Skip to main content
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open logoLink to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open
. 2022 Sep 28;10(9):e4549. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004549

Pathophysiological and Neuroplastic Changes in Postamputation and Neuropathic Pain: Review of the Literature

Christopher J Issa *, Shelby R Svientek , Amir Dehdashtian , Paul S Cederna †,, Stephen W P Kemp †,‡,
PMCID: PMC9521753  PMID: 36187278

Background:

Despite advancements in surgical and rehabilitation strategies, extremity amputations are frequently associated with disability, phantom limb sensations, and chronic pain. Investigation into potential treatment modalities has focused on the pathophysiological changes in both the peripheral and central nervous systems to better understand the underlying mechanism in the development of chronic pain in persons with amputations.

Methods:

Presented in this article is a discussion outlining the physiological changes that occur in the peripheral and central nervous systems following amputation. In this review, the authors examine the molecular and neuroplastic changes occurring in the nervous system, as well as the state-of-the-art treatment to help reduce the development of postamputation pain.

Results:

This review summarizes the current literature regarding neurological changes following amputation. Development of both central sensitization and neuronal remodeling in the spinal cord and cerebral cortex allows for the development of neuropathic and phantom limb pain postamputation. Recently developed treatments targeting these pathophysiological changes have enabled a reduction in the severity of pain; however, complete resolution remains elusive.

Conclusions:

Changes in the peripheral and central nervous systems following amputation should not be viewed as separate pathologies, but rather two interdependent mechanisms that underlie the development of pathological pain. A better understanding of the physiological changes following amputation will allow for improvements in therapeutic treatments to minimize pathological pain caused by amputation.


Takeaways

Question: What are the physiological changes that occur in the peripheral and central nervous system following amputation?

Findings: The development of both central sensitization and maladaptive neuronal remodeling in the spinal cord and cerebral cortex allows for the development of neuropathic and phantom limb pain following amputation.

Meaning: A better understanding of the pathophysiological changes following amputation will allow for improvements in therapeutic treatments to minimize pain in persons with amputation.

INTRODUCTION

Approximately one in 190 Americans are currently living with an amputation, which often leads to debilitating pain and chronic disability.1,2 Patients with amputations often experience intense, pathological pain that can be neuropathic in nature or can occur secondarily to neuromas and phantom limb pain (pain in the absent extremity).35 The pathophysiology of amputation-induced pain is not yet fully understood; however, multiple factors play a key role in its development that include changes in both the peripheral and central nervous systems. Given the higher risk of anxiety and depression in this population,6,7 effective treatment is, therefore, imperative for both physical health and mental health. Understanding the pathophysiology underlying chronic pain after amputation will enable clinicians to better tailor more individualized treatments.

The following review summarizes the peripheral molecular changes and the central nervous system adaptations that take place following amputation, leading to the pathological pain commonly experienced by patients with amputations. Furthermore, this review will discuss the current state-of-the-art treatments and the potential for novel treatment strategies to alleviate pain experienced after amputation.

Peripheral and Central Molecular Changes Following Amputation

Sodium Channels

Understanding the molecular physiology of neuroplastic changes is the basis for today’s pharmaceutical approach to pain management in persons with amputations.8,9 Medications such as gabapentin and pregabalin—the first-line treatment for neuropathic pain—take advantage of the peripheral and the central molecular physiology responsible for pathological pain states.10 Specifically, one-mechanism drugs like the gabapentinoids reduce neuropathic pain by decreasing ectopic firing in injured peripheral nerves.11 This addresses a common pathological change seen in chronic pain development.11

Peripheral nervous system changes following amputation play a key role in the development of postamputation pain, specifically through changes in excitability in the dorsal root ganglia (DRG).12 The DRG transmit sensory afferent signals from the periphery to the central nervous system,13,14 and following amputation, DRGs can develop continuous ectopic firing due to increased excitability.1517 This ectopic firing of the DRG results in activation of the central nociceptive pathway in the absence of stimulus, generating an aberrant spontaneous pain sensation.18 The increase in neuronal stimulation also triggers the physiological response of central sensitization of the spinal cord,18 which is the activity-dependent increase in neuronal reactivity due to neuroplastic changes and decreased nociceptive threshold.19 This results in the feeling of allodynia (the experience of pain from a nonnoxious stimulus20) and hyperalgesia (an increased pain response from a normal painful stimulus20) that is common among patients who have neuropathic pain.19 Through similar mechanisms, ectopic firing also contributes to the development of neuroma and phantom limb pain, thus making the pathophysiology behind spontaneous neuronal activity a main target in chronic pain therapy.15,21 The exact mechanism for development and maintenance of chronic ectopic firing is not yet fully understood, but voltage gated sodium channels have been shown to play a vital role.15

Voltage-gated sodium (NaV) channels are predominantly responsible for maintaining control of both neuronal excitability and ectopic firing.22 Sensory neurons have varying expressions of sodium channels, with the small diameter c-fiber nociceptive afferents expressing mostly NaV1.1, NaV1.6, NaV1.7, NaV1.8, and NaV1.9.23 In particular, NaV1.7 has been described as an essential pain receptor, as patients presenting with a loss of function mutation are completely insensitive to pain.24,25 Experiments blocking Nav1.7 in transected spinal nerves of rats resulted in a significant reduction in allodynia, further supporting their role in pathological pain.26,27 Additionally, Nav1.7 has been shown to predominate within neuromas,28 suggesting that increases in this nociceptive receptor could play a role in the development of neuroma-associated pain. One potential mechanism leading to the accumulation of these receptors within neuromas is through membrane remodeling following axotomy.29 During axotomy, demyelination and membrane remodeling results in a disturbance of sodium channel cluster formation, subsequently leading to a large accumulation of sodium channel receptors in neuroma endbulbs.16,29 Thus, identification of Nav1.7 within neuroma endbulbs can provide a mechanism for targeted pharmacological therapy.

