Dataset Information

Chronic Pain Rehabilitation for Upper Extremity Pain Following Stimulator Removal.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Both spinal cord stimulators (SCS) and interdisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation program (CPRP) are evidence-based treatments for chronic pain but differ on treatment foci. SCS focuses on decreasing the subjective pain experience as a means of improving function and quality of life. CPRP focuses on addressing the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral factors associated with chronic pain to improve function. Due to experimental constraints, these 2 treatment options are difficult to compare; however, this case report offers a unique opportunity to examine outcomes for both interventions in a sequential manner for changes in pain, function, and mood. CASE REPORT This single case study examined the separate and sequential outcomes of SCS and CPRP in a 26-year-old patient with a work-related injury resulting in chronic upper extremity pain. This patient was treated within an interdisciplinary CPRP following failure and removal of an SCS. Outcomes were measured by psychological assessments and return-to-work through a 6-month post-CPRP follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Pain intensity decreased following SCS placement and CPRP, while pain-related distress, pain interference, and overall affect improved only after CPRP, with sustained improvements at 6-month follow-up. Patient evidenced improvement following treatment with SCS and CPRP. SCS resulted in improvement in subjective pain and modest improved self-reported activity. CPRP demonstrated marked improvement in pain, self-reported function, and mood with patient eventually returning to work and maintaining most of these gains 6-months after completing CPRP treatment.

SUBMITTER: Vargovich AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6253559 | biostudies-other | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Chronic Pain Rehabilitation for Upper Extremity Pain Following Stimulator Removal.

Vargovich Alison M AM Chorney Jill J Gross Richard T RT Vowles Kevin E KE

The American journal of case reports 20181119

BACKGROUND Both spinal cord stimulators (SCS) and interdisciplinary chronic pain rehabilitation program (CPRP) are evidence-based treatments for chronic pain but differ on treatment foci. SCS focuses on decreasing the subjective pain experience as a means of improving function and quality of life. CPRP focuses on addressing the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral factors associated with chronic pain to improve function. Due to experimental constraints, these 2 treatment options are difficult to ...[more]

PMID: 30449882

Similar Datasets

Project description:Stroke is a leading cause of persistent upper extremity (UE) motor disability in adults. Brain-computer interface (BCI) intervention has demonstrated potential as a motor rehabilitation strategy for stroke survivors. This sub-analysis of ongoing clinical trial (NCT02098265) examines rehabilitative efficacy of this BCI design and seeks to identify stroke participant characteristics associated with behavioral improvement. Stroke participants (n = 21) with UE impairment were assessed using Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and measures of function. Nine participants completed three assessments during the experimental BCI intervention period and at 1-month follow-up. Twelve other participants first completed three assessments over a parallel time-matched control period and then crossed over into the BCI intervention condition 1-month later. Participants who realized positive change (≥1 point) in total ARAT performance of the stroke affected UE between the first and third assessments of the intervention period were dichotomized as "responders" (<1 = "non-responders") and similarly analyzed. Of the 14 participants with room for ARAT improvement, 64% (9/14) showed some positive change at completion and approximately 43% (6/14) of the participants had changes of minimal detectable change (MDC = 3 pts) or minimally clinical important difference (MCID = 5.7 points). Participants with room for improvement in the primary outcome measure made significant mean gains in ARATtotal score at completion (ΔARATtotal = 2, p = 0.028) and 1-month follow-up (ΔARATtotal = 3.4, p = 0.0010), controlling for severity, gender, chronicity, and concordance. Secondary outcome measures, SISmobility, SISadl, SISstrength, and 9HPTaffected, also showed significant improvement over time during intervention. Participants in intervention through follow-up showed a significantly increased improvement rate in SISstrength compared to controls (p = 0.0117), controlling for severity, chronicity, gender, as well as the individual effects of time and intervention type. Participants who best responded to BCI intervention, as evaluated by ARAT score improvement, showed significantly increased outcome values through completion and follow-up for SISmobility (p = 0.0002, p = 0.002) and SISstrength (p = 0.04995, p = 0.0483). These findings may suggest possible secondary outcome measure patterns indicative of increased improvement resulting from this BCI intervention regimen as well as demonstrating primary efficacy of this BCI design for treatment of UE impairment in stroke survivors. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02098265.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rehabilitation is crucial for maximizing recovery after stroke. Rehabilitation activities that are fun and rewarding by themselves can be more effective than those who are not. Gamification with virtual reality (VR) exploits this principle. This single-case design study probes the potential for using commercial off-the-shelf, room-scale head-mounted virtual reality for upper extremity rehabilitation in individuals with chronic stroke, the insights of which can inform further research. METHODS:A heterogeneous volunteer sample of seven participants living with stroke were recruited through advertisement. A single-case design was employed with a 5-week baseline (A), followed by a 10-week intervention (B) and a 6-month follow-up. Upper extremity motor function was assessed with validated kinematic analysis of drinking task. Activity capacity was assessed with Action Research Arm Test, Box and Block Test and ABILHAND questionnaire. Assessments were done weekly and at follow-up. Playing games on a VR-system with head-mounted display (HTC Vive) was used as rehabilitation intervention. Approximately 300 games were screened and 6 tested. Visual analysis and Tau-U statistics were used to interpret the results. RESULTS:Visual analysis of trend, level shift and overlap as well as Tau-U statistics indicated improvement of Action Research Arm Test in six participants. Four of these had at least a moderate Tau-U score (0.50-0.92), in at least half of the assessed outcomes. These four participants trained a total of 361 to 935 min. Two out of four participants who were able to perform the drinking task, had the highest training dose (>?900 min) and showed also improvements in kinematics. The predominant game played was Beat Saber. No serious adverse effects related to the study were observed, one participant interrupted the intervention phase due to a fall at home. CONCLUSIONS:This first study of combining commercial games, a commercial head-mounted VR, and commercial haptic hand controls, showed promising results for upper extremity rehabilitation in individuals with chronic stroke. By being affordable yet having high production values, as well as being an easily accessible off-the-shelf product, this variant of VR technology might facilitate widespread adaption. Insights garnered in this study can facilitate the execution of future studies. Trial registration The study was registered at researchweb.org (project number 262331, registered 2019-01-30, https://www.researchweb.org/is/vgr/project/262331 ) prior to participant enrolment.

