幻肢痛に対する仮想現実治療の有効性とメカニズム
幻肢痛のバーチャルリアリティ治療の有効性とメカニズム:対面治療
調査の概要
詳細な説明
米国では約 200 万人が切断手術を受けており、四肢切断者の最大 90% が、「幻肢」として知られる現象である四肢の消失の持続的な感覚を経験しています (Weeks et al., 2010)。 さらに、幻肢を持つ人のかなりの割合 (一部の研究では最大 85%) が、幻肢痛 (以下、PLP) として知られる症状である、消失した肢に永続的で衰弱性の痛みを経験します。 既存の治療法は場合によっては痛みを軽減しますが、現在のアプローチではほとんどの PLP 患者の痛みを軽減するには不十分であるという点で広く合意されています (Weeks et al., 2010)。
研究者は最近、概念実証研究 (Ambron et al., 2021) を完了しました。この研究では、膝下切断 (BKA) の 8 人の被験者が PLP の 2 つの仮想現実 (VR) 治療を受けました。 アクティブな VR 治療では、被験者は脚の動きを必要とするさまざまなアクティブなゲームをプレイしながら、失われた下肢の高品質の視覚的フィードバックを受けました。 脚の位置に関するフィードバックは、脚センサー (trackSTAR、Ascension Technologies Inc) を使用した電磁システムを介して提供され、プログラムは、一人称アバターとして見える、失われた下脚の画像を生成しました。 この治療法は、参加者が脚の動きを必要としない視覚的に没入型の仮想現実体験 (Cool!TM) に従事する「ディストラクター」治療法とは対照的でした。 どちらの治療も痛みの強さの大幅な軽減と関連していましたが、アクティブ VR 治療は痛みの干渉、抑うつ、不安の軽減にも関連していました。
現在の研究の具体的な目的は、(i)BKAを持つ個人のより大きなサンプルにおけるVR治療の有効性に関する以前の観察を再現することです。 (ii) 膝上切断患者の VR 療法をテストする。 (iii) PLP に対する Active VR 治療と Distractor VR 治療の有効性を、痛みの測定だけでなく、心理的健康と生活の質について比較すること。
研究の種類
入学 (実際)
段階
- 適用できない
連絡先と場所
研究場所
-
-
Pennsylvania
-
Elkins Park、Pennsylvania、アメリカ、19027
- Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute
-
Philadelphia、Pennsylvania、アメリカ、19104
- University of Pennsylvania
-
-
Washington
-
Seattle、Washington、アメリカ、98104
- University of Washington-Harborview Medical Center
-
-
参加基準
適格基準
就学可能な年齢
健康ボランティアの受け入れ
説明
包含基準:
- 18歳~100歳
- インフォームドコンセントを提供する能力
- -登録の3か月以上前の片側の膝の上または下の切断
- 24以上のモントリオール認知評価スコアとして運用上定義されている認知障害の欠如
- McGill Pain Questionnaireの視覚的アナログスケールで40を超えると評価された幻肢の過去1か月の平均疼痛(Melzack、1987)
除外基準:
- -脳卒中または中等度から重度の外傷性脳損傷などの重大な医学的または神経学的障害の病歴(運用上、30分以上の意識喪失と定義)
- -重大なまたは制御が不十分な精神障害の病歴
- -Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (Zigmond & Snaith, 1983) によって判断される、現在の重大なうつ病または不安。
- 現在のアルコールまたは薬物の乱用、処方箋またはその他
- 研究中に子供を看護している、妊娠している、または妊娠する予定がある
研究計画
研究はどのように設計されていますか?
デザインの詳細
- 主な目的:処理
- 割り当て:ランダム化
- 介入モデル:並列代入
- マスキング:なし(オープンラベル)
武器と介入
参加者グループ / アーム |
介入・治療 |
|---|---|
|
実験的:Active VR treatment
Subjects assigned to the Active VR treatment began by selecting an avatar, with features such as gender and skin color that could be chosen according to preference.
During treatment, they participated in a variety of games and activities developed and used by our teams including Kick, Dog Food, Quest for Fire, Chess, Checkers, Sudoku, and surfing the internet.
Subjects had substantial flexibility to select games according to their interests but were required to spend at least 30 minutes in each session in games that required forceful, large-amplitude movements of the amputated lower limb (e.g., Quest for Fire, Kick).
|
8 twice-weekly interventions of virtual reality treatment focused on reducing phantom limb pain.
|
|
実験的:Distractor VR treatment
Subjects assigned to the Distractor VR treatment participated in the REAL i-Series immersive VR experience (REAL system), which had been demonstrated to reduce pain in several studies but lacked the hypothesized "active ingredients" of our Active VR treatment (visual and auditory feedback of movement of an extrapolated amputated limb).
Subjects navigated through pleasant and relaxing VR environments; they did not see any rendering of their body and made no movements with their legs.
|
8 twice-weekly interventions of virtual reality treatment focused on reducing phantom limb pain.
|
この研究は何を測定していますか?
