Ogletree, Sandra P.

Abstract Introduction: The inconsistent use of standardized approaches for classifying postamputation pain (PAP) has been a barrier to establishing its prevalence. Objectives: The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the prevalence of nontraumatic lower-extremity PAP using an established taxonomy. The secondary objective is to determine the prevalence of PAP subtypes, including phantom limb pain and residual limb pain (RLP). Methods: An a priori protocol was registered, and a database search was conducted by a reference librarian. Randomized trials and uncontrolled studies were eligible for inclusion. The risk of bias was assessed using a tool developed for uncontrolled studies. A total of 2679 studies were screened, and 13 studies met inclusion criteria (n = 1063). Results: The sources of risk of bias included selection bias and, to a lesser extent, whether the outcome was adequately ascertained. Two studies reported the prevalence of PAP and the pooled prevalence was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33%–86%) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 93%). Thirteen studies reported the prevalence of phantom limb pain and the pooled prevalence was 53% (95% CI, 40%–66%) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 93%). Eight studies reported the prevalence of RLP and the pooled prevalence was 32% (95% CI 24%–41%) with high heterogeneity (I2 = 76%). Clinical subtypes of RLP were not reported. Conclusions: The prevalence of PAP is high in patients with nontraumatic lower-extremity amputations. Ongoing research that uses a taxonomy for PAP is needed to fully delineate the prevalence of PAP subtypes.

Pain is a major public health problem, causing heavy social and economic burdens to patients and society while consuming tremendous medical resources at the same time. Thus, there is a critical need to find low-cost, efficacious, and therapeutic approaches to help manage pain. While acupuncture is increasingly recognized as a promising pain-relieving method, less is known about a specific form of auricular acupuncture known as Battlefield Acupuncture (BFA). The BFA technique involves the sequential placement of semi-permanent, single-use, French ASP[Formula: see text] golden needles to five specific acupoints in one or both ears, where they are left in place for 3–4 days or longer [Niemtzow, R.C., Battlefield acupuncture. Med. Acupunct. 19: 225–228, 2007]. The BFA needles (more accurately described as tiny conical darts) pierce the ear in designated locations in a particular order [Levy, C.E., N. Casler and D.B. FitzGerald. Battlefield acupuncture: an emerging method for easing pain. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 97: e18–e19, 2018.]. (Figs. 4 and 5) It was developed by Dr. Richard C. Niemtzow in 2001, as a subgroup form of an auricular acupuncture technique based on the somatotopic arrangement of an inverted fetus pattern on the external ear [Romoli, M. Ear acupuncture: historical abstract–differences of ear cartography between the east and the west. Dtsch. Z. Akupunkt. 53: 24–33, 2010.]. Currently, BFA is widely used in the US military, but to our knowledge, there is no review which comprehensively synthesizes the current publications surrounding pain management. This review aims to investigate the effects and safety of BFA in adults with pain. Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English evaluating efficacy and safety of BFA in adults with pain, from database inception to September 6, 2019. The primary outcome was pain intensity change, and the secondary outcome was safety. Nine RCTs were included in this review, and five trials involving 344 participants were analyzed quantitatively. Compared with no intervention, usual care, sham BFA, and delayed BFA interventions, BFA had no significant improvement in the pain intensity felt by adults suffering from pain. Few adverse effects (AEs) were reported with BFA therapy, but they were mild and transitory. BFA is a safe, rapid, and easily learned acupuncture technique, mainly used in acute pain management, but no significant efficacy was found in adult individuals with pain, compared with the control groups. Given the poor methodological quality of the included studies, high-quality RCTs with rigorous evaluation methods are needed in the future.