Management of phantom limb pain and sensation with milnacipran

A review of the management of phantom limb pain: challenges and solutions

BACKGROUND

Phantom limb pain (PLP) occurs in 50% and 80% of amputees. Although it is often classified as a neuropathic pain, few of the large-scale trials of treatments for neuropathic pain included sufficient numbers of PLP sufferers to have confidence that they are effective in this condition. Many therapies have been administered to amputees with PLP over the years; however, as of yet, there appears to be no first-line treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To comprehensively review the literature on treatment modalities for PLP and to identify the challenges currently faced by clinicians dealing with this pain.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, Cochrane and psycINFO databases were searched using "Phantom limb" initially as a MeSH term to identify treatments that had been tried. Then, a secondary search combining phantom limb with each treatment was performed to find papers specific to each therapy. Each paper was assessed for its research strength using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight therapies were identified. Overall, the quality of evidence was low. There was one high-quality study which used repetitive transcutaneous magnetic stimulation and found a statistical reduction in pain at day 15 but no difference at day 30. Significant results from single studies of moderate level quality were available for gabapentin, ketamine and morphine; however, there was a risk of bias in these papers. Mirror therapy and associated techniques were assessed through two systematic reviews, which conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support their use.

CONCLUSION

No decisions can be made for the first-line management of PLP, as the level of evidence is too low. Robust studies on homogeneous populations, an understanding of what amputees consider a meaningful reduction in PLP and agreement of whether pain intensity is the legitimate therapeutic target are urgently required.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Mirror Therapy for Upper Extremity Phantom Limb Pain in Male Amputees

Objective

Phantom limb pain (PLP) is prevalent in patients post-amputation and is difficult to treat. We assessed the efficacy of mirror therapy in relieving PLP in unilateral, upper extremity male amputees.

Methods

Fifteen participants from Walter Reed and Brooke Army Medical Centers were randomly assigned to one of two groups: mirror therapy (n = 9) or control (n = 6, covered mirror or mental visualization therapy). Participants were asked to perform 15 min of their assigned therapy daily for 5 days/week for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was pain as measured using a 100-mm Visual Analog Scale.

Results

Subjects in the mirror therapy group had a significant decrease in pain scores, from a mean of 44.1 (SD = 17.0) to 27.5 (SD = 17.2) mm (p = 0.002). In addition, there was a significant decrease in daily time experiencing pain, from a mean of 1,022 (SD = 673) to 448 (SD = 565) minutes (p = 0.003). By contrast, the control group had neither diminished pain (p = 0.65) nor decreased overall time experiencing pain (p = 0.49). A pain decrement response seen by the 10th treatment session was predictive of final efficacy.

Conclusion

These results confirm that mirror therapy is an effective therapy for PLP in unilateral, upper extremity male amputees, reducing both severity and duration of daily episodes.

Registration

NCT0030144 ClinicalTrials.gov.

