RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The inconsistent use of standardized approaches for classifying postamputation pain (PAP) has been a barrier to establishing its prevalence. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the prevalence of nontraumatic lower-extremity PAP using an established taxonomy. The secondary objective is to determine the prevalence of PAP subtypes, including phantom limb pain and residual limb pain (RLP). METHODS: An a priori protocol was registered, and a database search was conducted by a reference librarian. Randomized trials and uncontrolled studies were eligible for inclusion. The risk of bias was assessed using a tool developed for uncontrolled studies. A total of 2679 studies were screened, and 13 studies met inclusion criteria (n = 1063). RESULTS: The sources of risk of bias included selection bias and, to a lesser extent, whether the outcome was adequately ascertained. Two studies reported the prevalence of PAP and the pooled prevalence was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33%-86%) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 93%). Thirteen studies reported the prevalence of phantom limb pain and the pooled prevalence was 53% (95% CI, 40%-66%) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 93%). Eight studies reported the prevalence of RLP and the pooled prevalence was 32% (95% CI 24%-41%) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 76%). Clinical subtypes of RLP were not reported. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of PAP is high in patients with nontraumatic lower-extremity amputations. Ongoing research that uses a taxonomy for PAP is needed to fully delineate the prevalence of PAP subtypes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a chronic condition that causes low back pain and neurogenic claudication, often resulting in significant limitation of daily activities. In this open-label randomized controlled pilot study, we assessed the safety and feasibility of 4-week novel integrative inpatient treatments for LSS. METHODS: Thirty-six symptomatic LSS patients were randomly and equally allocated to one of the three groups: Mokhuri Chuna treatment 1 (MT1) group, Mokhuri Chuna treatment 2 (MT2) group, or conventional management treatment (CMT) group. MT1 patients were treated with herbal medication, Mokhuri Chuna, and acupuncture, and received daily physician consultation; MT2 patients were treated with Mokhuri Chuna and acupuncture without any herbal medication, and received daily physician consultation; and CMT patients received conventional pain management therapy that included epidural steroid injection, oral NSAID, and muscle relaxant medication, along with daily physiotherapy. The primary outcome of this pilot study was safety as measured by the type and incidence of adverse events (AEs). The secondary outcome measures included VAS score for low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, Oxford Claudication Score (OCS), walking capacity on a 50 m flat track and treadmill, and EuroQol-5D score. Magnetic resonance imaging was also performed up to 6 months after treatment cessation. RESULTS: Thirty-four treated patients were included in the analysis, based on the modified intention-to-treat principle. No serious AEs were observed or reported. Compared to the CMT group, the MT1 and MT2 groups did show significant improvement at 3 and 6 months in various domains, including pain (VAS score for leg and back pain) and function (OCS and treadmill walking). CONCLUSION: These novel multimodal integrative treatments for LSS are both clinically safe and logistically feasible. Larger, adequately powered randomized controlled trials will be necessary to assess comparative efficacy and thoroughly analyze the cost-effectiveness of each treatment approach. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER CRIS: KCT0001218.