主要な結果の測定
結果測定 |
メジャーの説明 |
時間枠 |
|---|---|---|
|
Changes in Pain Intensity
時間枠:Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of McGill Short Form Questionnaire (Melzack, 1987); 0 minimum score - 10 maximum score; higher scores indicate higher level of pain (worse outcome)
|
Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
|
Changes in Pain Quality
時間枠:Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
McGill Short Form Questionnaire (Melzack, 1987): a series of 4-point scales (0 none - 3 severe) assessing the intensity of 15 qualitative characteristics of pain (e.g., throbbing, shooting, cramping, etc.), where higher scores are worse (more severe).
For every participant we computed the total pain score (maximum 45 points indicating severe pain).
Then, we computed the difference in the total scores between time points (e.g.
post treatment vs baseline).
Therefore, negative scores indicate improvement in pain qualitative characteristics.
|
Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
二次結果の測定
結果測定 |
メジャーの説明 |
時間枠 |
|---|---|---|
|
Changes in Average Pain
時間枠:1st treatment versus 8th treatment (4 weeks)
|
Difference between 8th and 1st treatment session on scaled score measuring "average pain intensity since the previous intervention" on an 11-point numerical rating pain scale; (Scale = 0 - minimum score/no pain to 10 maximum score/pain as bad as participants can imagine); higher scores indicate higher level of pain (worse outcome).
|
1st treatment versus 8th treatment (4 weeks)
|
その他の成果指標
結果測定 |
メジャーの説明 |
時間枠 |
|---|---|---|
|
Changes in Daily Activities
時間枠:Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
The Frenchay Activities Index (FAI) (Holbrook et al., 1983):1983): a scale measuring the physical function and daily activity associated with quality of life in people with amputation.
Scale = 0 minimum score to 45 maximum score; higher scores indicate more daily activities (better outcome).
We report the average difference between post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and pre-intervention.
|
Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
|
Changes in Quality of Life
時間枠:Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
The 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) (Ware et al., 1996): a measure of quality of life and functional capacity that has been validated in patients with amputation and phantom limb pain.
Scale = 0 minimum score to 100 maximum score.
Higher scores indicate poorer physical and mental health (worse outcome).
|
Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
|
Changes in Pain Interference
時間枠:Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks
|
The Pain Interference Scale from the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) (Cleeland & Ryan, 1994): A scale measuring the degree to which pain interferes with daily activities using a 0-10 numeric rating.
Scale = 0 minimum score to 10 maximum score.
Higher scores indicate greater pain interference (worse outcome).
We report the average difference between post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and pre-intervention.
|
Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks
|
|
Changes in Depression and Anxiety
時間枠:Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (Zigmond & Snaith, 1983): This is a 14- item measure with subscales assessing depressive and anxiety symptoms.
For each subscale.
range = 0 minimum score to 42 maximum score.
Higher scores indicate more depression and/or anxiety (worse outcome).
We report average differences on the anxiety scale and the depression scales between post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and pre-intervention.
|
Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
|
Changes in Pain Catastrophizing
時間枠:Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
The 13-item Pain Catastrophizing Scale (Sullivan et al., 1995): this scale investigates pain catastrophizing, which has been associated with pain severity and disability after amputation.
Score range = 0-52; Higher scores indicate higher tendency to catastrophize (worse outcome).
We report the average difference between post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and pre-intervention.
|
Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
|
Changes in Insomnia
時間枠:Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
Insomnia Severity Index (Bastien et al., 2001): a 7-point scale that measures insomnia, a symptom associated with phantom limb pain.
Score range = 0-28; higher scores indicate more insomnia (worse outcome).
We report the average difference between post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and pre-intervention.
|
Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks.
|
|
Acceptance of VR System
時間枠:Baseline
|
Technology Acceptance Scale (Morris et al., 1997): this is a 7-point scale that measures level of acceptance of the VR system.
0 minimum score - 133 maximum score; higher scores indicate low level of acceptance (worse score).
|
Baseline
|
|
Usability of the Treatment
時間枠:immediately after the last intervention (session 8 of the intervention), an average of 4 weeks
|
System Usability Scale (SUS) (Brooke, 1996); Scale measuring the usability of the each game; minimum score 10 - maximum score 50.
Higher scores indicate less usability (worse outcome).
For the distractor treatment, participants rated the overall experience; for the active treatment, the average of the two games was computed for each participants.
|
immediately after the last intervention (session 8 of the intervention), an average of 4 weeks
|
|
Cybersickness
時間枠:1st (week 1) and 8th (week 4) treatment sessions
|
Simulator Sickness Questionnaire - SSQ (Kennedy et al., 1993): 4 points (0 - none; 3 - severe) scale assessing the severity of 16 cybersickness motion sickness symptoms, like nausea or dizziness.