Pharmacologic interventions for treating phantom limb pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 12, 2011. Phantom limb pain (PLP) is pain that arises in the missing limb after amputation and can be severe, intractable, and disabling. Various medications have been studied in the treatment of phantom pain. There is currently uncertainty in the optimal pharmacologic management of PLP.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to summarise the evidence of effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions in treating PLP.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and Embase for relevant studies. We ran the searches for the original review in September 2011 and subsequent searches for this update up to April 2016. We sought additional studies from clinical trials databases and reference lists of retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials studying the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions compared with placebo, another active treatment, or no treatment, in established PLP. We considered the following outcomes: change in pain intensity, function, sleep, depression or mood, quality of life, adverse events, treatment satisfaction, and withdrawals from the study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently assessed issues of study quality and extracted efficacy and adverse event data. Due to the wide variability in the studies, we did not perform a meta-analysis for all the interventions and outcomes, but attempted to pool the results of some studies where possible. We prepared a qualitative description and narrative summary of results. We assessed clinical heterogeneity by making qualitative comparisons of the populations, interventions, outcomes/outcome measures, and methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We added only one new study with 14 participants to this updated review. We included a 14 studies (10 with low risk of bias and 4 with unclear risk of bias overall) with a total of 269 participants. We added another drug class, botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs), in particular botulinum toxin A (BoNT/A), to the group of medications reviewed previously. Our primary outcome was change in pain intensity. Most studies did not report our secondary outcomes of sleep, depression or mood, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, or withdrawals from the study.BoNT/A did not improve phantom limb pain intensity during the six months of follow-up compared with lidocaine/methylprednisolone.Compared with placebo, morphine (oral and intravenous) was effective in decreasing pain intensity in the short term with reported adverse events being constipation, sedation, tiredness, dizziness, sweating, voiding difficulty, vertigo, itching, and respiratory problems.The N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists ketamine (versus placebo; versus calcitonin) and dextromethorphan (versus placebo), but not memantine, had analgesic effects. The adverse events of ketamine were more serious than placebo and calcitonin and included loss of consciousness, sedation, hallucinations, hearing and position impairment, and insobriety.The results for gabapentin in terms of pain relief were conflicting, but combining the results favoured treatment group (gabapentin) over control group (placebo) (mean difference -1.16, 95% confidence interval -1.94 to -0.38; 2 studies). However, gabapentin did not improve function, depression score, or sleep quality. Adverse events experienced were somnolence, dizziness, headache, and nausea.Compared with an active control benztropine mesylate, amitriptyline was not effective in PLP, with dry mouth and dizziness as the most frequent adverse events based on one study.The findings for calcitonin (versus placebo; versus ketamine) and local anaesthetics (versus placebo) were variable. Adverse events of calcitonin were headache, vertigo, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, and hot and cold flushes. Most of the studies were limited by their small sample sizes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review, we identified another study that added another form of medical therapy, BoNTs, specifically BoNT/A, to the list of pharmacologic interventions being reviewed for clinical efficacy in phantom limb pain. However, the results of this study did not substantially change the main conclusions. The short- and long-term effectiveness of BoNT/A, opioids, NMDA receptor antagonists, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, calcitonins, and local anaesthetics for clinically relevant outcomes including pain, function, mood, sleep, quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and adverse events remain unclear. Based on a small study, BoNT/A (versus lidocaine/methylprednisolone) does not decrease phantom limb pain. Morphine, gabapentin, and ketamine demonstrate favourable short-term analgesic efficacy compared with placebo. Memantine and amitriptyline may not be effective for PLP. However, results must be interpreted with caution, as they were based mostly on a small number of studies with limited sample sizes that varied considerably and also lacked long-term efficacy and safety outcomes. The direction of efficacy of calcitonin, local anaesthetics, and dextromethorphan needs further clarification. Overall, the efficacy evidence for the reviewed medications is thus far inconclusive. Larger and more rigorous randomised controlled trials are needed for us to reach more definitive conclusions about which medications would be useful for clinical practice.

Phantom eye syndrome: a review of the literature

The purpose of this literature review was to describe the main features of phantom eye syndrome in relation to their possible causes, symptoms, treatments, and influence of eye amputation on quality of life of anophthalmic patients. For this, a bibliographical research was performed in Pubmed database using the following terms: “eye amputation,” “eye trauma,” “phantom eye syndrome,” “phantom pain,” and “quality of life,” associated or not. Thirteen studies were selected, besides some relevant references contained in the selected manuscripts and other studies hallowed in the literature. Thus, 56 articles were included in this review. The phantom eye syndrome is defined as any sensation reported by the patient with anophthalmia, originated anophthalmic cavity. In phantom eye syndrome, at least one of these three symptoms has to be present: phantom vision, phantom pain, and phantom sensations. This syndrome has a direct influence on the quality of life of the patients, and psychological support is recommended before and after the amputation of the eyeball as well as aid in the treatment of the syndrome. Therefore, it is suggested that, for more effective treatment of phantom eye syndrome, drug therapy should be associated with psychological approach.

Current and future options for the management of phantom-limb pain

Phantom-limb pain (PLP) belongs among difficult-to-treat chronic pain syndromes. Treatment options for PLP are to a large degree implicated by the level of understanding the mechanisms and nature of PLP. Research and clinical findings acknowledge the neuropathic nature of PLP and also suggest that both peripheral as well as central mechanisms, including neuroplastic changes in central nervous system, can contribute to PLP. Neuroimaging studies in PLP have indicated a relation between PLP and the neuroplastic changes. Further, it has been shown that the pathological neuroplastic changes could be reverted, and there is a parallel between an improvement (reversal) of the neuroplastic changes in PLP and pain relief. These findings facilitated explorations of novel neuromodulatory treatment strategies, adding to the variety of treatment approaches in PLP. Overall, available treatment options in PLP include pharmacological treatment, supportive non-pharmacological non-invasive strategies (eg, neuromodulation using transcranial magnetic stimulation, visual feedback therapy, or motor imagery; peripheral transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, physical therapy, reflexology, or various psychotherapeutic approaches), and invasive treatment strategies (eg, surgical destructive procedures, nerve blocks, or invasive neuromodulation using deep brain stimulation, motor cortex stimulation, or spinal cord stimulation). Venues of further development in PLP management include a technological and methodological improvement of existing treatment methods, an implementation of new techniques and products, and a development of new treatment approaches.

