Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2015 Dec 1;5(12):e008283.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008283.

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

Karlijn J Barnhoorn  1 , Henk van de Meent  2 , Robert T M van Dongen  3 , Frank P Klomp  4 , Hans Groenewoud  5 , Han Samwel  6 , Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden  7 , Jan Paul M Frölke  8 , J Bart Staal  9
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

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

Karlijn J Barnhoorn et al. BMJ Open. .

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 (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.

Keywords: PAIN MANAGEMENT; REHABILITATION MEDICINE.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial profile (CONV, conventional treatment; ITT, intention-to-treat; PP, per protocol; PEPT, pain exposure physical therapy).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Outcomes of the Impairment level Sum Score—Restricted Version (ISS-RV) and its subscales, and the Pain Disability Index. Data are based on raw data; mean (95% CI). Light lines, pain exposure physical therapy group. Dark lines, conventional treatment group. (A) Primary outcome ISS-RV and its subscales, intention-to-treat. (B) Pain Disability Index, intention-to-treat. (C) Primary outcome ISS-RV and its subscales, per protocol. (D) Pain Disability Index, per protocol (ISS-RV, Impairment level Sum Score—Restricted Version; VAS, visual analogue scale).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

  • Durch Schmerz zur Heilung?
    Herlyn P. Herlyn P. Z Orthop Unfall. 2016 Feb;154(1):16. Z Orthop Unfall. 2016. PMID: 27340710 German. No abstract available.

References

    1. Bruehl S, Harden RN, Galer BS et al. . External validation of IASP diagnostic criteria for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and proposed research diagnostic criteria. International Association for the Study of Pain. Pain 1999;81:147–54. 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00011-1 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marinus J, Moseley GL, Birklein F et al. . Clinical features and pathophysiology of complex regional pain syndrome. Lancet Neurol 2011;10:637–48. 10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70106-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schwartzman RJ. New treatments for reflex sympathetic dystrophy. N Engl J Med 2000;343:654–6. 10.1056/NEJM200008313430911 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maleki J, LeBel AA, Bennett GJ et al. . Patterns of spread in complex regional pain syndrome, type I (reflex sympathetic dystrophy). Pain 2000;88:259–66. 10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00332-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Van Rijn MA, Marinus J, Putter H et al. . Spreading of complex regional pain syndrome: not a random process. J Neural Transm 2011;118:1301–9. 10.1007/s00702-011-0601-1 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data