Marionna Münger1,2, Camila B Pinto1, Kevin Pacheco-Barrios1,3, Dante Duarte1, Muhamed Enes Gunduz1, Marcel Simis4, Linamara R Battistella4, Felipe Fregni1. 1. Neuromodulation Center and Center for Clinical Research Learning, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 2. Department of Neuropsychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Unidad de Investigación para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud, Vicerrectorado de Investigación, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Peru. 4. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Instituto de Reabilitação Lucy Montoro, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The exact mechanisms underlying the development and maintenance of phantom limb pain (PLP) are still unclear. This study aimed to identify the factors affecting pain intensity in patients with chronic, lower limb, traumatic PLP. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of patients with PLP. We assessed amputation-related and pain-related clinical and demographic variables. We used univariate and multivariate models to evaluate the associated factors modulating PLP and residual limb pain (RLP) intensity. RESULTS: We included 71 unilateral traumatic lower limb amputees. Results showed that (1) amputation-related perceptions were experienced by a large majority of the patients with chronic PLP (sensations: 90.1%, n = 64; residual pain: 81.7%, n = 58); (2) PLP intensity has 2 significant protective factors (phantom limb movement and having effective treatment for PLP previously) and 2 significant risk factors (phantom limb sensation intensity and age); and (3) on the other hand, for RLP, risk factors are different: presence of pain before amputation and level of amputation (in addition to the same protective factors). CONCLUSION: These results suggest different neurobiological mechanisms to explain PLP and RLP intensity. While PLP risk factors seem to be related to maladaptive plasticity, since phantom sensation and older age are associated with more pain, RLP risk factors seem to have components leading to neuropathic pain, such as the amount of neural lesion and previous history of chronic pain. Interestingly, the phantom movement appears to be protective for both phenomena.
INTRODUCTION: The exact mechanisms underlying the development and maintenance of phantom limb pain (PLP) are still unclear. This study aimed to identify the factors affecting pain intensity in patients with chronic, lower limb, traumatic PLP. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of patients with PLP. We assessed amputation-related and pain-related clinical and demographic variables. We used univariate and multivariate models to evaluate the associated factors modulating PLP and residual limb pain (RLP) intensity. RESULTS: We included 71 unilateral traumatic lower limb amputees. Results showed that (1) amputation-related perceptions were experienced by a large majority of the patients with chronic PLP (sensations: 90.1%, n = 64; residual pain: 81.7%, n = 58); (2) PLP intensity has 2 significant protective factors (phantom limb movement and having effective treatment for PLP previously) and 2 significant risk factors (phantom limb sensation intensity and age); and (3) on the other hand, for RLP, risk factors are different: presence of pain before amputation and level of amputation (in addition to the same protective factors). CONCLUSION: These results suggest different neurobiological mechanisms to explain PLP and RLP intensity. While PLP risk factors seem to be related to maladaptive plasticity, since phantom sensation and older age are associated with more pain, RLP risk factors seem to have components leading to neuropathic pain, such as the amount of neural lesion and previous history of chronic pain. Interestingly, the phantom movement appears to be protective for both phenomena.
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: Marisol A Hanley; Mark P Jensen; Dawn M Ehde; Amy J Hoffman; David R Patterson; Lawrence R Robinson Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2004 Jul 22-Aug 5 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: K Pacheco-Barrios; C B Pinto; F G Saleh Velez; D Duarte; M E Gunduz; M Simis; A C Lepesteur Gianlorenco; J L Barouh; D Crandell; M Guidetti; L Battistella; F Fregni Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Kevin Pacheco-Barrios; Alejandra Cardenas-Rojas; Paulo S de Melo; Anna Marduy; Paola Gonzalez-Mego; Luis Castelo-Branco; Augusto J Mendes; Karen Vásquez-Ávila; Paulo E P Teixeira; Anna Carolyna Lepesteur Gianlorenco; Felipe Fregni Journal: Princ Pract Clin Res Date: 2021-12-27
Authors: Emma H Beisheim-Ryan; Ryan T Pohlig; Gregory E Hicks; John R Horne; Jared Medina; Jaclyn M Sions Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2021-10-06 Impact factor: 3.423
Authors: Abigail R Tirrell; Kevin G Kim; Waleed Rashid; Christopher E Attinger; Kenneth L Fan; Karen K Evans Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-11-11