Somatosensory rehabilitation for allodynia in complex regional pain syndrome of the upper limb: A retrospective cohort study

How should we define and assess painful sensitivity in the hand? An international e-Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Painful sensitivity in the hand is commonly seen with neuropathic pain, interfering with daily activities including rehabilitation. However, there are currently several terms used to describe the problem and a lack of guidance on what assessments should be used.

PURPOSE

To gather expert opinion a) identifying current and common terminology used in hand therapy, b) developing a consensus definition of hypersensitivity, and c) developing consensus guidance on how to best assess allodynia.

STUDY DESIGN

International e-Delphi survey study.

METHODS

We conducted an e-Delphi consensus study drawing on international experts in hand rehabilitation. We planned up to four rounds of consensus-seeking, defining consensus as 75% or more of participants agreeing with a definition or recommendation. Experts were identified from 21 countries, with the nomination of other experts encouraged for 'snowball sampling'. The first round included clinical vignettes describing 'painful sensitivity of the hand' and asked participants to describe how they would assess each case. Definitions for hypersensitivity, tactile hyperesthesia, and allodynia were also requested.

RESULTS

We invited 68 participants: 44 more were added through nominations. Sixty-three agreed to participate and were sent the round one survey; 54 participants from 19 countries completed this survey and were invited to participate in all subsequent rounds. No two definitions of hypersensitivity were the same, while 87% of the definitions for allodynia and 78% for tactile hyperesthesia were concordant with a published taxonomy. Over 700 assessment items were proposed in round one: ultimately 38 items representing eight distinct constructs reached a consensus for assessing allodynia.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapists definitions were consistent with an existing taxonomy for allodynia. Although hypersensitivity conceptualizations varied regarding the qualities of stimulus and response, a working definition was reached. Recommended assessments were relatively consistent internationally, holistic, and reflected a potential link between allodynia and central sensitization.

How should we treat painful sensitivity in the hand? An international e-Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Evidence synthesis suggests allodynia resulting from neuropathic pain has few interventions with clear effectiveness. As research continues to build this needed evidence base, expert consensus recommendations can address the conflicting approaches within current hand therapy practice.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to develop consensus recommendations for the clinical management of allodynia from an international panel of hand therapists.

STUDY DESIGN

This was an international e-Delphi survey study.

METHODS

We recruited international hand rehabilitation experts to participate in an e-Delphi survey. Consensus was defined as 75% or more of participants agreeing with a recommendation, and at least 3 rounds of consensus building were anticipated. Experts were identified from 21 countries, and clinical vignettes describing a spectrum of patients with painful sensitivity in the hand were provided to elicit treatment recommendations. Initial recommendations were summarized, and consensus sought for clinical practice recommendations.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight participants were invited, with 44 more added through peer nominations. Fifty-four participants from 19 countries completed the initial survey and were invited to participate in all subsequent rounds. Over 900 treatment suggestions were provided from the initial vignettes across domains, including sensory, physical, and functional interventions, education, and cortical representation techniques: 46 ultimately reached consensus. However, important discrepancies in justification (eg, why allodynia should be covered) and implementation of techniques (eg, desensitization, sensory reeducation) were identified as the consensus exercise progressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Experts recommend individually tailored programs to treat allodynia using a variety of physical/movement, sensory-based, and "top-down" approaches; this is highly aligned with contemporary theories, such as the Neuromatrix Model of Pain. However, consensus was not reached on the justification and implementation of some of these approaches, reflecting the lack of a taxonomy and supporting evidence for tactile stimulation approaches in the current literature. Trials directly comparing the effectiveness of these approaches are needed.

Person-centred management of upper limb complex regional pain syndrome: an integrative review of non-pharmacological treatment

Introduction

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is most common in the upper limb and associated with high disability. The purpose of this review was to critically appraise and synthesise literature exploring non-pharmacological treatment for upper limb CRPS, to guide upper-limb-specific management.

Methods

Using an integrative review methodology, 13 databases were searched to identify all published studies on non-pharmacological management of upper limb CRPS. The Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool was used to provide quality ratings for included studies, and analysis employed a qualitative descriptive approach.

Results

From 236 abstracts reviewed, 113 full texts were read, and 38 articles selected for data extraction. Designs included single case (n = 14), randomised controlled trial (n = 8), prospective cohort (n = 8), case series (n = 4), retrospective (n = 3), and mixed methods (n = 1). Interventions were categorised as sensory retraining (n = 13), kinesiotherapy (n = 7), manual therapies (n = 7), physical modalities (n = 6), and interdisciplinary treatment programmes (n = 5). All studies measured pain intensity, and most (n = 24) measured physical parameters such as strength, movement, or perceptual abilities. Few measured patient-rated function (n = 13) or psychological factors (n = 4). Quality ratings ranged from 30% to 93%, with a median of 60%.