We computed the average score across items.
|
1st (week 1) and 8th (week 4) treatment sessions
|
|
Presence in VR
時間枠:1st (week 1) and 8th (week 4) treatment sessions.
|
Brief Slater-Usoh-Steed Presence Questionnaire (Usoh et al., 2000; Slater et al., 1998; 1994).
0 minimum score - 42 maximum score.
Higher scores indicate more presence in the VR (better outcome
|
1st (week 1) and 8th (week 4) treatment sessions.
|
|
Changes in Pain at Its Worst
時間枠:Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks
|
The Modified Limb Deficiency and Phantom Limb Questionnaire (Goller et al., 2013): a questionnaire and visual analog scale assessing prosthesis usage, phantom limb experiences, and pain severity.
The outcome measure used was the score on the visual analogue scale assessing pain severity at its worst (Scale = 0 no pain to 10 unbearable pain).
We report the average score difference between post-intervention (after 4 weeks) and pre-intervention.
|
Baseline versus immediately post-intervention at 4 weeks
|
|
Treatment Satisfaction
時間枠:1 week after the end of the intervention, an average of 5 weeks
|
Visual analogue scale that evaluates treatment satisfaction (Robinson et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2005); 0 minimum score - 10 maximum score; Higher scores indicate more treatment satisfaction (better outcome)
|
1 week after the end of the intervention, an average of 5 weeks
|
協力者と研究者
協力者
捜査官
- 主任研究者:Laurel Buxbaum, PsyD、Albert Einstein Healthcare Netork
出版物と役立つリンク
一般刊行物
- Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003.
- Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x.
- Bastien CH, Vallieres A, Morin CM. Validation of the Insomnia Severity Index as an outcome measure for insomnia research. Sleep Med. 2001 Jul;2(4):297-307. doi: 10.1016/s1389-9457(00)00065-4.
- Suresh K. An overview of randomization techniques: An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2011 Jan;4(1):8-11. doi: 10.4103/0974-1208.82352.
- Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singap. 1994 Mar;23(2):129-38.
- Melzack R. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain. 1987 Aug;30(2):191-197. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(87)91074-8.
- Robinson LR, Czerniecki JM, Ehde DM, Edwards WT, Judish DA, Goldberg ML, Campbell KM, Smith DG, Jensen MP. Trial of amitriptyline for relief of pain in amputees: results of a randomized controlled study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Jan;85(1):1-6. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00476-3.
- Smith DG, Ehde DM, Hanley MA, Campbell KM, Jensen MP, Hoffman AJ, Awan AB, Czerniecki JM, Robinson LR. Efficacy of gabapentin in treating chronic phantom limb and residual limb pain. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005 Sep-Oct;42(5):645-54. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2005.05.0082.
- Holbrook M, Skilbeck CE. An activities index for use with stroke patients. Age Ageing. 1983 May;12(2):166-70. doi: 10.1093/ageing/12.2.166.
- Goller AI, Richards K, Novak S, Ward J. Mirror-touch synaesthesia in the phantom limbs of amputees. Cortex. 2013 Jan;49(1):243-51. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.05.002. Epub 2011 Jun 22.
- Slater M, Steed A, McCarthy J, Maringelli F. The influence of body movement on subjective presence in virtual environments. Hum Factors. 1998 Sep;40(3):469-77. doi: 10.1518/001872098779591368.
- Ambron E, Buxbaum LJ, Miller A, Stoll H, Kuchenbecker KJ, Coslett HB. Virtual Reality Treatment Displaying the Missing Leg Improves Phantom Limb Pain: A Small Clinical Trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021 Dec;35(12):1100-1111. doi: 10.1177/15459683211054164. Epub 2021 Oct 27.
研究記録日
主要日程の研究
研究開始 (実際)
一次修了 (実際)
研究の完了 (実際)
試験登録日
最初に提出
QC基準を満たした最初の提出物
最初の投稿 (実際)
学習記録の更新
投稿された最後の更新 (実際)
QC基準を満たした最後の更新が送信されました
最終確認日
詳しくは
本研究に関する用語
その他の研究ID番号
- 2022-775.
- 5R01HD104158-05 (米国 NIH グラント/契約)
個々の参加者データ (IPD) の計画
個々の参加者データ (IPD) を共有する予定はありますか?
IPD プランの説明
IPD 共有時間枠
IPD 共有アクセス基準
IPD 共有サポート情報タイプ
- STUDY_PROTOCOL
医薬品およびデバイス情報、研究文書
米国FDA規制医薬品の研究
米国FDA規制機器製品の研究
この情報は、Web サイト clinicaltrials.gov から変更なしで直接取得したものです。研究の詳細を変更、削除、または更新するリクエストがある場合は、register@clinicaltrials.gov。 までご連絡ください。 clinicaltrials.gov に変更が加えられるとすぐに、ウェブサイトでも自動的に更新されます。