Out of the Clinic, into the Home: The in-Home Use of Phantom Motor Execution Aided by Machine Learning and Augmented Reality for the Treatment of Phantom Limb Pain

2020 ◽  
Vol Volume 13 ◽  
pp. 195-209
Author(s):  
Eva Lendaro ◽  
Alexandra Middleton ◽  
Shannon Brown ◽  
Max Ortiz-Catalan
The Lancet ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 388 (10062) ◽  
pp. 2885-2894 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Ortiz-Catalan ◽  
Rannveig A Guðmundsdóttir ◽  
Morten B Kristoffersen ◽  
Alejandra Zepeda-Echavarria ◽  
Kerstin Caine-Winterberger ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 595-601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Dunn ◽  
Elizabeth Yeo ◽  
Parisah Moghaddampour ◽  
Brian Chau ◽  
Sarah Humbert

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Lendaro

Abstract Background Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a chronic condition that can greatly diminish quality of life. Purposeful control over the phantom limb activates of the affected neural circuitry and leads to dissolution of the pathological relationship linking sensorimotor and pain processing (which gives rise to PLP). An international, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) on the use of phantom motor execution (PME) as a treatment for PLP is currently undertaken, where PME is compared to active placebo. Methods and design Sixty-seven subjects suffering from PLP in upper or lower limbs are randomly assigned in 2:1 ratio to PME or phantom motor imagery (PMI) interventions respectively. Subjects allocated to either treatment receive 15 interventions and are exposed to the same VR-AR environments using the same device. The only difference between interventions is whether phantom movements are performed (PME) or just imagined (PMI). Results The primary outcome of the study is to examine whether 15 sessions of PME can induce a greater PLP relief, compared to PMI. The secondary objectives are to examine whether 15 sessions of PME provide a greater improvement on different aspects related to PLP compared to PMI, such as pain duration, pain intensity as measured by other metrics and the patient’s own impression about the effect of treatment. Long-term retention of treatment benefits will be assessed as change in all the variables (both primary and secondary) between baseline and follow-up timepoints (at one-, three- and six-months post treatment). Conclusion This manuscript serves as the formal statistical analysis plan (version 1.0) for the international, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial on the use of phantom motor execution as a treatment for phantom limb pain. The statistical analysis plan was completed on 3 August 2021. Trial registration number NCT03112928. SAP version Version: 1.0 Date: 2021/08/03 Protocol Version This document has been written based on information contained in the study protocol published in [1], in July 2018. SAP Revisions Not applicable


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (12) ◽  
pp. 1591-1608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Rothgangel ◽  
Susy Braun ◽  
Bjorn Winkens ◽  
Anna Beurskens ◽  
Rob Smeets

Objective: To compare the effects of traditional mirror therapy (MT), a patient-centred teletreatment (PACT) and sensomotor exercises without a mirror on phantom limb pain (PLP). Design: Three-arm multicentre randomized controlled trial. Setting: Rehabilitation centres, hospital and private practices. Subjects: Adult patients with unilateral lower limb amputation and average PLP intensity of at least 3 on the 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Interventions: Subjects randomly received either four weeks of traditional MT followed by a teletreatment using augmented reality MT, traditional MT followed by self-delivered MT or sensomotor exercises of the intact limb without a mirror followed by self-delivered exercises. Main measures: Intensity, frequency and duration of PLP and patient-reported outcomes assessing limitations in daily life at baseline, 4 weeks, 10 weeks and 6 months. Results: In total, 75 patients received traditional MT ( n = 25), teletreatment ( n = 26) or sensomotor exercises ( n = 24). Mean (SD) age was 61.1 (14.2) years and mean (SD) pain intensity was 5.7 (2.1) on the NRS. Effects of MT at four weeks on PLP were not significant. MT significantly reduced the duration of PLP at six months compared to the teletreatment ( P = 0.050) and control group ( P = 0.019). Subgroup analyses suggested significant effects on PLP in women, patients with telescoping and patients with a motor component in PLP. The teletreatment had no additional effects compared to self-delivered MT at 10 weeks and 6 months. Conclusion: Traditional MT over four weeks was not more effective than sensomotor exercises without a mirror in reducing PLP, although significant effects were suggested in some subgroups.


PM&R ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. S143-S143
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Heckman ◽  
Elana Hartman ◽  
Lee Meredith ◽  
Jennifer Eftychiou

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document