Phantom phenomena are subject of various, often inconsistent, descriptions, and new concepts and treatment approaches emerge. The aim of the study is to describe contemporary terminology and developments in the field, and to share personal experience. A review of English and French language literature, published prior to 27th February, 2012, extracted from PubMed/MEDLINE, Google.fr, GoogleScholar databases, and by hand searching of selected full text papers and textbooks with correspondence to personal clinical experience was performed. The terminology and classification of phantom phenomena sensations, relations between intensity and character of phantom pain to the etiology and level of amputations, as well as the influence of presence and intensity of pre-operative limb pain and post-operative stump pain on phantom phenomena are described. The benefits of mirror therapy and early introduction of prosthesis and applying functional prosthesis are also presented, with a glance at other conservative and surgical treatment approaches.

Introduction: Phantom impressions are divided into phantom sensations and phantom pain. There are many factors that affect the quality and intensity of phantom impressions. These include: preoperative pain in the affected limb, the level of amputation, the height and bilterality of amputation, surgical technique, amputation etiology, stump pain, the state of stump healing, demographic and social factors, psychosocial influences and the level of physical activity.Objective: To evaluate the relationship between the height of limb amputation and the type of phantom sensations and phantom pain. Material and methods:The study included adults meeting the inclusion criteria after single or multiple-limb amputations. We took into account exclusion criteria. The study involved 67 patients after single or multiplelimb amputations, including 46 men and 21 women. The median age was 48.8 ± 16.2 years. The study used an interview questionnaire, numerical scale for assessing phantom pain and stump pain and McGill Pain Questionnaire. The study was conducted in two stages: first -on the day of the initiation of rehabilitation (before putting on the prosthetic appliance) and second -after 5 weeks. The second study additionally included: the stage of prosthesis implantation, the type of prosthesis, the time since putting on the prosthesis, total daily wear time and walking time during which the prosthesis is worn. The first measurement was performed in all 67 patients, while the second in 63 subjects. Results:The subjects with the vascular and traumatic etiology of amputation predominated in the study sample.Gender did not significantly differentiate the distribution of amputation etiology (p> 0.05). Amputations at the level of the lower leg and thigh predominated in the whole group, constituting groups that were equal in terms of the number of subjects. Gender did not significantly differentiate the sample structure in terms of the level of amputation (p>0.05). The majority of women had amputations at the thigh level, while men at the lower leg level. Amputations in the left lower limb definitely dominated both in men and women. Gender did not significantly differentiate the sample structure in terms of limb re-amputation (p>0.05).In measurement 1, there was no relationship between the height of amputation and the type of phantom sensation (p>0.05). In measurement 2, the relationship between the height of amputation and the type of phantom sensation was significant (p<0.05). Here, "phantom sensations difficult to describe" clearly predominated (n=27). In the final measurement, the relationship between the height of amputation and the type of phantom sensation turned out to be significant, still with a clear advantage of "phantom sensations difficult to describe". In women, the most common sensation of the "incomplete, immobile phantom limb" reported in the initial measurement takes in the final measurement the form of the "incomplete, movable phantom limb" equally with "phantom sensations difficult to describe". In measurement 1, ...

Amputation leading to the loss of a body part is associated not only with significant economic costs, but also serious consequences of medical and socio-psychological nature. It is the ultimate means to save a life or improve its quality. The most difficult challenges faced by amputees include accepting changes regarding their own physiognomy and the resulting life restrictions. The patient subjected to amputation is faced with an extremely difficult adaptation process, during which s/he should strive for a maximum degree of independence. Unfortunately, a large group of patients also struggles with various types of sensations and pain located within the lost limb − i.e., so-called phantom phenomena. This is a special group of phenomena of diverse nature, “located” within the lost limb. The occurrence of phantom limb syndrome in amputee patients is extremely common. This problem affects from 45% to even 98% of patients after amputation of one or both upper and lower limbs. The main purpose of this article is to describe phantom phenomena observed in patients after limb amputation in light of current literature. The definition, historical outline, types of phantom phenomena are presented, as well as hypothetical pathomechanisms, factors influencing the frequency and intensity of phantom phenomena and available treatment methods. The work was based on numerous text sources and the author’s own experience.

No abstract

Understanding brain plasticity after stroke is important in developing rehabilitation strategies. Active movement therapies show considerable promise but their individual application is still not fully implemented. Among the analysed, available therapeutic modalities, some became widely used in therapeutic practice. Thus, we selected three relatively new methods, i.e. mirror therapy, motor imagery and constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT). Mirror therapy was initially used in the treatment of phantom pain in patients with amputated limbs and later, in stroke patients. Motor imagery is widely used in sport to improve performance, which raises the possibility of applying it both as a rehabilitative method and in accessing the motor network independently of recovery. Whereas CIMT is based on the paradigm that impairment of arm function is exacerbated by learned non-use and that this, in turn, leads to loss of cortical representation in the upper limb.