Pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) compared to conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1: A randomised controlled trial

65Citations
Citations of this article
275Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

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 (betweengroup 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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Barnhoorn, K. J., Van De Meent, H., Van Dongen, R. T. M., Klomp, F. P., Groenewoud, H., Samwel, H., … Staal, J. B. (2015). Pain exposure physical therapy (PEPT) compared to conventional treatment in complex regional pain syndrome type 1: A randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open, 5(12). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008283

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free