A novel mixed reality system to manage phantom pain in-home: results of a pilot clinical trial

IntroductionMirror therapy for phantom limb pain (PLP) is a well-accepted treatment method that allows participants to use a mirror to visually perceive the missing limb. Mixed reality options are now becoming increasingly available, but an in-home virtual mirror therapy option has yet to be adequately investigated.MethodsWe had previously developed a mixed reality system for Managing Phantom Pain (Mr. MAPP) that registers the intact limb and mirrors it onto the amputated limb with the system's visual field, allowing the user to engage with interactive games targeting different large lower limb movements. Feasibility and pilot outcomes of treating patients with lower extremity PLP by using Mr. MAPP at home for 1 month were evaluated in this study. Pain intensity and interference were assessed using the McGill Pain Questionnaire, Brief Pain Inventory, and a daily exercise diary. Function was assessed using the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). The clinical trial registry number for this study is NCT04529083.ResultsThis pilot study showed that it was feasible for patients with PLP to use Mr. MAPP at home. Among pilot clinical outcomes, statistically significant differences were noted in mean current pain intensity [1.75 (SD = 0.46) to 1.125 (SD = 0.35) out of 5, P = .011] and PSFS goal scores [4.28 (SD = 2.27) to 6.22 (SD = 2.58) out of 10, P = .006], with other outcome measures showing non-significant trends towards improvement.DiscussionThis pilot study revealed that in-home use of Mr. MAPP has potential to provide pain relief and improve function in patients with lower extremity PLP and is feasible. Each scale used provided unique perspective on the functional impact of PLP. Further expanded studies and investigation, including a fully powered clinical trial, with these scales are warranted.Clinical Trial Registrationhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04529083, Identifier: NCT04529083

Usability of an Immersive Augmented Reality Based Telerehabilitation System with Haptics (ARTESH) for Synchronous Remote Musculoskeletal Examination

This study describes the features and utility of a novel augmented reality based telemedicine system with haptics that allows the sense of touch and direct physical examination during a synchronous immersive telemedicine consultation and physical examination. The system employs novel engineering features: (a) a new force enhancement algorithm to improve force rendering and overcoming the “just-noticeable-difference” limitation; (b) an improved force compensation method to reduce the delay in force rendering; (c) use of the “haptic interface point” to reduce disparity between the visual and haptic data; and (d) implementation of efficient algorithms to process, compress, decompress, transmit and render 3-D tele-immersion data. A qualitative pilot study (n=20) evaluated the usability of the system. Users rated the system on a 26-question survey using a seven-point Likert scale, with percent agreement calculated from the total users who agreed with a given statement. Survey questions fell into three main categories: (1) ease and simplicity of use, (2) quality of experience, and (3) comparison to in-person evaluation. Average percent agreements between the telemedicine and in-person evaluation were highest for ease and simplicity of use (86%) and quality of experience (85%), followed by comparison to in-person evaluation (58%). Eighty-nine percent (89%) of respondents expressed satisfaction with the overall quality of experience. Results suggest that the system was effective at conveying audio-visual and touch data in real-time across 20.3 miles, and warrants further development.

Poster 365: Agreement Between Authors and Evidence Committee on Level of Evidence Assessment of Accepted Manuscripts to the PM&R Journal

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147047/1/pmr2s120b.pd

Associations of Race and Ethnicity With Patient-Reported Outcomes and Health Care Utilization Among Older Adults Initiating a New Episode of Care for Back Pain

STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of the Back Pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To characterize associations of self-reported race/ethnicity with back pain (BP) patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and health care utilization among older adults with a new episode of care for BP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No prior longitudinal studies have characterized associations between multiple race/ethnicity groups, and BP-related PROs and health care utilization in the United States. METHODS: This study included 5117 participants ≥65 years from three US health care systems. The primary BP-related PROs were BP intensity and back-related functional limitations over 24 months. Health care utilization measures included common diagnostic tests and treatments related to BP (spine imaging, spine-related relative value units [RVUs], and total RVUs) over 24 months. Analyses were adjusted for multiple potential confounders including sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and study site. RESULTS: Baseline BP ratings were significantly higher for blacks vs. whites (5.8 vs. 5.0; P \u3c 0.001). Participants in all race/ethnicity groups showed statistically significant, but modest improvements in BP over 24 months. Blacks and Hispanics did not have statistically significant improvement in BP-related functional limitations over time, unlike whites, Asians, and non-Hispanics; however, the magnitude of differences in improvement between groups was small. Blacks had less spine-related health care utilization over 24 months than whites (spine-related RVU ratio of means 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.86). Hispanics had less spine-related health care utilization than non-Hispanics (spine-related RVU ratio of means 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.90). CONCLUSION: Blacks and Hispanics had slightly less improvement in BP-related functional limitations over time, and less spine-related health care utilization, as compared to whites and non-Hispanics, respectively. Residual confounding may explain some of the association between race/ethnicity and health outcomes. Further studies are needed to understand the factors underlying these differences and which differences reflect disparities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Long-term effects of repeated injections of local anesthetic with or without corticosteroid for lumbar spinal stenosis: A randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: To determine the overall long-term effectiveness of treatment with epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbar central spinal stenosis and the effect of repeat injections, including crossover injections, on outcomes through 12 months. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine versus lidocaine alone. SETTING: Sixteen clinical sites. PARTICIPANTS: Participants with imaging-confirmed lumbar central spinal stenosis (N=400). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive either epidural injections with corticosteroid plus lidocaine or lidocaine alone with the option of blinded crossover after 6 weeks to receive the alternate treatment. Participants could receive 1 to 2 injections from 0 to 6 weeks and up to 2 injections from 6 to 12 weeks. After 12 weeks, participants received usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) (range, 0-24, where higher scores indicate greater disability) and leg pain intensity (range, 0 [no pain] to 10 [pain as bad as you can imagine]). Secondary outcomes included opioid use, spine surgery, and crossover rates. RESULTS: At 12 months, both treatment groups maintained initial observed improvements, with no significant differences between groups on the RDQ (adjusted mean difference, -0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.6 to 0.9; P=.55), leg pain (adjusted mean difference, 0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.7; P=.75), opioid use (corticosteroid plus lidocaine: 41.4% vs lidocaine alone: 36.3%; P=.41), or spine surgery (corticosteroid plus lidocaine: 16.8% vs lidocaine alone: 11.8%; P=.22). Fewer participants randomized to corticosteroid plus lidocaine (30%, n=60) versus lidocaine alone (45%, n=90) crossed over after 6 weeks (P=.003). Among participants who crossed over at 6 weeks, the 6- to 12-week RDQ change did not differ between the 2 randomized treatment groups (adjusted mean difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -2.6 to 0.7; P=.24). In both groups, participants crossing over at 6 weeks had worse 12-month trajectories compared with participants who did not choose to crossover. CONCLUSIONS: For lumbar spinal stenosis symptoms, epidural injections of corticosteroid plus lidocaine offered no benefits from 6 weeks to 12 months beyond that of injections of lidocaine alone in terms of self-reported pain and function or reduction in use of opioids and spine surgery. In patients with improved pain and function 6 weeks after initial injection, these outcomes were maintained at 12 months. However, the trajectories of pain and function outcomes after 3 weeks did not differ by injectate type. Repeated injections of either type offered no additional long-term benefit if injections in the first 6 weeks did not improve pain