VR treatment for phantom limb pain
Behavioral8 twice-weekly interventions of virtual reality treatment focused on reducing phantom limb pain.
NCT Number: NCT05296265
After amputation of an arm or leg, up to 90% of subjects experience a "phantom limb", a phenomenon characterized by persistent feelings of the missing limb. Many subjects with a phantom limb experience intense pain in the missing extremity that is often poorly responsive to medications or other interventions. The proposed work will contrast the efficacy of two virtual reality treatments for phantom limb pain: a 'Distractor' and an Active VR treatment. In the Distractor treatment, participants are engaged in a visually immersive virtual reality experience that does not require leg movements (REAL i-Series® immersive VR experience). In the Active VR treatment, subjects play a series of VR games using the virtual rendering of both legs.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year–100 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, United States
Almost 2 million people in the US have had an amputation and up to 90% of people with limb amputation experience the persistent sensation of the missing extremity, a phenomenon known as a "phantom limb" (Weeks et al., 2010). Additionally, a significant proportion of individuals with a phantom limb - up to 85% in some studies - experience persistent and debilitating pain in the missing limb, a condition known as phantom limb pain (hereafter PLP). Although existing therapies provide pain relief in some cases, there is widespread agreement that current approaches fall short of bringing relief to most individuals with PLP (Weeks et al., 2010).
The investigators recently completed a proof-of-concept study (Ambron et al., 2021) in which eight subjects with below knee amputations (BKA) underwent two virtual reality (VR) treatments for PLP. In an Active VR treatment, subjects played a variety of active games requiring leg movements while receiving high-quality visual feedback of the missing lower leg. Feedback about leg position was provided via an electromagnetic system using leg sensors (trackSTAR, Ascension Technologies Inc), and the program generated an image of the missing lower leg, visible as a first-person avatar. This treatment was contrasted with a "Distractor" treatment, in which participants were engaged in a visually immersive virtual reality experience that did not require leg movements (Cool!TM). Both treatments were associated with significant reductions in pain intensity, but the Active VR treatment was also associated with reductions in pain interference, depression, and anxiety.
The specific aims of the current study are (i) to replicate our prior observations of efficacy of VR treatment in a larger sample of individuals with BKA; (ii) to test VR therapy in patients with above knee amputations; (iii) to compare the efficacy of Active VR treatment to Distractor VR treatment for PLP on measures of pain as well as psychological health and quality of life.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
8 twice-weekly interventions of virtual reality treatment focused on reducing phantom limb pain.
Time frame: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of McGill Short Form Questionnaire (Melzack, 1987); 0 minimum score - 10 maximum score; higher scores indicate higher level of pain (worse outcome)
Time frame: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
McGill Short Form Questionnaire (Melzack, 1987): a series of 4-point scales (0 none - 3 severe) assessing the intensity of 15 qualitative characteristics of pain (e.g., throbbing, shooting, cramping, etc.), where higher scores are worse (more severe). For every participant we computed the total pain score (maximum 45 points indicating severe pain). Then, we computed the difference in the total scores between time points (e.g. post treatment vs baseline). Therefore, negative scores indicate improvement in pain qualitative characteristics.
Time frame: 1st treatment versus 8th treatment (4 weeks)
Difference between 8th and 1st treatment session on scaled score measuring "average pain intensity since the previous intervention" on an 11-point numerical rating pain scale; (Scale = 0 - minimum score/no pain to 10 maximum score/pain as bad as participants can imagine); higher scores indicate higher level of pain (worse outcome).
Time frame: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
The Frenchay Activities Index (FAI) (Holbrook et al., 1983):1983): a scale measuring the physical function and daily activity associated with quality of life in people with amputation. Scale = 0 minimum score to 45 maximum score; higher scores indicate more daily activities (better outcome). We report the average difference between post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and pre-intervention.
Time frame: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
The 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) (Ware et al., 1996): a measure of quality of life and functional capacity that has been validated in patients with amputation and phantom limb pain. Scale = 0 minimum score to 100 maximum score. Higher scores indicate poorer physical and mental health (worse outcome).
Time frame: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks
The Pain Interference Scale from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Cleeland & Ryan, 1994): A scale measuring the degree to which pain interferes with daily activities using a 0-10 numeric rating. Scale = 0 minimum score to 10 maximum score. Higher scores indicate greater pain interference (worse outcome). We report the average difference between post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and pre-intervention.
Time frame: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (Zigmond & Snaith, 1983): This is a 14- item measure with subscales assessing depressive and anxiety symptoms. For each subscale. range = 0 minimum score to 42 maximum score. Higher scores indicate more depression and/or anxiety (worse outcome). We report average differences on the anxiety scale and the depression scales between post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and pre-intervention.
Time frame: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
The 13-item Pain Catastrophizing Scale (Sullivan et al., 1995): this scale investigates pain catastrophizing, which has been associated with pain severity and disability after amputation. Score range = 0-52; Higher scores indicate higher tendency to catastrophize (worse outcome). We report the average difference between post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and pre-intervention.
Time frame: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
Insomnia Severity Index (Bastien et al., 2001): a 7-point scale that measures insomnia, a symptom associated with phantom limb pain. Score range = 0-28; higher scores indicate more insomnia (worse outcome). We report the average difference between post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and pre-intervention.
Time frame: Baseline
Technology Acceptance Scale (Morris et al., 1997): this is a 7-point scale that measures level of acceptance of the VR system. 0 minimum score - 133 maximum score; higher scores indicate low level of acceptance (worse score).
Time frame: immediately after the last intervention (session 8 of the intervention), an average of 4 weeks
System Usability Scale (SUS) (Brooke, 1996); Scale measuring the usability of the each game; minimum score 10 - maximum score 50. Higher scores indicate less usability (worse outcome). For the distractor treatment, participants rated the overall experience; for the active treatment, the average of the two games was computed for each participants.
Time frame: 1st (week 1) and 8th (week 4) treatment sessions
Simulator Sickness Questionnaire - SSQ (Kennedy et al., 1993): 4 points (0 - none; 3 - severe) scale assessing the severity of 16 cybersickness motion sickness symptoms, like nausea or dizziness. We computed the average score across items.
Time frame: 1st (week 1) and 8th (week 4) treatment sessions.
Brief Slater-Usoh-Steed Presence Questionnaire (Usoh et al., 2000; Slater et al., 1998; 1994). 0 minimum score - 42 maximum score. Higher scores indicate more presence in the VR (better outcome
Time frame: Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks
The Modified Limb Deficiency and Phantom Limb Questionnaire (Goller et al., 2013): a questionnaire and visual analog scale assessing prosthesis usage, phantom limb experiences, and pain severity. The outcome measure used was the score on the visual analogue scale assessing pain severity at its worst (Scale = 0 no pain to 10 unbearable pain). We report the average score difference between post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and pre-intervention.
Time frame: 1 week after the end of the intervention, an average of 5 weeks
Visual analogue scale that evaluates treatment satisfaction (Robinson et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2005); 0 minimum score - 10 maximum score; Higher scores indicate more treatment satisfaction (better outcome)
Albert Einstein Healthcare Network
Other
Efficacy and Mechanisms of Virtual Reality Treatment of Phantom Leg Pain: In-Person Treatment
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT03029884
Central Nervous System Diseases, Chronic Pain
San Francisco, California, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07565662
Lower Limb Amputation, Nervous System Diseases
Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico
View Trial DetailsNCT06071715
Amputation, Surgical, Amputation, Traumatic
La Jolla, California, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT06638918
Nervous System Diseases, Neurobehavioral Manifestations
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
View Trial Details