《Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice》 ›› 2017, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (12): 1450-1458.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2017.12.016

• Orginal Article • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effect of Protective Analgesia on Incidence of Phantom Limb Pain after Amputation: A Meta-analysis

XIONG Wei2, ZHANG Jun-wei2, WANG Zeng-chun2, REN Zi-gang2, WANG Qiang2   

  1. 1.a. Department of Anesthesiology; b. Department of Spine and Spinal Cord Surgery, Beijing Bo'ai Hospital, China Rehabilitation Research Center, Beijing 100068, China;
    2.Capital Medical University School of Rehabilitation Medicine, Beijing 100068, China
  • Received:2017-07-14 Revised:2017-08-23 Published:2017-12-25 Online:2017-12-28
  • Contact: ZHANG Jun-wei, WANG Qiang. E-mail: 13910158172@163.com (ZHANG Jun-wei);13801032889@163.com (WANG Qiang)

Abstract: Objective To systemically evaluate the effect of protective analgesia on preventing phantom limb pain (PLP) after amputation. Methods Published articles from the earliest date available to June, 2017 were recalled from Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, OVID, and Science Direct to collect prospective studies using protective analgesia in perioperative period to prevent PLP after amputation. Two reviewers screened literatures referring to studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and assessed the quality of them. Data of general information and incidence of PLP in the follow-up period were extracted and analyzed with RevMan 5.3 software. Results Six studies were included with a total of 256 patients in the one-month follow-up period including 127 cases in the protective analgesia group (group P) and 129 cases in the control group (group C), a total of 232 patients in the six-month follow-up period including 114 cases in group P and 118 cases in group C, and a total of 118 patients in the twelve-month follow-up period including 58 cases in group P and 60 cases in group C. The incidence of PLP were lower in group P than those in group C in the one-month follow-up period (RD=-0.21, 95%CI [-0.38, -0.04], Z=2.47, P=0.01) and in the six-month follow-up period (RD=-0.28, 95%CI [-0.52, -0.05], Z=2.37, P=0.02), and it was not significant in the twelve-month follow-up period (RD=-0.20, 95%CI [-0.48, 0.09], Z=1.35, P=0.18). Conclusion Protective analgesia in perioperative period can prevent against PLP after amputation in the recent time, however, it needs further observation in long-term.

Key words: perioperative period, protective analgesia, amputation, phantom limb pain, prospective study, meta-analysis

CLC Number: