OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of a noninvasive limb cover for treating chronic phantom limb pain (PLP). DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient clinic. PARTICIPANTS: We randomly assigned 57 subjects to 2 groups: true noninvasive limb cover (n=30) and sham noninvasive limb cover (n=27). Inclusion criteria included age of 18 years or greater, upper or lower extremity amputation with healed residual limb, and 3 or more episodes of PLP during the previous 6 weeks. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects received 2 true or sham noninvasive limb covers to be worn over the prosthesis and residual limbs 24 hours a day for 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was the numerical pain rating scale of PLP level (0-10). Secondary outcomes included overall pain level (0-10), PLP frequency per week, and the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12). We collected data at baseline and at 6- and 12-week follow-up visits. RESULTS:Demographic and clinical characteristics were not significantly different between groups. The true noninvasive limb cover group reported nonsignificant reductions in PLP from 5.9±1.9 at baseline to 3.9±1.7 at the 12-week follow-up. The sham noninvasive limb cover group also had nonsignificant reducations in PLP from 6.5±1.8 to 4.2±2.3. PLP did not differ significantly between the 2 groups at 6 weeks (mean difference, 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 3) or at 12 weeks (mean difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -1.9 to 2.3). Similarly, overall pain level, PLP episodes per week, and VR-12 physical and mental health component scores did not differ between the 2 groups at 6 and 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: A true noninvasive limb cover did not significantly decrease PLP levels or the frequency of PLP episodes per week, overall bodily pain levels, or VR-12 physical and mental health component scores compared with a sham noninvasive limb cover in our veteran amputee sample.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of a noninvasive limb cover for treating chronic phantom limb pain (PLP). DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING:Outpatient clinic. PARTICIPANTS: We randomly assigned 57 subjects to 2 groups: true noninvasive limb cover (n=30) and sham noninvasive limb cover (n=27). Inclusion criteria included age of 18 years or greater, upper or lower extremity amputation with healed residual limb, and 3 or more episodes of PLP during the previous 6 weeks. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects received 2 true or sham noninvasive limb covers to be worn over the prosthesis and residual limbs 24 hours a day for 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was the numerical pain rating scale of PLP level (0-10). Secondary outcomes included overall pain level (0-10), PLP frequency per week, and the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12). We collected data at baseline and at 6- and 12-week follow-up visits. RESULTS: Demographic and clinical characteristics were not significantly different between groups. The true noninvasive limb cover group reported nonsignificant reductions in PLP from 5.9±1.9 at baseline to 3.9±1.7 at the 12-week follow-up. The sham noninvasive limb cover group also had nonsignificant reducations in PLP from 6.5±1.8 to 4.2±2.3. PLP did not differ significantly between the 2 groups at 6 weeks (mean difference, 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 3) or at 12 weeks (mean difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -1.9 to 2.3). Similarly, overall pain level, PLP episodes per week, and VR-12 physical and mental health component scores did not differ between the 2 groups at 6 and 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: A true noninvasive limb cover did not significantly decrease PLP levels or the frequency of PLP episodes per week, overall bodily pain levels, or VR-12 physical and mental health component scores compared with a sham noninvasive limb cover in our veteran amputee sample.
Authors: Carolien M Kooijman; Pieter U Dijkstra; Jan H B Geertzen; Albert Elzinga; Cees P van der Schans Journal: Pain Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Patti L Ephraim; Timothy R Dillingham; Mathilde Sector; Liliana E Pezzin; Ellen J Mackenzie Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Kevin Pacheco-Barrios; Paulo Sampaio de Melo; Karen Vasquez-Avila; Alejandra Cardenas-Rojas; Paola Gonzalez-Mego; Anna Marduy; Joao Parente; Ingrid Rebello Sanchez; Pablo Cortez; Meghan Whalen; Luis Castelo-Branco; Felipe Fregni Journal: Princ Pract Clin Res Date: 2021-12-23
Authors: V Wylde; J Dennis; A D Beswick; J Bruce; C Eccleston; N Howells; T J Peters; R Gooberman-Hill Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 6.939