The Efficacy of Pain Neuroscience Education on Active Rehabilitation Following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A CONSORT-Compliant Prospective Randomized Single-Blind Controlled Trial

Pain Neuroscience Education Following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair for Patients With Rotator Cuff Tears: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

This trial examines the efficacy of the pain neuroscience education on clinical outcomes in patients with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

DESIGN

A total of 36 participants undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were assigned to either the experimental group ( n = 18) or control group ( n = 18) in this randomized study. A 6-wk-long conventional physiotherapy program was administered for both groups. In addition, a pain neuroscience education protocol was administered for the experimental group for a whole period of 6 wks (1 session/week, 15-60 mins per session). The primary outcomes were to compare pretreatment and posttreatment scores of the experimental versus control groups on the pain and disability. Our secondary outcomes included the comparisons of scores on the catastrophizing, anxiety, depression, kinesiophobia, and quality of life. The participants were assessed both at baseline and posttreatment.

RESULTS

The improvement in pain catastrophizing, anxiety, depression, and kinesiophobia was greater in the experimental group ( P < 0.05). The improvement was similar in both groups in terms of the rest of outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that the pain neuroscience education improved only psychological aspects of the chronic pain in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Therefore, adding pain neuroscience education to the conventional program might be useful to improve pain catastrophizing, anxiety, depression, and kinesiophobia in patients with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Education can reassure people with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain: a 3-arm, randomised, online experiment

ABSTRACT

We aimed to investigate the immediate effect of best practice education (with and without pain science messages) and structure-focused education on reassurance among people with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain. We conducted a 3-arm, parallel-group, randomised experiment. People with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain were randomised (1:1:1) to (1) best practice education (highlights that most shoulder pain is not serious or a good indicator of tissue damage and recommends simple self-management strategies); (2) best practice education plus pain science messages (which attempt to improve understanding of pain); and (3) structure-focused education (highlighting that structural changes are responsible for pain and should be targeted with treatment). Coprimary outcomes were self-reported reassurance that no serious condition is causing their pain and continuing with daily activities is safe. Secondary outcomes measured management intentions, credibility and relevance of the education, and similarity to previous education. Two thousand two hundred thirty-seven participants were randomised and provided primary outcome data. Best practice education increased reassurance that no serious condition is causing their pain (estimated mean effect 0.5 on a 0-10 scale, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.7) and continuing with daily activities is safe (0.6, 95% CI 0.3-0.8) compared with structure-focused education . Adding pain science messages to best practice education slightly increased both measures of reassurance (0.2, 95% CI 0.0-0.4). Clinicians treating patients with rotator cuff-related shoulder pain should highlight that most shoulder pain is not serious or a good indicator of tissue damage and recommend simple self-management strategies. The benefit of adding pain science messages is small.

A systematic review of the added value of perioperative pain neuroscience education

OBJECTIVE

To identify and summarize evidence about the benefits of perioperative pain neuroscience education (PNE) on pain-related and psychosocial outcomes.

METHODS

Included were reports written in English that carried out PNE or its synonyms; perioperative period; aged ≥ 18 years; interventional studies and observational studies. Secondary studies, conference abstracts, and editorials were excluded. There was no time limitation.

INFORMATION SOURCES

PubMed, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct. Search: June 20th 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists, and synthesis followed the recommendations of the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guideline. Register: Center for Open Science website (10.17605/OSF.IO/ZTNEJ).

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 18 reports. For pain outcomes, it was not possible to attribute PNE benefits because ten reports found improvements in both intervention and control groups. For psychosocial outcomes, fourteen reports found benefits for PNE groups. All the analyzed reports showed low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

PNE had additional benefits beyond those obtained with conventional treatment for psychosocial outcomes.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Due to the lack of evidence, it was not possible to indicate the clinical use of PNE. It is suggested that further studies are needed aimed at clarifying the possible benefits.