Cargando…
Pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) compared to conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1: a randomised controlled trial
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) with conventional treatment in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-1) in a randomised controlled trial with a blinded assessor. SETTING: The study was conducted at a level 1 trauma centre in the Ne...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4679993/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26628523 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008283 |
_version_ | 1782405618311626752 |
---|---|
author | Barnhoorn, Karlijn J van de Meent, Henk van Dongen, Robert T M Klomp, Frank P Groenewoud, Hans Samwel, Han Nijhuis-van der Sanden, Maria W G Frölke, Jan Paul M Staal, J Bart |
author_facet | Barnhoorn, Karlijn J van de Meent, Henk van Dongen, Robert T M Klomp, Frank P Groenewoud, Hans Samwel, Han Nijhuis-van der Sanden, Maria W G Frölke, Jan Paul M Staal, J Bart |
author_sort | Barnhoorn, Karlijn J |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) with conventional treatment in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-1) in a randomised controlled trial with a blinded assessor. SETTING: The study was conducted at a level 1 trauma centre in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 56 adult patients with CRPS-1 participated. Three patients were lost to follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either PEPT in a maximum of five treatment sessions, or conventional treatment following the Dutch multidisciplinary guideline. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6 and 9 months after randomisation. The primary outcome measure was the Impairment level Sum Score—Restricted Version (ISS-RV), consisting of visual analogue scale for pain (VAS-pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire, active range of motion (AROM) and skin temperature. Secondary outcome measures included Pain Disability Index (PDI); muscle strength; Short Form 36 (SF-36); disability of arm, shoulder and hand; Lower Limb Tasks Questionnaire (LLTQ); 10 m walk test; timed up-and-go test (TUG) and EuroQol-5D. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis showed a clinically relevant decrease in ISS-RV (6.7 points for PEPT and 6.2 points for conventional treatment), but the between-group difference was not significant (0.96, 95% CI −1.56 to 3.48). Participants allocated to PEPT experienced a greater improvement in AROM (between-group difference 0.51, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.94; p=0.02). The per protocol analysis showed larger and significant between-group effects on ISS-RV, VAS-pain, AROM, PDI, SF-36, LLTQ and TUG. CONCLUSIONS: We cannot conclude that PEPT is superior to conventional treatment for patients with CRPS-1. Further high-quality research on the effects of PEPT is warranted given the potential effects as indicated by the per protocol analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00817128 and NTR 2090. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4679993 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46799932015-12-22 Pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) compared to conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1: a randomised controlled trial Barnhoorn, Karlijn J van de Meent, Henk van Dongen, Robert T M Klomp, Frank P Groenewoud, Hans Samwel, Han Nijhuis-van der Sanden, Maria W G Frölke, Jan Paul M Staal, J Bart BMJ Open Rehabilitation Medicine OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) with conventional treatment in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-1) in a randomised controlled trial with a blinded assessor. SETTING: The study was conducted at a level 1 trauma centre in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 56 adult patients with CRPS-1 participated. Three patients were lost to follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either PEPT in a maximum of five treatment sessions, or conventional treatment following the Dutch multidisciplinary guideline. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6 and 9 months after randomisation. The primary outcome measure was the Impairment level Sum Score—Restricted Version (ISS-RV), consisting of visual analogue scale for pain (VAS-pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire, active range of motion (AROM) and skin temperature. Secondary outcome measures included Pain Disability Index (PDI); muscle strength; Short Form 36 (SF-36); disability of arm, shoulder and hand; Lower Limb Tasks Questionnaire (LLTQ); 10 m walk test; timed up-and-go test (TUG) and EuroQol-5D. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis showed a clinically relevant decrease in ISS-RV (6.7 points for PEPT and 6.2 points for conventional treatment), but the between-group difference was not significant (0.96, 95% CI −1.56 to 3.48). Participants allocated to PEPT experienced a greater improvement in AROM (between-group difference 0.51, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.94; p=0.02). The per protocol analysis showed larger and significant between-group effects on ISS-RV, VAS-pain, AROM, PDI, SF-36, LLTQ and TUG. CONCLUSIONS: We cannot conclude that PEPT is superior to conventional treatment for patients with CRPS-1. Further high-quality research on the effects of PEPT is warranted given the potential effects as indicated by the per protocol analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT00817128 and NTR 2090. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4679993/ /pubmed/26628523 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008283 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Rehabilitation Medicine Barnhoorn, Karlijn J van de Meent, Henk van Dongen, Robert T M Klomp, Frank P Groenewoud, Hans Samwel, Han Nijhuis-van der Sanden, Maria W G Frölke, Jan Paul M Staal, J Bart Pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) compared to conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1: a randomised controlled trial |
title | Pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) compared to conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1: a randomised controlled trial |
title_full | Pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) compared to conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1: a randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) compared to conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1: a randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) compared to conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1: a randomised controlled trial |
title_short | Pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) compared to conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1: a randomised controlled trial |
title_sort | pain exposure physical therapy (pept) compared to conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1: a randomised controlled trial |
topic | Rehabilitation Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4679993/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26628523 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008283 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT barnhoornkarlijnj painexposurephysicaltherapypeptcomparedtoconventionaltreatmentincomplexregionalpainsyndrometype1arandomisedcontrolledtrial AT vandemeenthenk painexposurephysicaltherapypeptcomparedtoconventionaltreatmentincomplexregionalpainsyndrometype1arandomisedcontrolledtrial AT vandongenroberttm painexposurephysicaltherapypeptcomparedtoconventionaltreatmentincomplexregionalpainsyndrometype1arandomisedcontrolledtrial AT klompfrankp painexposurephysicaltherapypeptcomparedtoconventionaltreatmentincomplexregionalpainsyndrometype1arandomisedcontrolledtrial AT groenewoudhans painexposurephysicaltherapypeptcomparedtoconventionaltreatmentincomplexregionalpainsyndrometype1arandomisedcontrolledtrial AT samwelhan painexposurephysicaltherapypeptcomparedtoconventionaltreatmentincomplexregionalpainsyndrometype1arandomisedcontrolledtrial AT nijhuisvandersandenmariawg painexposurephysicaltherapypeptcomparedtoconventionaltreatmentincomplexregionalpainsyndrometype1arandomisedcontrolledtrial AT frolkejanpaulm painexposurephysicaltherapypeptcomparedtoconventionaltreatmentincomplexregionalpainsyndrometype1arandomisedcontrolledtrial AT staaljbart painexposurephysicaltherapypeptcomparedtoconventionaltreatmentincomplexregionalpainsyndrometype1arandomisedcontrolledtrial |