Search

Objective: To evaluate the delivery, acceptance and experiences regarding a traditional and teletreatment approach to mirror therapy as delivered in a randomized controlled trial., Design: Mixed methods, prospective study., Setting: Rehabilitation centres, hospital and private practices., Subjects: Adult patients with phantom pain following lower limb amputation and their treating physical and occupational therapists., Interventions: All patients received 4 weeks of traditional mirror therapy ( n  = 51), followed by 6 weeks of teletreatment ( n  = 26) or 6 weeks of self-delivered mirror therapy ( n  = 25)., Main Measures: Patient files, therapist logs, log files teletreatment, acceptance questionnaire and interviews with patients and their therapists., Results: In all, 51 patients and 10 therapists participated in the process evaluation. Only 16 patients (31%) received traditional mirror therapy according to the clinical framework during the first 4 weeks. Between weeks 5 and 10, the teletreatment was used by 14 patients (56%) with sufficient dose. Teletreatment usage decreased from a median number of 31 (weeks 5-10) to 19 sessions (weeks 11-24). Satisfactory teletreatment user acceptance rates were found with patients demonstrating higher scores (e.g. regarding the usefulness to control pain) than therapists. Potential barriers for implementation of the teletreatment perceived by patients and therapists were related to insufficient training and support as well as the frequency of technical problems., Conclusion: Traditional mirror therapy and the teletreatment were not delivered as intended in the majority of patients. Implementation of the teletreatment in daily routines was challenging, and more research is needed to evaluate user characteristics that influence adherence and how technology features can be optimized to develop tailored implementation strategies.

Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a clinically relevant consequence of limb amputation and its treatment is still challenging. Mirror therapy, in other words, observing and engaging in the intact limb's mirrored movements, offers a promising, mechanism-based treatment for PLP. However, intervention and patient characteristics, such as the realism of mirrored exercises and perceptions related to the phantom limb, might influence treatment effectiveness. Novel approaches using augmented and virtual reality setups represent an alternative to traditional mirror therapy. In this paper, based on recent studies in the field, we compare both approaches and discuss their unique advantages and disadvantages. We argue for the necessity of a tailored treatment for PLP that is personalized to the patients' characteristics, preferences and psychological needs.

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.

Objective: To describe the development and content of a clinical framework for mirror therapy (MT) in patients with phantom limb pain (PLP) following amputation., Methods: Based on an a priori formulated theoretical model, 3 sources of data collection were used to develop the clinical framework. First, a review of the literature took place on important clinical aspects and the evidence on the effectiveness of MT in patients with phantom limb pain. In addition, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were used to analyze clinical experiences and preferences of physical and occupational therapists and patients suffering from PLP regarding the application of MT. All data were finally clustered into main and subcategories and were used to complement and refine the theoretical model., Results: For every main category of the a priori formulated theoretical model, several subcategories emerged from the literature search, patient, and therapist interviews. Based on these categories, we developed a clinical flowchart that incorporates the main and subcategories in a logical way according to the phases in methodical intervention defined by the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy. In addition, we developed a comprehensive booklet that illustrates the individual steps of the clinical flowchart., Conclusions: In this study, a structured clinical framework for the application of MT in patients with PLP was developed. This framework is currently being tested for its effectiveness in a multicenter randomized controlled trial., (© 2015 World Institute of Pain.)

Introduction: Non-pharmacological interventions such as mirror therapy are gaining increased recognition in the treatment of phantom limb pain; however, the evidence in people with phantom limb pain is still weak. In addition, compliance to self-delivered exercises is generally low. The aim of this randomised controlled study is to investigate the effectiveness of mirror therapy supported by telerehabilitation on the intensity, duration and frequency of phantom limb pain and limitations in daily activities compared to traditional mirror therapy and care as usual in people following lower limb amputation., Method: A three-arm multi-centre randomised controlled trial will be performed. Participants will be randomly assigned to care as usual, traditional mirror therapy or mirror therapy supported by telerehabilitation. During the first 4 weeks, at least 10 individual sessions will take place in every group. After the first 4 weeks, participants will be encouraged to perform self-delivered exercises over a period of 6 weeks. Outcomes will be assessed at 4 and 10 weeks after baseline and at 6 months follow-up. The primary outcome measure is the average intensity of phantom limb pain during the last week. Secondary outcome measures include the different dimensions of phantom limb pain, pain-related limitations in daily activities, global perceived effect, pain-specific self-efficacy, and quality of life., Discussion: Several questions concerning the study design that emerged during the preparation of this trial will be discussed. This will include how these questions were addressed and arguments for the choices that were made., (Copyright © 2014 Australian Physiotherapy Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical aspects of mirror therapy (MT) interventions after stroke, phantom limb pain and complex regional pain syndrome. A systematic literature search of the Cochrane Database of controlled trials, PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PEDro, RehabTrials and Rehadat, was made by two investigators independently (A.S.R. and M.J.). No restrictions were made regarding study design and type or localization of stroke, complex regional pain syndrome and amputation. Only studies that had MT given as a long-term treatment were included. Two authors (A.S.R. and S.M.B.) independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias by using the Amsterdam-Maastricht Consensus List. Ten randomized trials, seven patient series and four single-case studies were included. The studies were heterogeneous regarding design, size, conditions studied and outcome measures. Methodological quality varied; only a few studies were of high quality. Important clinical aspects, such as assessment of possible side effects, were only insufficiently addressed. For stroke there is a moderate quality of evidence that MT as an additional intervention improves recovery of arm function, and a low quality of evidence regarding lower limb function and pain after stroke. The quality of evidence in patients with complex regional pain syndrome and phantom limb pain is also low. Firm conclusions could not be drawn. Little is known about which patients are likely to benefit most from MT, and how MT should preferably be applied. Future studies with clear descriptions of intervention protocols should focus on standardized outcome measures and systematically register adverse effects.