Conclusion

Methodological quality of non-pharmacological treatment approaches for upper limb CRPS is overall poor. Movement, desensitisation, and graded functional activity remain the mainstays of intervention. However, despite the impact of CRPS on wellbeing and function, psychological factors and functional outcomes are infrequently addressed. Further robust research is required to determine which aspects of treatment have the greatest influence on which symptoms, and when and how these should be introduced and progressed.

Central Sensitization and Psychological State Distinguishing Complex Regional Pain Syndrome from Other Chronic Limb Pain Conditions: A Cluster Analysis Model

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) taxonomy has been updated with reported subtypes and is defined as primary pain alongside other chronic limb pain (CLP) conditions. We aimed at identifying CRPS clinical phenotypes that distinguish CRPS from other CLP conditions. Cluster analysis was carried out to classify 61 chronic CRPS and 31 CLP patients based on evoked pain (intensity of hyperalgesia and dynamic allodynia, allodynia area, and after-sensation) and psychological (depression, kinesiophobia, mental distress, and depersonalization) measures. Pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-6 and TNF-α serum levels were measured. Three cluster groups were created: ‘CRPS’ (78.7% CRPS; 6.5% CLP); ‘CLP’ (64.5% CLP; 4.9% CRPS), and ‘Mixed’ (16.4% CRPS; 29% CLP). The groups differed in all measures, predominantly in allodynia and hyperalgesia (p < 0.001, η² > 0.58). ‘CRPS’ demonstrated higher psychological and evoked pain measures vs. ‘CLP’. ‘Mixed’ exhibited similarities to ‘CRPS’ in psychological profile and to ‘CLP’ in evoked pain measures. The serum level of TNF-αwas higher in the ‘CRPS’ vs. ‘CLP’ (p < 0.001) groups. In conclusion, pain hypersensitivity reflecting nociplastic pain mechanisms and psychological state measures created different clinical phenotypes of CRPS and possible CRPS subtypes, which distinguishes them from other CLP conditions, with the pro-inflammatory TNF-α cytokine as an additional potential biomarker.

Tactile stimulation programs in patients with hand dysesthesia after a peripheral nerve injury: A systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

This is a systematic review performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards.

INTRODUCTION

Diverse approaches based on tactile stimulation are used in hand rehabilitation settings to treat touch-evoked dysesthesias. However, there is a lack of literature synthesis on the description and the effectiveness of the various approaches based on tactile stimulation that can be used for treating hand dysesthesia after nerve injury.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study was to summarize the current evidence on tactile stimulation programs for managing touch-evoked hand dysesthesia due to nerve injury.

METHODS

The search was carried out on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases. The selected studies had to present patients with touch-evoked dysesthesia after nerve injury who were treated with tactile stimulation approaches to reduce pain. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies scale, as well as the risk of bias.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies present tactile stimulation interventions that are heterogeneous relative to the target populations and the intervention itself (desensitization versus somatosensory rehabilitation method). Painful symptoms appear to diminish in patients with touch-evoked hand dysesthesia, regardless of the tactile stimulation program used. However, the included studies present significant risks of bias that limit the confidence in these results.

DISCUSSION

The evidence does not unequivocally support the beneficial effects of tactile stimulation to treat touch-evoked hand dysesthesia.

CONCLUSION

Future studies with more rigorous methodological designs, such as randomized controlled trials, are required to verify the potential benefits of these approaches.

The Role of Nonmedical Therapeutic Approaches in the Rehabilitation of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

Purpose of the Review

Nonmedical therapeutic approaches are fundamental to the management of of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) in order to promote the best outcome for patients. This review focuses on three key approaches underpinning CRPS rehabilitation, namely, physiotherapy and occupational therapy, psychological approaches and education and self-management.

Recent Findings

Recently published European standards outline the quality of therapeutic care that people with CRPS must receive. Early initiated therapy is essential to optimise outcomes, underpinned by patient education. Therapists should promote early movement of the affected limb and encourage re-engagement with usual activities as immobilisation is known to have negative outcomes. There is evidence to support the possible long-term benefit of graded motor imagery and mirror therapy. Psychological assessment should include identification of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, as treatment of these conditions may improve the trajectory of CRPS. Novel therapies include neurocognitive approaches and those addressing spatial bias, both of which should provide a focus for future research.

Summary

There exists a broad range of nonmedical therapeutic approaches to rehabilitation for CPRS that are thought to be important. However, the evidence for their efficacy is limited. Further research using standardised outcomes would be helpful in developing targeted therapies for the future.