Usefulness of milnacipran in treating phantom limb pain

BACKGROUND

Amputation of an extremity often results in the sensation of a "phantom limb" where the patient feels that the limb that has been amputated is still present. This is frequently accompanied by "phantom limb pain". We report here the use of milnacipran, a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, to treat phantom limb pain after amputation of injured or diseased limbs in three patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The severity of phantom pain before and during treatment was quantified using a visual analog scale. In one case, phantom limb pain responded partially to treatment with high doses of paroxetine, and then replacement with milnacipran further improved the pain relief and long-term full pain relief was achieved. In the two other cases, milnacipran was used as first-line treatment and phantom limb pain responded rapidly.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that milnacipran administration may be useful in phantom limb pain, possibly as a first-line treatment.

Pharmacologic interventions for treating phantom limb pain

BACKGROUND

Phantom limb pain (PLP) is pain that arises in the missing limb after amputation and can be severe, intractable and disabling. Various medications have been studied in the treatment of phantom pain. Presently there is uncertainty in the optimal pharmacologic management of PLP. 

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to summarize the evidence of effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions in treating PLP.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group (PaPaS) Trials Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE and EMBASE up to September 2011 for randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing pharmacologic treatment with placebo, another active treatment, or no treatment.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials studying the effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions in patients with established PLP. The outcomes considered were change in pain intensity, function, mood, sleep, quality of life, satisfaction and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed the methodologic quality of the studies and extracted the data. We reported continuous and dichotomous data on change in pain intensity, function, mood/depression scores, sleep, quality of life, satisfaction for each study, where available. Because of the wide variability in the studies, we did not perform a meta-analysis for all the interventions and outcomes but we attempted to pool the results of some studies where possible. We prepared a qualitative description and narrative summary of results and described adverse effects. We assessed clinical heterogeneity by making qualitative comparisons in terms of the populations, interventions, outcomes/outcome measures and methods.

MAIN RESULTS

From 583 references/publications, we selected 13 studies involving 255 participants. Six groups of medications were reviewed, namely, N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, anaesthetics, opioids, and calcitonin. Ten studies were of high quality and three were of moderate quality based on both Jadad and Van Tulder criteria. Because of the wide variation (heterogeneity) in the pharmacologic interventions, outcome measures, analyses, reporting of results, duration of follow-ups and study designs, it was not possible to pool the results for most of the interventions and outcomes. Morphine (oral and intravenous) was effective in decreasing pain intensity in the short-term with reported adverse effects being constipation, sedation, tiredness, dizziness, sweating, voiding difficulty, vertigo, itching, and respiratory problems. The NMDA receptor antagonists, ketamine and dextromethorphan but not memantine, had analgesic effects. The adverse effects of ketamine were more serious and included loss of consciousness, sedation, hallucinations, hearing and position impairment, and insobriety. The results for gabapentin in terms of pain relief were conflicting but combining the results showed a trend towards benefit. Gabapentin, however, did not improve function, depression score and sleep quality. Side effects experienced were somnolence, dizziness, headache and nausea. Amitryptiline was not effective in PLP with dry mouth and dizziness as side effects based on one study. The findings for calcitonin and anaesthetics were variable. Adverse effects of calcitonin were headache, vertigo, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, and hot and cold flushes. Most of the studies were limited by their small sample sizes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The short- and long-term effectiveness of opioids, NMDA receptor antagonists, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, calcitonins, and anaesthetics for clinically relevant outcomes that include pain, function, mood, sleep, quality of life, satisfaction and adverse effects remains unclear. Morphine, gabapentin and ketamine demonstrate trends towards short-term analgesic efficacy. Memantine and amitriptyline were ineffective for PLP. Results, however, are to be interpreted with caution as these were based mostly on a small number of studies with limited sample sizes that varied considerably and also lacked long-term efficacy and safety outcomes. The direction of efficacy of calcitonin, anaesthetics and dextromethorphan need further clarification. Larger and more rigorous randomised controlled trials are needed to make stronger recommendations about which medications would be useful for clinical practice.