Sara J Morgan1, Janna L Friedly1, Dagmar Amtmann1, Rana Salem1, Brian J Hafner2. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: bhafner@uw.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine relationships between pain sites and pain intensity/interference in people with lower limb amputations (LLAs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Lower limb prosthesis users with unilateral or bilateral amputations (N=1296; mean time since amputation, 14.1y). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain intensity (1 item to assess average pain), PROMIS pain interference (4-item short form to assess the consequences of pain in desired activities), and questions that asked participants to rate the extent to which each of the following were a problem: residual limb pain (RLP), phantom limb pain (PLP), knee pain on the nonamputated side, back pain, and shoulder pain. RESULTS: Nearly three quarters (72.1%) of participants reported problematic pain in 1 or more of the listed sites. Problematic PLP, back pain, and RLP were reported by 48.1%, 39.2%, and 35.1% of participants, respectively. Knee pain and shoulder pain were less commonly identified as problems (27.9% and 21.7%, respectively). Participants also reported significantly (P<.0001) higher pain interference (T-score ± SD, 54.7±9.0) than the normative sample based on the U.S. population (T-score ± SD, 50.0±10.0). Participants with LLAs rated their pain intensity on average ± SD at 3.3±2.4 on a 0-to-10 scale. Pain interference (ρ=.564, P<.0001) and intensity (ρ=.603, P<.0001) were positively and significantly correlated with number of pain sites reported. CONCLUSIONS: Problematic pain symptoms, especially RLP, PLP, and back pain, affect most prosthetic limb users and have the potential to greatly restrict participation in life activities.
OBJECTIVE: To determine relationships between pain sites and pain intensity/interference in people with lower limb amputations (LLAs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Lower limb prosthesis users with unilateral or bilateral amputations (N=1296; mean time since amputation, 14.1y). INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain intensity (1 item to assess average pain), PROMIS pain interference (4-item short form to assess the consequences of pain in desired activities), and questions that asked participants to rate the extent to which each of the following were a problem: residual limb pain (RLP), phantom limb pain (PLP), knee pain on the nonamputated side, back pain, and shoulder pain. RESULTS: Nearly three quarters (72.1%) of participants reported problematic pain in 1 or more of the listed sites. Problematic PLP, back pain, and RLP were reported by 48.1%, 39.2%, and 35.1% of participants, respectively. Knee pain and shoulder pain were less commonly identified as problems (27.9% and 21.7%, respectively). Participants also reported significantly (P<.0001) higher pain interference (T-score ± SD, 54.7±9.0) than the normative sample based on the U.S. population (T-score ± SD, 50.0±10.0). Participants with LLAs rated their pain intensity on average ± SD at 3.3±2.4 on a 0-to-10 scale. Pain interference (ρ=.564, P<.0001) and intensity (ρ=.603, P<.0001) were positively and significantly correlated with number of pain sites reported. CONCLUSIONS: Problematic pain symptoms, especially RLP, PLP, and back pain, affect most prosthetic limb users and have the potential to greatly restrict participation in life activities.
Authors: David C Morgenroth; Michael S Orendurff; Ali Shakir; Ava Segal; Jane Shofer; Joseph M Czerniecki Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Alyson J Littman; Edward J Boyko; Mary Lou Thompson; Jodie K Haselkorn; Bruce J Sangeorzan; David E Arterburn Journal: J Rehabil Res Dev Date: 2014
Authors: D M Ehde; D G Smith; J M Czerniecki; K M Campbell; D M Malchow; L R Robinson Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: D M Ehde; J M Czerniecki; D G Smith; K M Campbell; W T Edwards; M P Jensen; L R Robinson Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Richard Gershon; Nan E Rothrock; Rachel T Hanrahan; Liz J Jansky; Mark Harniss; William Riley Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-03-21 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Christopher R Erbes; John Ferguson; Kalia Yang; Sara Koehler-McNicholas; Melissa A Polusny; Brian J Hafner; Allen W Heinemann; Jessica Hill; Tonya Rich; Nicole Walker; Marilyn Weber; Andrew Hansen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Paul M Schwingler; Rajat N Moman; Christy Hunt; Zachary Ashmore; Sandra P Ogletree; Mason E Uvodich; M Hassan Murad; W Michael Hooten Journal: Pain Rep Date: 2021-05-04
Authors: Kevin Döring; Carmen Trost; Christoph Hofer; Martin Salzer; Tryphon Kelaridis; Reinhard Windhager; Gerhard M Hobusch Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Beth D Darnall; Maisa S Ziadni; Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy; Pamela Flood; Lauren C Heathcote; Ian G Mackey; Chloe Jean Taub; Amanda Wheeler Journal: Pain Med Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 3.750