Evaluating a sensitive issue: reliability of a clinical evaluation for allodynia severity

Purpose/Aim: Allodynia is a common feature of neuropathic pain with few validated clinical evaluation options. We identified a need to estimate the measurement properties of the standardised evaluation procedure for static mechanical allodynia severity popularised by the somatosensory rehabilitation of pain method, known as the rainbow pain scale. This study (www.clinicaltrials.gov. NCT02070367) undertook preliminary investigation of the inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the rainbow pain scale.Methods: Persons with pain in one upper extremity after Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, a peripheral nerve injury or a recent hand fracture were recruited for assessment of static mechanical allodynia threshold using calibrated monofilaments by two raters at baseline, and repeated assessment one week later.Results: Single measures estimates suggested inter-rater reliability was substantial for the rainbow pain scale [intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.78 (n = 31), p < 0.001]. Test-retest reliability was also excellent at with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.87 [n = 28, p < 0.001]. However, confidence intervals suggest the true values could be more moderate, with lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval at 0.60 and 0.74, respectively.Conclusions: This pilot study has generated preliminary support for the inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the rainbow pain scale. Future studies should seek to increase confidence in estimates of reliability, and estimate validity and responsiveness to change in persons with somatosensory disorders.

Management of long-term complex regional pain syndrome with allodynia: A case report

STUDY DESIGN

Case report.

INTRODUCTION

Conventional rehabilitation alone may not be effective in reducing symptoms in some patients with complex regional pain syndrome.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This case report portrays the benefits of a new tailored rehabilitation program for a 39-year-old patient suffering from upper limb complex regional pain syndrome with severe touch-evoked pain (static mechanical allodynia).

METHODS

This patient had previously received conventional rehabilitation for a year and a half including physical and nonsurgical medical interventions that did not improve symptoms or function. In the search for an alternative, this patient was referred to occupational therapy to try a tailored rehabilitation program, drawing on multiple strategies used sequentially according to the patient's tolerance and symptom evolution. During this 22-month program, the following methods were added (listed chronologically): somatosensory rehabilitation of pain method, graded motor imagery, pain management modalities, active mobilizations, strengthening exercises, and task simulation. The patient successively showed resolution of mechanical allodynia, decreased pain, reduction of tactile hypesthesia and improvement in active range of motion, strength, and function. These improvements allowed him to return to work.

DISCUSSION

This suggests that a tailored rehabilitation program combining somatosensory rehabilitation of pain method, graded motor imagery and more conventional approaches could improve symptoms and functional status in patients with upper limb complex regional pain syndrome, even with persistent refractory symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The addition of the somatosensory rehabilitation of pain method and the graded motor imagery approach to conventional therapy could be considered in cases of complex regional pain syndrome that do not respond to conventional rehabilitation alone.

Mechanism-specific rehabilitation management of complex regional pain syndrome: Proposed recommendations from evidence synthesis

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review.

INTRODUCTION

There are a variety of treatments with demonstrated effectiveness for the management of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). However given the variability in symptom presentation in this population, therapists may be unsure what treatments would be most effective for individual clients.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To present a brief synthesis of the literature and propose a rehabilitation version of a mechanism-specific management algorithm to guide personalized treatment of CRPS.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines addressing rehabilitation of CRPS. Results were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers and final selection of articles was reached by consensus, Data was extracted using standardized forms, and a single rater gave quality ratings. Both reviewers then used the extracted data to present a synthesis of the evidence categorized by the proposed mechanisms of effect.

RESULTS

A total of 111 articles were retrieved and reviewed for inclusion; 49 were selected for data extraction. A synthesis of the key recommendations was compiled into a rehabilitation-specific version of the mechanism-based management algorithm proposed by Gierthmühlen et al (2014).

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of mechanism-appropriate rehabilitation interventions may assist therapists to select the most appropriate and effective treatments from the body of evidence supporting rehabilitation of CRPS.

Allodynography: Reliability of a New Procedure for Objective Clinical Examination of Static Mechanical Allodynia

Objective

There is a need for reliable and valid clinical assessment tools for quantifying allodynia in neuropathic pain. Allodynography has been proposed as a useful standardized procedure for clinical assessment of mechanical allodynia. This study (www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02070367) undertook preliminary investigation of the measurement properties of allodynography, a new standardized clinical examination procedure for mapping the area of cutaneous allodynia.

Methods

Persons with pain in one upper extremity after complex regional pain syndrome, a peripheral nerve injury, or who had recently experienced a hand fracture were recruited for assessment of static mechanical allodynia (based on perception of a 15g force stimulus delivered by Semmes-Weinstein monofilament #5.18 as painful) by two raters at baseline; the assessment was repeated one week later.

Results

Single-measures estimates suggested inter-rater reliability for allodynography was excellent at an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.97 (N = 12); test–retest reliability was also excellent at ICC = 0.89 (N = 10) for allodynography (P &lt; 0.001 for both). Confidence intervals’ lower bounds confirm inter-rater reliability as excellent (0.90) but were less definitive for test–retest (0.59).

Conclusions

This preliminary study supports the inter-rater and test–retest reliability of allodynography. Studies on larger samples in multiple contexts and reporting other measurement properties are warranted.