-
Pain Reports 2021Most patients with amputation (up to 80%) suffer from phantom limb pain postsurgery. These are often multimorbid patients who also have multiple risk factors for the...
INTRODUCTION
Most patients with amputation (up to 80%) suffer from phantom limb pain postsurgery. These are often multimorbid patients who also have multiple risk factors for the development of chronic pain from a pain medicine perspective. Surgical removal of the body part and sectioning of peripheral nerves result in a lack of afferent feedback, followed by neuroplastic changes in the sensorimotor cortex. The experience of severe pain, peripheral, spinal, and cortical sensitization mechanisms, and changes in the body scheme contribute to chronic phantom limb pain. Psychosocial factors may also affect the course and the severity of the pain. Modern amputation medicine is an interdisciplinary responsibility.
METHODS
This review aims to provide an interdisciplinary overview of recent evidence-based and clinical knowledge.
RESULTS
The scientific evidence for best practice is weak and contrasted by various clinical reports describing the polypragmatic use of drugs and interventional techniques. Approaches to restore the body scheme and integration of sensorimotor input are of importance. Modern techniques, including apps and virtual reality, offer an exciting supplement to already established approaches based on mirror therapy. Targeted prosthesis care helps to obtain or restore limb function and at the same time plays an important role reshaping the body scheme.
DISCUSSION
Consequent prevention and treatment of severe postoperative pain and early integration of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions are required to reduce severe phantom limb pain. To obtain or restore body function, foresighted surgical planning and technique as well as an appropriate interdisciplinary management is needed.
PubMed: 33490849
DOI: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000888 -
BMC Neurology Oct 2021The objective of the current study is to evaluate the effects of phantom exercises on phantom limb pain, mobility status, and quality of life in lower limb amputees... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The objective of the current study is to evaluate the effects of phantom exercises on phantom limb pain, mobility status, and quality of life in lower limb amputees treated with mirror therapy and routine physiotherapy.
METHODS
It is a randomized controlled trial in which 24 unilateral lower limb amputees (above and below the knee) were randomly assigned to two equal groups i.e., control group (mirror therapy and conventional physical therapy) and experimental group in which, phantom exercises were given, additionally. Physical therapy included conventional therapeutic exercises while phantom exercises include imagining the movement of the phantom limb and attempting to execute these movements Data were collected at baseline, after 2 and 4 weeks of intervention using VAS (pain), AMP (mobility) and RAND SF-36 Version 1.0 (QOL) questionnaires. All statistical analyses were done with IBM SPSS 25.0 with 95% CI.
RESULTS
Twenty-four amputees (17 males and 7 females) participated in this trial. The Mean age of the participants in experimental and control groups was 45.3 ± 11.1 years and 40.5 ± 12.5 years respectively. After the intervention, the pain (VAS score) was significantly lower in the experimental group (p = 0.003). Similarly, the experimental group demonstrated a significantly better score in the "bodily pain" domain of SF-36 (p = 0.012). Both groups significantly (p < 0.05) improved in other domains of SF-36 and ambulatory potential with no significant (p > 0.05) between-group differences.
CONCLUSIONS
The Addition of phantom exercises resulted in significantly better pain management in lower limb amputees treated with mirror therapy and routine physiotherapy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This study is registered in the U.S National Library of Medicine. The clinical trials registration number for this study is NCT04285138 ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier) (Date: 26/02/2020).
Topics: Adult; Amputees; Female; Humans; Lower Extremity; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Phantom Limb; Quality of Life
PubMed: 34706654
DOI: 10.1186/s12883-021-02441-z -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... Nov 2017The consequences of chronic pain and associated disabilities to the patient and to the health care system are well known. Medication is often the first treatment of... (Review)
Review
The consequences of chronic pain and associated disabilities to the patient and to the health care system are well known. Medication is often the first treatment of choice for chronic pain, although side effects and high costs restrict long-term use. Inexpensive, safe and easy to self-administer non-pharmacological therapies, such as mirror therapy, are recommended as adjuncts to pain treatment. The purpose of this review is to describe the principles of use of mirror therapy so it can be incorporated into a health care delivery. The physiological rationale of mirror therapy for the management of pain and the evidence of clinical efficacy based on recent systematic reviews are also discussed. Mirror therapy, whereby a mirror is placed in a position so that the patient can view a reflection of a body part, has been used to treat phantom limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, neuropathy and low back pain. Research evidence suggests that a course of treatment (four weeks) of mirror therapy may reduce chronic pain. Contraindications and side effects are few. The mechanism of action of mirror therapy remains uncertain, with reintegration of motor and sensory systems, restored body image and control over fear-avoidance likely to influence outcome. The evidence for clinical efficacy of mirror therapy is encouraging, but not yet definitive. Nevertheless, mirror therapy is inexpensive, safe and easy for the patient to self-administer.
Topics: Amputees; Chronic Pain; Humans; Pain Management; Phantom Limb; Physical Therapy Modalities; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29451665
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.63.11.1000 -
Physiotherapy Dec 2020To investigate whether graded motor imagery (GMI) is effective for reducing phantom limb pain (PLP) in people who have undergone limb amputations. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether graded motor imagery (GMI) is effective for reducing phantom limb pain (PLP) in people who have undergone limb amputations.
