Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Mirror visual feedback for phantom pain : international experience on modalities and side effects discussed by expert panel. A Delphi study
Authors: Hagenberg, Annegret
Carpenter, Christine
First Published: 9-Jan-2014
Publisher: Elsevier on behalf of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Citation: PM&R, 2014, in press
Abstract: Background: MVF (mirror therapy) is practised worldwide in very different ways to alleviate phantom pain; no study has compared these variations yet or researched risk and harm. Objectives: To establish usage and justification of a generally accepted MVF treatment plan after amputation, to explore occurrence and handling of side effects, and to increase knowledge on contributing factors. Methods: Experiential knowledge of 13 experienced practitioners from six countries and five professions was explored with a three round Delphi technique. Results: Experience with the use of five different treatment plans was described of which one has never been mentioned in the literature: an intense one-off plan where the illusion was carefully set up before the patient was left to the experience with no interference, resolving pain as well as side effects. In the four known treatment plans, the expectations of response time varied which influenced the definition of responders/non-responders, the set-ups, control and use of material reflected the professional background of the practitioners. Contraindications were also defined according to the professional confidence to deal with the side effects. Side effects were reported including emotional reactions, pain increase, sensory changes, freezing of the phantom limb, and dizziness and sweating. The attitude toward and the handling of side effects varied in patients as in practitioners according to their professional background. A tool to fine-tune the experience was reported with covering the limb during therapy. Full consensus was reached on several treatment modalities. Conclusion: The results suggest that the different treatment plans suit different patients and practitioners. Matching these could enhance effectiveness and compliance. Knowledge about side effects needs to inform treatment decisions. These findings triggered the development of a MVF gateway to guide patients to the treatment plan for their needs and collect data from the practitioners to enhance neuroscientific understanding and inform practice.
DOI Link: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.01.005
ISSN: 1934-1482
Version: Post-print
Status: Peer-reviewed
Type: Journal Article
Rights: Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Deposited with reference to the publisher’s open access archiving policy.
Description: NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in PM&R. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version will subsequently be published in PN&R, DOI#10.1016/j.pmrj.2014.01.005.
Appears in Collections:Published Articles, College of Social Science

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Mirror Visual Feedback AAM.pdfPost-review (final submitted)549.58 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.