Amputation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Amputation in intractable cases of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) remains controversial. The likelihood of recurrent Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), residual and phantom limb pain and persistent disability after amputation is poorly described in the literature. The aims of this study were to compare pain, function, depression and quality of life between patients with intractable CRPS who underwent amputation and those in whom amputation was considered but not performed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: There were 19 patients in each group, with comparable demographic details. The amputated group included 14 men and five women with a mean age of 31 years (sd 12) at the time of CRPS diagnosis. The non-amputated group consisted of 12 men and seven women and their mean age of 36.8 years (sd 8) at CRPS diagnosis. The mean time from CRPS diagnosis to (first) amputation was 5.2 years (sd 4.3) and the mean time from amputation to data collection was 6.6 years (sd 5.8). All participants completed the following questionnaires: Short-Form (SF) 36, Short Form McGill Pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Pain Disability Index (PDI), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and a clinical demographic questionnaire. RESULTS: The amputation group showed consistently better results compared to the non-amputation group in the following parameters: median pain intensity (VAS): 80 (inter-quartile range (IQR) 13 to 92) vs 91 (IQR 85 to 100); p = 0.007; median SF-MPQ score 28 (IQR 9 to 35) vs 35 (IQR 31 to 38), p = 0.025; median PDI: 42 (IQR 11 to 64) vs 58 (IQR 50 to 62), p = 0.031; median BDI: 19 (IQR 5 to 28) vs 27 (IQR 21 to 32), p = 0.061 (borderline significant) and in six of the eight SF-36 domains. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Amputation should be considered as a form of treatment for patients with intractable CRPS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".