BACKGROUND: Performing phantom movements with visual virtual feedback, or mirror therapy, is a promising treatment avenue to alleviate phantom limb pain. However the effectiveness of this approach appears to vary from one patient to another. OBJECTIVE: To assess the individual response to training with visual virtual feedback and to explore factors influencing the response to that approach. METHODS: Eight male participants with phantom limb pain (PLP) resulting from either a traumatic upper limb amputation or a brachial plexus avulsion participated in this single case multiple baseline study. Training was performed 2 times per week for 8 weeks where a virtual image of a missing limb performing different movements was presented and the participant was asked to follow the movements with his phantom limb. RESULTS: Patients reported an average 38% decrease in background pain on a visual analog scale (VAS), with 5 patients out of 8 reporting a reduction greater than 30%. This decrease in pain was maintained at 4 weeks postintervention in 4 of the 5 participants. No significant relationship was found between the long-term pain relief and the duration of the deafferentation or with the immediate pain relief during exposure to the feedback. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of training with virtual feedback to alleviate phantom limb pain. Our observations suggest that between-participant differences in the effectiveness of the treatment might be related more to a difference in the susceptibility to the virtual visual feedback, than to factors related to the lesion, such as the duration of the deafferentation.
BACKGROUND: Performing phantom movements with visual virtual feedback, or mirror therapy, is a promising treatment avenue to alleviate phantom limb pain. However the effectiveness of this approach appears to vary from one patient to another. OBJECTIVE: To assess the individual response to training with visual virtual feedback and to explore factors influencing the response to that approach. METHODS: Eight male participants with phantom limb pain (PLP) resulting from either a traumatic upper limb amputation or a brachial plexus avulsion participated in this single case multiple baseline study. Training was performed 2 times per week for 8 weeks where a virtual image of a missing limb performing different movements was presented and the participant was asked to follow the movements with his phantom limb. RESULTS:Patients reported an average 38% decrease in background pain on a visual analog scale (VAS), with 5 patients out of 8 reporting a reduction greater than 30%. This decrease in pain was maintained at 4 weeks postintervention in 4 of the 5 participants. No significant relationship was found between the long-term pain relief and the duration of the deafferentation or with the immediate pain relief during exposure to the feedback. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of training with virtual feedback to alleviate phantom limb pain. Our observations suggest that between-participant differences in the effectiveness of the treatment might be related more to a difference in the susceptibility to the virtual visual feedback, than to factors related to the lesion, such as the duration of the deafferentation.
Authors: Julien I A Voisin; Erika C Rodrigues; Sébastien Hétu; Philip L Jackson; Claudia D Vargas; Francine Malouin; C Elaine Chapman; Catherine Mercier Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2010-11-03 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Morgane Metral; Marie Chancel; Clémentine Brun; Marion Luyat; Anne Kavounoudias; Michel Guerraz Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Kassondra L Collins; Hannah G Russell; Patrick J Schumacher; Katherine E Robinson-Freeman; Ellen C O'Conor; Kyla D Gibney; Olivia Yambem; Robert W Dykes; Robert S Waters; Jack W Tsao Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Gianluca Castelnuovo; Emanuele M Giusti; Gian Mauro Manzoni; Donatella Saviola; Arianna Gatti; Samantha Gabrielli; Marco Lacerenza; Giada Pietrabissa; Roberto Cattivelli; Chiara A M Spatola; Stefania Corti; Margherita Novelli; Valentina Villa; Andrea Cottini; Carlo Lai; Francesco Pagnini; Lorys Castelli; Mario Tavola; Riccardo Torta; Marco Arreghini; Loredana Zanini; Amelia Brunani; Paolo Capodaglio; Guido E D'Aniello; Federica Scarpina; Andrea Brioschi; Lorenzo Priano; Alessandro Mauro; Giuseppe Riva; Claudia Repetto; Camillo Regalia; Enrico Molinari; Paolo Notaro; Stefano Paolucci; Giorgio Sandrini; Susan G Simpson; Brenda Wiederhold; Stefano Tamburin Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2016-02-19
Authors: Doralina L Anghelescu; Cassandra N Kelly; Brenda D Steen; Jianrong Wu; Huiyun Wu; Brian M DeFeo; Kristin Scobey; Laura Burgoyne Journal: Rehabil Oncol Date: 2016-07
Authors: Joan Llobera; Mar González-Franco; Daniel Perez-Marcos; Josep Valls-Solé; Mel Slater; Maria V Sanchez-Vives Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 1.972