You are not logged in. Press here to login.

Content

List volumes - List articles in this issue

Original report

Home-based self-delivered mirror therapy for phantom pain: A pilot study

doi: 10.2340/16501977-0933

Open access

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of self-delivered home-based mirror therapy for phantom pain.
DESIGN: Uncontrolled prospective treatment outcome pilot study.
PARTICIPANTS: Forty community-dwelling adults with unilateral amputation and phantom pain > 3 on a 0–10 numeric rating scale enrolled either during a one-time study visit (n = 30) or remotely (n = 10).
METHODS: Participants received an explanation of mirror therapy and were asked to self-treat for 25 min daily. Participants completed and posted back sets of outcomes questionnaires at months 1 and 2 post-treatment. Main outcome was average phantom pain intensity at post-treatment.
RESULTS: A significant reduction in average phantom pain intensity was found at month 1 (n = 31, p = 0.0002) and at month 2 (n = 26, p = 0.002). The overall median percentage reduction at month 2 was 15.4%. Subjects with high education (> 16 years) compared with low education (< 16 years) (37.5% vs 4.1%) had greater reduction in pain intensity (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: These findings support the feasibility and efficacy of home-based self-delivered mirror therapy; this low-cost treatment may defray medical costs, therapy visits, and the patient travel burden for people with motivation and a high level of education. More research is needed to determine methods of cost-effective support for people with lower levels of education.

Authors:

Beth D. Darnall, Hong Li

References

  1. Ephraim PL, Wegener ST, MacKenzie EJ, Dillingham TR, Pezzin LE. Phantom pain, residual limb pain, and back pain in amputees: results of a national survey. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 1910–1919.
  2. Ehde DM, Czerniecki JM, Smith DG, Campbell KM, Edwards WT, Jensen MP, et al. Chronic phantom sensations, phantom pain, residual limb pain, and other regional pain after lower limb amputation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000; 81: 1039–1044.
  3. Nikolajsen L, Jensen TS. Phantom limb pain. Br J Anaesth 2001; 87: 107–116.
  4. Desmond DM, Maclachlan M. Prevalence and characteristics of phantom limb pain and residual limb pain in the long term after upper limb amputation. Int J Rehabil Res 2010; 33: 279–282.
  5. Darnall BD, Ephraim P, Wegener ST, Dillingham T, Pezzin L, Rossbach P, et al. Depressive symptoms and mental health service utilization among persons with limb loss: results of a national survey. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 650–658.
  6. Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, Travison TG, Brookmeyer R. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 89: 422–429.
  7. Weeks SR, Anderson-Barnes VC, Tsao JW. Phantom limb pain: theories and therapies. The Neurologist 2010; 16: 277–286.
  8. Ramachandran VS, Rogers-Ramachandran D, Cobb S. Touching the phantom limb. Nature 1995; 377: 489–490.
  9. Darnall BD. Self-delivered home-based mirror therapy for lower limb phantom pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 88: 78–81.
  10. Ramachandran VS, Rogers-Ramachandran D. Synaesthesia in phantom limbs induced with mirrors. Proc Biol Sci 1996; 263: 377–386.
  11. MacLachlan M, McDonald D, Waloch J. Mirror treatment of lower limb phantom pain: a case study. Disabil Rehabil 2004; 26: 901–904.
  12. Mercier C, Sirigu A. Training with virtual visual feedback to alleviate phantom limb pain. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009; 23: 587–594.
  13. Chan BL, Witt R, Charrow AP, Magee A, Howard R, Pasquina PF, et al. Mirror therapy for phantom limb pain. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2206–2207.
  14. Brodie EE, Whyte A, Niven CA. Analgesia through the looking-glass? A randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of viewing a ‘virtual’ limb upon phantom limb pain, sensation and movement. Eur J Pain 2007; 11: 428–436.
  15. Brodie EE, Whyte A, Waller B. Increased motor control of a phantom leg in humans results from the visual feedback of a virtual leg. Neurosci Lett 2003; 341: 167–169.
  16. Altschuler EL, Wisdom SB, Stone L, Foster C, Galasko D, Llewellyn DM, et al. Rehabilitation of hemiparesis after stroke with a mirror. Lancet 1999; 353: 2035–2036.
  17. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Measure 1977; 1: 385–396.
  18. Jensen MP, Ehde DM, Hoffman AJ, Patterson DR, Czerniecki JM, Robinson LR. Cognitions, coping and social environment predict adjustment to phantom limb pain. Pain 2002; 95: 133–142.
  19. Wegener ST, Mackenzie EJ, Ephraim P, Ehde D, Williams R. Self-management improves outcomes in persons with limb loss. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 90: 373–380.
  20. Boyd JH, Weissman MM, Thompson WD, Myers JK. Screening for depression in a community sample. Understanding the discrepancies between depression symptom and diagnostic scales. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1982; 39: 1195–1200.
  21. Phillips LA, Carroll LJ, Cassidy JD, Cote P. Whiplash-associated disorders: who gets depressed? Who stays depressed? Eur Spine J 2010; 19: 945–956.
  22. Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR. Patient compliance with paper and electronic diaries. Controlled Clinical Trials 2003; 24: 182–199.
  23. Linn T, Ebener K, Raptis G, Laube H, Federlin K. Natural course of insulin sensitivity and insulin reserve in early insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Metabolism 1995; 44: 617–623.
  24. Rothgangel AS, Braun SM, Beurskens AJ, Seitz RJ, Wade DT. The clinical aspects of mirror therapy in rehabilitation: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Rehabil Res 2011; 34: 1–13.
  25. Lopez-Olivo MA, Landon GC, Siff SJ, et al. Psychosocial determinants of outcomes in knee replacement. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70: 1775–1781.
  26. Casale R, Damiani C, Rosati V. Mirror therapy in the rehabilitation of lower-limb amputation: are there any contraindications? Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2009; 88: 837–842.
  27. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW, Beaton D, Cleeland CS, Farrar JT, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008; 9: 105–121.


Related articles

There are no related articles.


Actions


Abstract

Full text

PDF

Supplementary


There is no supplementary for this article.

Related articles


Click here to show related articles

Print information


Volume 44, Issue 3

DOI: 10.2340/16501977-0933

Pages: 254-260

View at PubMed