DESIGN
A single-blinded randomised, controlled trial.
SETTING
Physiotherapy out-patient departments in three secondary level hospitals in Cape Town, South Africa.
PARTICIPANTS
Twenty-one adults (≥18 years) who had undergone unilateral upper or lower limb amputations and had self-reported PLP persisting beyond three months.
INTERVENTIONS
A 6-week GMI programme was compared to routine physiotherapy. The study outcomes were evaluated at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months.
OUTCOME MEASURES
The pain severity scale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was used to assess the primary outcome - PLP. The pain interference scale of the BPI and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L were used to assess the secondary outcomes - pain interference with function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) respectively.
RESULTS
The participants in the experimental group had significantly greater improvements in pain than the control group at 6 weeks and 6 months. Further, the participants in the experimental group had significantly greater improvements than the control group in pain interference at all follow-up points. There was no between-group difference in HRQoL.
CONCLUSION
The results of the current study suggest that GMI is better than routine physiotherapy for reducing PLP. Based on the significant reduction in PLP and pain interference within the participants who received GMI, and the ease of application, GMI may be a viable treatment for treating PLP in people who have undergone limb amputations.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
(PACTR201701001979279).
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Imagery, Psychotherapy; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Phantom Limb; Physical Therapy Modalities; Quality of Life; Single-Blind Method; South Africa
PubMed: 31992445
DOI: 10.1016/j.physio.2019.06.009 -
Neurologia Oct 2022Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a type of neuropathic pain that affects the territory of an amputated limb or other surgically removed body parts. Between 60% and 90% of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a type of neuropathic pain that affects the territory of an amputated limb or other surgically removed body parts. Between 60% and 90% of amputees suffer from PLP during follow-up. There are a range of therapeutic options for PLP, both pharmacological (gabapentin, amitriptyline, tricyclic antidepressants, etc) and non-pharmacological (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, hypnosis, acupuncture, etc). A widely accepted hypothesis considers PLP to be the consequence of postamputation cortical reorganisation. New treatment approaches, such as mirror therapy (MT), have been developed as a result of Ramachandran's groundbreaking research in the 1990s. This review analyses the current evidence on the efficacy of MT for treating PLP.
DEVELOPMENT
We performed a literature review of publications registered from 2012 to 2017 on the CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, and PubMed (including Medline) databases Using the descriptors "phantom limb‿ and "mirror therapy.‿ We identified 115 publications addressing MT in PLP. Of these, 17 (15%) contributed useful information for pooled analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
MT seems to be effective in relieving PLP, reducing the intensity and duration of daily pain episodes. It is a valid, simple, and inexpensive treatment for PLP. The methodological quality of most publications in this field is very limited, highlighting the need for additional, high-quality studies to develop clinical protocols that could maximise the benefits of MT for patients with PLP.
Topics: Humans; Phantom Limb; Mirror Movement Therapy; Amputees; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Pain Management
PubMed: 30447854
DOI: 10.1016/j.nrl.2018.08.003 -
NeuroImage Sep 2020Following arm amputation the region that represented the missing hand in primary somatosensory cortex (S1) becomes deprived of its primary input, resulting in changed... (Review)
Review
Following arm amputation the region that represented the missing hand in primary somatosensory cortex (S1) becomes deprived of its primary input, resulting in changed boundaries of the S1 body map. This remapping process has been termed 'reorganisation' and has been attributed to multiple mechanisms, including increased expression of previously masked inputs. In a maladaptive plasticity model, such reorganisation has been associated with phantom limb pain (PLP). Brain activity associated with phantom hand movements is also correlated with PLP, suggesting that preserved limb functional representation may serve as a complementary process. Here we review some of the most recent evidence for the potential drivers and consequences of brain (re)organisation following amputation, based on human neuroimaging. We emphasise other perceptual and behavioural factors consequential to arm amputation, such as non-painful phantom sensations, perceived limb ownership, intact hand compensatory behaviour or prosthesis use, which have also been related to both cortical changes and PLP. We also discuss new findings based on interventions designed to alter the brain representation of the phantom limb, including augmented/virtual reality applications and brain computer interfaces. These studies point to a close interaction of sensory changes and alterations in brain regions involved in body representation, pain processing and motor control. Finally, we review recent evidence based on methodological advances such as high field neuroimaging and multivariate techniques that provide new opportunities to interrogate somatosensory representations in the missing hand cortical territory. Collectively, this research highlights the need to consider potential contributions of additional brain mechanisms, beyond S1 remapping, and the dynamic interplay of contextual factors with brain changes for understanding and alleviating PLP.
Topics: Adult; Amputation, Surgical; Amputees; Brain; Brain Mapping; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pain; Phantom Limb; Somatosensory Cortex
PubMed: 32428706
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116943 -
European Journal of Pain (London,... Jan 2023Phantom limb pain (PLP) concerns >50% of amputees and has a negative impact on their rehabilitation, mental health and quality of life. Mirror therapy (MT) is a... (Review)
Review
Effect of mirror therapy in the treatment of phantom limb pain in amputees: A systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials does not find any evidence of efficacy.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Phantom limb pain (PLP) concerns >50% of amputees and has a negative impact on their rehabilitation, mental health and quality of life. Mirror therapy (MT) is a promising strategy, but its effectiveness remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to: (i) evaluate the effectiveness of MT versus placebo in reducing PLP, and (ii) determine MT effect on disability and quality of life.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
We selected randomized-controlled trials in five databases (Medline, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PEDro and Embase) that included patients with unilateral lower or upper limb amputation and PLP and that compared the effects on PLP of MT versus a placebo technique. The primary outcome was PLP intensity changes and the secondary outcomes were PLP duration, frequency, patients' disability and quality of life.
RESULTS
Among the five studies included, only one reported a significant difference between the MT group and control group, with a positive MT effect at week 4. Only one study assessed MT effect on disability and found a significant improvement in the MT group at week 10 and month 6.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review did not allow concluding that MT reduces PLP and disability in amputees. This lack of strong evidence is probably due to (i) the low methodological quality of the included studies, and (ii) the lack of statistical power. Future trials should include a higher number of patients, increase the number and frequency of MT sessions, have a long-term follow-up and improve the methodological quality.
SIGNIFICANCE
Recent meta-analyses concluded that MT is effective for reducing phantom limb pain. Conversely, the present systematic review that included only studies with the best level of evidence did not find any evidence about its effectiveness for this condition. We identified many ways to improve future randomized-controlled trials on this topic: increasing the number of participants, reducing the intra-group heterogeneity, using a suitable placebo and intensifying the MT sessions and frequency.
Topics: Humans; Phantom Limb; Quality of Life; Mirror Movement Therapy; Amputees; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36094758
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.2035 -
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 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Oct 2018Background and aims The aim of the study was to examine the effect of mirror and tactile therapy on phantom and stump pain in patients with traumatic amputations, with... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Background and aims The aim of the study was to examine the effect of mirror and tactile therapy on phantom and stump pain in patients with traumatic amputations, with particular reference to amputees in low-income communities. Methods The study was conducted with an open, randomized, semi-crossover case-control design in rural Cambodia. A study sample of 45 landmine victims with trans-tibial amputations was allocated to three treatment arms; mirror therapy, tactile therapy, and combined mirror-and-tactile therapy. Non-responders from the mono-therapy interventions were crossed over to the alternative intervention. The intervention consisted of 5 min of treatment every morning and evening for 4 weeks. Endpoint estimates of phantom limb pain (PLP), stump pain, and physical function were registered 3 months after the treatment. Results All three interventions were associated with more that 50% reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS)-rated PLP and stump pain. Combined mirror-tactile treatment had a significantly better effect on PLP and stump pain than mirror or tactile therapy alone. The difference between the three treatment arms were however slight, and hardly of clinical relevance. After treatment, the reduction of pain remained unchanged for an observation period of 3 months. Conclusions The study documents that a 4-week treatment period with mirror and/or tactile therapy significantly reduces PLP and stump pain after trans-tibial amputations. Implications The article reports for the first time a randomized controlled trial of mirror therapy in a homogenous sample of persons with traumatic amputations. The findings are of special relevance to amputees in low-resource communities.
Topics: Amputees; Cambodia; Case-Control Studies; Cross-Over Studies; Female; Humans; Imagery, Psychotherapy; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Management; Phantom Limb; Touch
PubMed: 30207289
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2018-0042 -
Indian Journal of Psychiatry 2017Mirror therapy suggested to help relieve phantom limb pain (PLP) by resolving the visual- proprioceptive dissociation in the brain, but studies so far either had shorter...
INTRODUCTION
Mirror therapy suggested to help relieve phantom limb pain (PLP) by resolving the visual- proprioceptive dissociation in the brain, but studies so far either had shorter follow-up or smaller sample size.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this randomized single crossover trial, 64 amputees with PLP in the age group of 15-75 years of age were distributed into test and control groups by simple randomization method. Of these 28 in control and 32 in test groups, respectively, completed the 4 weeks of mirror therapy and 12 weeks of follow-up assessments. A standardized set of exercises for 15 min/day for 4 and 8 weeks in test and control groups (in the first 4 weeks, the mirror was covered), respectively, was administered under supervision of one of the authors. All were assessed using the visual analog scale and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire on day 0 and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after therapy. In control group for the initial 4 weeks, the mirror was covered. The assessing author was blinded to the group to which the participants belonged.
RESULTS
Significant reduction in PLP was noted in the test group at 4 weeks compared to the control group ( < 0.0001). Significant reduction was seen in control group also after the switchover and sustained for 12 weeks in both. No harm was reported.
CONCLUSION
Mirror therapy is effective in relieving the intensity, duration, frequency, and overall PLP, and improvement is maintained up to 12 weeks' posttherapy.
PubMed: 29497188
DOI: 10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_259_16