Project description:ImportanceClinical trials suggest that higher doses of task-oriented training are superior to current clinical practice for patients with stroke with upper extremity motor deficits.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of a structured, task-oriented motor training program vs usual and customary occupational therapy (UCC) during stroke rehabilitation.Design, setting, and participantsPhase 3, pragmatic, single-blind randomized trial among 361 participants with moderate motor impairment recruited from 7 US hospitals over 44 months, treated in the outpatient setting from June 2009 to March 2014.InterventionsStructured, task-oriented upper extremity training (Accelerated Skill Acquisition Program [ASAP]; n = 119); dose-equivalent occupational therapy (DEUCC; n = 120); or monitoring-only occupational therapy (UCC; n = 122). The DEUCC group was prescribed 30 one-hour sessions over 10 weeks; the UCC group was only monitored, without specification of dose.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 12-month change in log-transformed Wolf Motor Function Test time score (WMFT, consisting of a mean of 15 timed arm movements and hand dexterity tasks). Secondary outcomes were change in WMFT time score (minimal clinically important difference [MCID] = 19 seconds) and proportion of patients improving ≥25 points on the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) hand function score (MCID = 17.8 points).ResultsAmong the 361 randomized patients (mean age, 60.7 years; 56% men; 42% African American; mean time since stroke onset, 46 days), 304 (84%) completed the 12-month primary outcome assessment; in intention-to-treat analysis, mean group change scores (log WMFT, baseline to 12 months) were, for the ASAP group, 2.2 to 1.4 (difference, 0.82); DEUCC group, 2.0 to 1.2 (difference, 0.84); and UCC group, 2.1 to 1.4 (difference, 0.75), with no significant between-group differences (ASAP vs DEUCC: 0.14; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.33; P = .16; ASAP vs UCC: -0.01; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0.21; P = .94; and DEUCC vs UCC: -0.14; 95% CI, -0.32 to 0.05; P = .15). Secondary outcomes for the ASAP group were WMFT change score, -8.8 seconds, and improved SIS, 73%; DEUCC group, WMFT, -8.1 seconds, and SIS, 72%; and UCC group, WMFT, -7.2 seconds, and SIS, 69%, with no significant pairwise between-group differences (ASAP vs DEUCC: WMFT, 1.8 seconds; 95% CI, -0.8 to 4.5 seconds; P = .18; improved SIS, 1%; 95% CI, -12% to 13%; P = .54; ASAP vs UCC: WMFT, -0.6 seconds, 95% CI, -3.8 to 2.6 seconds; P = .72; improved SIS, 4%; 95% CI, -9% to 16%; P = .48; and DEUCC vs UCC: WMFT, -2.1 seconds; 95% CI, -4.5 to 0.3 seconds; P = .08; improved SIS, 3%; 95% CI, -9% to 15%; P = .22). A total of 168 serious adverse events occurred in 109 participants, resulting in 8 patients withdrawing from the study.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with motor stroke and primarily moderate upper extremity impairment, use of a structured, task-oriented rehabilitation program did not significantly improve motor function or recovery beyond either an equivalent or a lower dose of UCC upper extremity rehabilitation. These findings do not support superiority of this program among patients with motor stroke and primarily moderate upper extremity impairment.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00871715.

Dataset Information

Chronic Pain Rehabilitation for Upper Extremity Pain Following Stimulator Removal.

Publications

Chronic Pain Rehabilitation for Upper Extremity Pain Following Stimulator Removal.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets