Objective: To compare targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) to “standard treatment” of neuroma excision and burying into muscle for postamputation pain. Summary Background Data: To date, no intervention is consistently effective for neuroma-related residual limb or phantom limb pain (PLP). TMR is a nerve transfer procedure developed for prosthesis control, incidentally found to improve postamputation pain. Methods: A prospective, randomized clinical trial was conducted. 28 amputees with chronic pain were assigned to standard treatment or TMR. Primary outcome was change between pre- and postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS, 0–10) pain scores for residual limb pain and PLP at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included NRS for all patients at final follow-up, PROMIS pain scales, neuroma size, and patient function. Results: In intention-to-treat analysis, changes in PLP scores at 1 year were 3.2 versus −0.2 (difference 3.4, adjusted confidence interval (aCI) −0.1 to 6.9, adjusted P = 0.06) for TMR and standard treatment, respectively. Changes in residual limb pain scores were 2.9 versus 0.9 (difference 1.9, aCI −0.5 to 4.4, P = 0.15). In longitudinal mixed model analysis, difference in change scores for PLP was significantly greater in the TMR group compared with standard treatment [mean (aCI) = 3.5 (0.6, 6.3), P = 0.03]. Reduction in residual limb pain was favorable for TMR (P = 0.10). At longest follow-up, including 3 crossover patients, results favored TMR over standard treatment. Conclusions: In this first surgical RCT for the treatment of postamputation pain in major limb amputees, TMR improved PLP and trended toward improved residual limb pain compared with conventional neurectomy. Trial Registration: NCT 02205385 at ClinicalTrials.gov.
Background We describe a multidisciplinary approach for comprehensive care of amputees with concurrent targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) at the time of amputation. Methods Our TMR cohort was compared to a cross‐sectional sample of unselected oncologic amputees not treated at our institution (N = 58). Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (NRS, PROMIS) were used to assess postamputation pain. Results Thirty‐one patients underwent amputation with concurrent TMR during the study; 27 patients completed pain surveys; 15 had greater than 1 year follow‐up (mean follow‐up 14.7 months). Neuroma symptoms occurred significantly less frequently and with less intensity among the TMR cohort. Mean differences for PROMIS pain intensity, behavior, and interference for phantom limb pain (PLP) were 5.855 (95%CI 1.159‐10.55; P = .015), 5.896 (95%CI 0.492‐11.30; P = .033), and 7.435 (95%CI 1.797‐13.07; P = .011) respectively, with lower scores for TMR cohort. For residual limb pain, PROMIS pain intensity, behavior, and interference mean differences were 5.477 (95%CI 0.528‐10.42; P = .031), 6.195 (95%CI 0.705‐11.69; P = .028), and 6.816 (95%CI 1.438‐12.2; P = .014), respectively. Fifty‐six percent took opioids before amputation compared to 22% at 1 year postoperatively. Conclusions Multidisciplinary care of amputees including concurrent amputation and TMR, multimodal postoperative pain management, amputee‐centered rehabilitation, and peer support demonstrates reduced incidence and severity of neuroma and PLP.
Summary: Approximately 25 percent of major limb amputees will develop chronic localized symptomatic neuromas and phantom limb pain in the residual limb. A method to treat and possibly prevent these pain symptoms is targeted reinnervation. Previous studies prove that targeted reinnervation successfully treats and, in some cases, resolves peripheral neuropathy and phantom limb pain in patients who have undergone previous amputation (i.e., secondary targeted reinnervation). This article seeks to share the authors’ clinical indications and surgical technique for targeted muscle reinnervation in below-knee amputation, a surgical description currently absent from our literature. Targeted reinnervation for the below-knee amputee has been performed on 22 patients at the authors’ institution. Each patient has been followed on an outpatient basis for 1 year to evaluate symptoms of neuroma or phantom limb pain, patient satisfaction, and functionality. All subjects have denied neuroma pain following amputation. The majority of subjects reported phantom pain at 1 month. However, at 3 months, all patients reported resolution of this pain. Dumanian et al. first noted the improvement of symptomatic neuroma and phantom limb pain in patients undergoing targeted reinnervation to provide intuitive control of upper limb prostheses. These findings have been substantiated by multiple previous studies at various amputation levels. This study extends the success of targeted muscle reinnervation to below-knee amputations and provides a description for this technique.
Background Targeted muscle reinnervation is an emerging surgical technique to treat neuroma pain whereby sensory and mixed motor nerves are transferred to nearby redundant motor nerve branches. In a recent randomized controlled trial, targeted muscle reinnervation was recently shown to reduce postamputation pain relative to conventional neuroma excision and muscle burying. Questions/purposes (1) Does targeted muscle reinnervation improve residual limb pain and phantom limb pain in the period before surgery to 1 year after surgery? (2) Does targeted muscle reinnervation improve Patient-reported Outcome Measurement System (PROMIS) pain intensity and pain interference scores at 1 year after surgery? (3) After 1 year, does targeted muscle reinnervation improve functional outcome scores (Orthotics Prosthetics User Survey [OPUS] with Rasch conversion and Neuro-Quality of Life [Neuro-QOL])? Methods Data on patients who were ineligible for randomization or declined to be randomized and underwent targeted muscle reinnervation for pain were gathered for the present analysis. Data were collected prospectively from 2013 to 2017. Forty-three patients were enrolled in the study, 10 of whom lacked 1-year follow-up, leaving 33 patients for analysis. The primary outcomes measured were the difference in residual limb and phantom limb pain before and 1 year after surgery, assessed by an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes were change in PROMIS pain measures and change in limb function, assessed by the OPUS Rasch for upper limbs and Neuro-QOL for lower limbs before and 1 year after surgery. Results By 1 year after targeted muscle reinnervation, NRS scores for residual limb pain from 6.4 ± 2.6 to 3.6 ± 2.2 (mean difference -2.7 [95% CI -4.2 to -1.3]; p < 0.001) and phantom limb pain decreased from 6.0 ± 3.1 to 3.6 ± 2.9 (mean difference -2.4 [95% CI -3.8 to -0.9]; p < 0.001). PROMIS pain intensity and pain interference scores improved with respect to residual limb and phantom limb pain (residual limb pain intensity: 53.4 ± 9.7 to 44.4 ± 7.9, mean difference -9.0 [95% CI -14.0 to -4.0]; residual limb pain interference: 60.4 ± 9.3 to 51.7 ± 8.2, mean difference -8.7 [95% CI -13.1 to -4.4]; phantom limb pain intensity: 49.3 ± 10.4 to 43.2 ± 9.3, mean difference -6.1 [95% CI -11.3 to -0.9]; phantom limb pain interference: 57.7 ± 10.4 to 50.8 ± 9.8, mean difference -6.9 [95% CI -12.1 to -1.7]; p ≤ 0.012 for all comparisons). On functional assessment, OPUS Rasch scores improved from 53.7 ± 3.4 to 56.4 ± 3.7 (mean difference +2.7 [95% CI 2.3 to 3.2]; p < 0.001) and Neuro-QOL scores improved from 32.9 ± 1.5 to 35.2 ± 1.6 (mean difference +2.3 [95% CI 1.8 to 2.9]; p < 0.001). Conclusions Targeted muscle reinnervation demonstrates improvement in residual limb and phantom limb pain parameters in major limb amputees. It should be considered as a first-line surgical treatment option for chronic amputation-related pain in patients with major limb amputations. Additional investigation into the effect on function and quality of life should be performed. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.