. Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized trials, and uncontrolled trials. Crossover and parallel-group designs were included. Risk of bias was assessed for all included studies. Thirteen clinical studies were included. The majority of studies investigated a sample of participants with chronic pain. Six were controlled trials and seven uncontrolled studies. Findings from controlled research suggest that interactive virtual reality may reduce pain associated with ankylosing spondylitis and post-mastectomy, but results are inconsistent for patients with neck pain. Findings from uncontrolled studies suggest that interactive virtual reality may reduce neuropathic limb pain, and phantom limb pain, but had no effect on nonspecific chronic back pain. There is a need for more rigorous randomized control trials in order to conclude on the effectiveness of the use of virtual reality for the management of pain.Implications for rehabilitationInteractive virtual reality has been increasingly used in the rehabilitation of painful conditions.Interactive virtual reality using exergames may promote distraction from painful exercises and reduce pain post-mastectomy and in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.Interactive virtual representation of limbs may reduce neuropathic and phantom limb pain.
Topics: Breast Neoplasms; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Pain Perception; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 31067135
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1610803 -
Disability and Rehabilitation.... Jul 2020Adjustment to amputation is a complex process because it encompasses physical and psychosocial aspects as well as satisfaction with the artificial limb. To review the...
Adjustment to amputation is a complex process because it encompasses physical and psychosocial aspects as well as satisfaction with the artificial limb. To review the scientific production on psychosocial and physical adjustments to amputation and prosthesis use as well as prosthetic satisfaction in people with lower limb amputation in the last 10 years. This review was conducted on the MEDLINE via Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Original and observational studies published in the last 10 years were included, with topics related to adjustment to amputation and prosthesis use as well as prosthetic satisfaction in people with lower limb amputations. A total of 1042 articles were identified in the initial search, but after analysing the criteria 16 articles were used for analysis in their entirety. Regarding psychosocial adjustments, higher rates of depression, anxiety and body image disorders were observed among people with amputations. Phantom and residual limb pain, gender, employment status and daily hours of prosthesis use may influence psychosocial adjustment. Physical adjustment may be influenced by the level of amputation, educational background, age, daily prosthesis use, ambulatory assistive devices and presence of comorbidities. The areas of greatest prosthetic dissatisfaction were colour and weight. Considering that most of the studies related to the satisfaction and adjustment of the prosthesis are cross-sectional studies, longitudinal studies should be conducted, since monitoring individuals over the years and verifying how these variables change over time may contribute to obtaining more data on the factors that influence prosthetic fitting and satisfaction.Implications for rehabilitationAdjustment to amputation and prosthesis use involves both physical and psychosocial issues, it is important that besides physical rehabilitation, psychological interventions and education and communication activities between the patient and the health professionals are carried out.The adaptation to the prosthesis and the recovery of walking capacity are important goals in the rehabilitation process and the knowledge of the physical and psychosocial factors associated with amputation and the use of the prosthesis can help the health team to provide better care to these subjects.Well-adjusted, comfortable and easy-to-use prostheses are of great importance as they enable the patient to perform their daily activities and maintain their independence.It is important to encourage the participation of the individual in both rehabilitation and choice of prosthesis.
Topics: Amputees; Artificial Limbs; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Patient Satisfaction
PubMed: 31012753
DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2019.1602853 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty.
METHODS
Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Humans; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30941745
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011890.pub3 -
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 -
Brain Research Bulletin May 2019Several studies have applied transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the attempt to further explore the pathophysiological mechanisms of phantom-limb pain (PLP) and...
