62
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evidence based guidelines for complex regional pain syndrome type 1

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Treatment of complex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS-I) is subject to discussion. The purpose of this study was to develop multidisciplinary guidelines for treatment of CRPS-I.

          Method

          A multidisciplinary task force graded literature evaluating treatment effects for CRPS-I according to their strength of evidence, published between 1980 to June 2005. Treatment recommendations based on the literature findings were formulated and formally approved by all Dutch professional associations involved in CRPS-I treatment.

          Results

          For pain treatment, the WHO analgesic ladder is advised with the exception of strong opioids. For neuropathic pain, anticonvulsants and tricyclic antidepressants may be considered. For inflammatory symptoms, free-radical scavengers (dimethylsulphoxide or acetylcysteine) are advised. To promote peripheral blood flow, vasodilatory medication may be considered. Percutaneous sympathetic blockades may be used to increase blood flow in case vasodilatory medication has insufficient effect. To decrease functional limitations, standardised physiotherapy and occupational therapy are advised. To prevent the occurrence of CRPS-I after wrist fractures, vitamin C is recommended. Adequate perioperative analgesia, limitation of operating time, limited use of tourniquet, and use of regional anaesthetic techniques are recommended for secondary prevention of CRPS-I.

          Conclusions

          Based on the literature identified and the extent of evidence found for therapeutic interventions for CRPS-I, we conclude that further research is needed into each of the therapeutic modalities discussed in the guidelines.

          Related collections

          Most cited references130

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Opioids in chronic non-cancer pain: systematic review of efficacy and safety.

          Opioids are used increasingly for chronic non-cancer pain. Controversy exists about their effectiveness and safety with long-term use. We analysed available randomised, placebo-controlled trials of WHO step 3 opioids for efficacy and safety in chronic non-cancer pain. The Oxford Pain Relief Database (1950-1994) and Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched until September 2003. Inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of WHO step 3 opioids with placebo in chronic non-cancer pain. Double-blind studies reporting on pain intensity outcomes using validated pain scales were included. Fifteen randomised placebo-controlled trials were included. Four investigations with 120 patients studied intravenous opioid testing. Eleven studies (1025 patients) compared oral opioids with placebo for four days to eight weeks. Six of the 15 included trials had an open label follow-up of 6-24 months. The mean decrease in pain intensity in most studies was at least 30% with opioids and was comparable in neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain. About 80% of patients experienced at least one adverse event, with constipation (41%), nausea (32%) and somnolence (29%) being most common. Only 44% of 388 patients on open label treatments were still on opioids after therapy for between 7 and 24 months. The short-term efficacy of opioids was good in both neuropathic and musculoskeletal pain conditions. However, only a minority of patients in these studies went on to long-term management with opioids. The small number of selected patients and the short follow-ups do not allow conclusions concerning problems such as tolerance and addiction.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Graded motor imagery is effective for long-standing complex regional pain syndrome: a randomised controlled trial.

            Complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS1) involves cortical abnormalities similar to those observed in phantom pain and after stroke. In those groups, treatment is aimed at activation of cortical networks that subserve the affected limb, for example mirror therapy. However, mirror therapy is not effective for chronic CRPS1, possibly because movement of the limb evokes intolerable pain. It was hypothesised that preceding mirror therapy with activation of cortical networks without limb movement would reduce pain and swelling in patients with chronic CRPS1. Thirteen chronic CRPS1 patients were randomly allocated to a motor imagery program (MIP) or to ongoing management. The MIP consisted of two weeks each of a hand laterality recognition task, imagined hand movements and mirror therapy. After 12 weeks, the control group was crossed-over to MIP. There was a main effect of treatment group (F(1, 11) = 57, P < 0.01) and an effect size of approximately 25 points on the Neuropathic pain scale. The number needed to treat for a 50% reduction in NPS score was approximately 2. The effect of treatment was replicated in the crossed-over control subjects. The results uphold the hypothesis that a MIP initially not involving limb movement is effective for CRPS1 and support the involvement of cortical abnormalities in the development of this disorder. Although the mechanisms of effect of the MIP are not clear, possible explanations are sequential activation of cortical pre-motor and motor networks, or sustained and focussed attention on the affected limb, or both.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Graded motor imagery for pathologic pain: a randomized controlled trial.

              Phantom limb and complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS1) are characterized by changes in cortical processing and organization, perceptual disturbances, and poor response to conventional treatments. Graded motor imagery is effective for a small subset of patients with CRPS1. To investigate whether graded motor imagery would reduce pain and disability for a more general CRPS1 population and for people with phantom limb pain. Fifty-one patients with phantom limb pain or CRPS1 were randomly allocated to motor imagery, consisting of 2 weeks each of limb laterality recognition, imagined movements, and mirror movements, or to physical therapy and ongoing medical care. There was a main statistical effect of treatment group, but not diagnostic group, on pain and function. The mean (95% CI) decrease in pain between pre- and post-treatment (100 mm visual analogue scale) was 23.4 mm (16.2 to 30.4 mm) for the motor imagery group and 10.5 mm (1.9 to 19.2 mm) for the control group. Improvement in function was similar and gains were maintained at 6-month follow-up. Motor imagery reduced pain and disability in these patients with complex regional pain syndrome type I or phantom limb pain, but the mechanism, or mechanisms, of the effect are not clear.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Neurol
                BMC Neurology
                BioMed Central
                1471-2377
                2010
                31 March 2010
                : 10
                : 20
                Affiliations
                [1 ]VU University Medical Center, dept of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [2 ]Research consortium Trauma Related Neuronal Dysfunction (TREND), the Netherlands
                [3 ]The EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [4 ]Rivierenland Hospital, dept of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tiel, the Netherlands
                [5 ]University Medical Centre Groningen, Center for Rehabilitation, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
                [6 ]Dutch Association of Posttraumatic Dystrophy Patients, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
                [7 ]Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement CBO, Utrecht, the Netherlands
                Article
                1471-2377-10-20
                10.1186/1471-2377-10-20
                2861029
                20356382
                7ccbd770-0473-46a7-b38b-65c3b06296f0
                Copyright ©2010 Perez et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 10 July 2009
                : 31 March 2010
                Categories
                Research article

                Neurology
                Neurology

                Comments

                Comment on this article