Several studies have applied transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in the attempt to further explore the pathophysiological mechanisms of phantom-limb pain (PLP) and non-painful phantom sensations (PS). We performed a systematic review of available evidence of this emerging technology in this indication. We identified studies which report a reduced intracortical inhibition and increased intracortical facilitation in the hemisphere contralateral to the PLP. TMS mapping revealed a significant lateralization of the center of gravity and an enlargement of the excitable area on the hemisphere contralateral to the amputation. N-Methyl-d-Aspartate-mediated mechanisms influence the changes of intracortical inhibition and facilitation occurring after limb amputation; however, these cortical excitability changes and PLP are independent of each other. TMS can also influence brain function if applied repetitively. A few studies have begun to therapeutically use repetitive TMS (rTMS) to relief PLP and non-painful PS. rTMS of the contralateral parietal cortex lead to a transient reduction in pain intensity. High frequency rTMS applied over the contralateral motor cortex (M1) or low frequency rTMS over the unaffected hemisphere might also induce significant clinical improvement in PLP. On the other hand, serum beta-endorphin increased significantly after real stimulation over contralateral M1. This systematic review illustrates that TMS technique is an emerging tool to gain insights to pathophysiological aspects of pain and non-painful phantom phenomena. Moreover, TMS could support appropriate patient selection for different therapies and may also have therapeutic utility in subjects with PLP or PS, though the evidence is still very preliminary and well-designed studies in larger cohort of patients are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Evoked Potentials, Motor; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Motor Cortex; N-Methylaspartate; Parietal Lobe; Phantom Limb; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
PubMed: 30862485
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2019.03.001 -
Neurosurgery Feb 2020Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been considered for patients with intractable pain syndromes since the 1950s. Although there is substantial experience reported in the...
BACKGROUND
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has been considered for patients with intractable pain syndromes since the 1950s. Although there is substantial experience reported in the literature, the indications are contested, especially in the United States where it remains off-label. Historically, the sensory-discriminative pain pathways were targeted. More recently, modulation of the affective sphere of pain has emerged as a plausible alternative.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature from studies that used contemporary DBS technology. Our aim is to summarize the current evidence of this therapy.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane libraries through July 2017 to review all studies using the current DBS technology primarily for pain treatment. Study characteristics including patient demographics, surgical technique, outcomes, and complications were collected.
RESULTS
Twenty-two articles were included in this review. In total, 228 patients were implanted with a definitive DBS system for pain. The most common targets used were periaqueductal/periventricular gray matter region, ventral posterior lateral/posterior medial thalamus, or both. Poststroke pain, phantom limb pain, and brachial plexus injury were the most common specific indications for DBS. Outcomes varied between studies and across chronic pain diagnoses. Two different groups of investigators targeting the affective sphere of pain have demonstrated improvements in quality of life measures without significant reductions in pain scores.
CONCLUSION
DBS outcomes for chronic pain are heterogeneous thus far. Future studies may focus on specific pain diagnosis rather than multiple syndromes and consider randomized placebo-controlled designs. DBS targeting the affective sphere of pain seems promising and deserves further investigation.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Deep Brain Stimulation; Female; Humans; Implantable Neurostimulators; Male; Pain Management; Pain, Intractable; Phantom Limb; Quality of Life; Thalamus
PubMed: 30799493
DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyy552 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2019Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and...
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty.
METHODS
Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Pain; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 30776855
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011890.pub2 -
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 -
International Journal of Rehabilitation... Mar 2019Neuromodulation techniques work by modulating pain perception by inducing changes in polarity of the neuronal membrane and thereby cortical excitability. The aim of this...
Neuromodulation techniques work by modulating pain perception by inducing changes in polarity of the neuronal membrane and thereby cortical excitability. The aim of this review is to evaluate the efficiency and safety of noninvasive neuromodulation techniques for phantom limb pain (PLP). A systematic literature search in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify studies investigating the effects of noninvasive neuromodulation for PLP. The included journal articles were assessed with Furlan et al.'s method for examining the risk of bias to assess methodologic quality, and evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. The literature search identified 239 studies. Of these 239, four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included for data extraction. Two of the studies focused on repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) whereas two other concentrated on transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). The present review showed that there is conflicting evidence to support the use of tDCS in short term and moderate evidence to support the use of rTMS in immediate and short term. It is important to recognize that this evidence comes from a very small sample size. No serious adverse effects were reported. Further information from randomized controlled trials with larger sample size investigating immediate and short-term and long-term effects are needed to clarify the best effective stimulation parameters and number of sessions of tDCS and rTMS for PLP.
Topics: Humans; Phantom Limb; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
PubMed: 30222617
DOI: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000317