The changes in specific NaV channel expression following amputation remain a topic of further investigation; however, thus far, it is clear that sodium channels as a whole play a role in DRG excitability and pathological pain.30 Application of sodium channel blockers, such as lidocaine and amitriptyline, has been shown to be effective in the suppression of ectopic firing in the DRG.3032 In addition, a study performed on patients with chronic pain secondary to diabetic neuropathy showed significant relief of pain for up to 21 days following intravenous lidocaine infusion, further supporting sodium channel antagonization as a potential therapeutic target.32

Brain-derived Neurotrophic Factor and N-Methyl-D-Aspartic Receptors

Numerous neurotrophic factors are involved in the development of pathological pain following peripheral nerve injury, but brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) has been repeatedly identified as a primary pain modulator.33 Clinical studies have shown that patients with diabetic neuropathy had elevated serum BDNF levels compared with diabetics without neuropathy, with serum levels positively correlating with the severity of pain.34 The pathological effects of BDNF have also been implicated in the development of postamputation pain, garnering interest into understanding the molecular physiology of this neurotrophic factor to better allow for more targeted therapy for pain relief.35

Following axotomy, sensory neurons increase expression of BDNF in the DRG, which subsequently undergoes anterograde transport to the dorsal horn of the spinal cord.3537 Once in the dorsal horn, BDNF binds to tropomyosin receptor kinase B receptors on the interneurons in the spinal laminae, leading to the phosphorylation and potentiation of excitatory N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptors.35,38 NMDA receptor potentiation permits stronger responses from nociceptive c-fibers, leading to the subsequent development of central sensitization following continuous nociceptive stimulation—such as from the ectopic firing discussed previously.33,39 Moreover, since axotomy induces an increase in tropomyosin receptor kinase B receptors in the dorsal horn, this allows for BDNF excitatory effects to be amplified through a positive feedback loop, further increasing the excitation and potentiation of NMDA receptors along with the sensitization of the spinal cord.35 The aforementioned excitatory effects of BDNF have been supported by several animal studies; in one study conducted in rats, a spinal infusion of BDNF significantly enhanced nociceptive response and NMDA depolarizations.40 Respectively, electrophysiological testing also demonstrated that BDNF-induced potentiation was blocked by the NMDA receptor antagonist D-2-amino-5-phosphonovalerate.41

BDNF has been shown to play an important role in the development of neuropathic pain in rodents.42 Following axotomy, adult rats showed a significant increase in BDNF expression and subsequent development of mechanical allodynia.43 Additionally, intrathecal injection of anti-BDNF antibody in rats with spinal nerve ligation resulted in a reduction in mechanical allodynia.33 However, although strong evidence supports BDNF’s role in pain sensitization in the spinal cord, some studies have shown that BDNF injections in the brainstem of rats have antinociceptive effects through mechanisms related to serotonin release from the raphe nuclei.4446 Hence, BDNF possesses location-dependent physiological effects in the peripheral and central nervous systems.

Adenosine Triphosphate and Microglia

Adenosine triphosphate has been shown to contribute to the development of pathological pain through the activation of purinergic receptors on microglia adjacent to the dorsal horn.47,48 More specifically, P2X4 purinergic receptors have been implicated in this process.47,48 Following peripheral nerve injury, release of adenosine triphosphate binds to the upregulated P2X4 receptors, leading to the release of BDNF into the dorsal horn causing two main central nervous system effects.49,50 First, BDNF enhances NMDA activation through mechanisms discussed previously, increasing neuronal hyperexcitability.49 The second effect is a depolarizing shift in the anion gradient of spinal interneurons causing GABA responses to be depolarizing instead of hyperpolarizing, nullifying the inhibitory responses of the dorsal horn.50 As a result of the BDNF-induced changes, spinal interneurons gain the ability to transmit low-threshold mechanical stimuli, increasing discharge and spontaneous activity.50

Interestingly, experimentation with mice has shown that microglia proliferation occurs in both males and females; however, P2X4 receptor upregulation only occurs in males.49,51 This sexual dimorphism was further supported by experiments in which blockage of the P2X4 receptor only reversed tactile allodynia in male rats with injured peripheral nerves.52 In females specifically, the potential mechanism underlying neuropathic pain is through activated T cells.51 Although the exact mechanism is still unknown, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ on T cells has been shown to play a role.53 Despite the sexual dimorphism exhibited in the etiology of some pain pathologies, experiments conducted on mice showed an eventual convergence in pain pathways for both sexes at NMDA receptors.49 Thus, enhancement of NMDA receptors is a common factor seen in both males and females.49 This was further supported by a study in which antagonizing NMDA receptor activity in mice alleviated pain hypersensitivity in both males and females.49 Respectively, a clinical study conducted on the effects of ketamine, a NMDA receptor antagonist, showed there was no significant difference in analgesic effects at equivalent doses between male and female patients.54 Thus, although P2X4 receptor is a potential target for drug development, given the sexual dimorphism that exists, efforts may be better spent targeting NMDA receptors due to the potential to benefit both sexes (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Schematic illustration of the different mechanisms that occur following nerve amputation that plays a role in the development of pathological pain. The three main pathological changes following nerve amputation include an increase in NaV channel expression, upregulation of BDNF production in the DRG, and proliferation of microglia and T-cells. The increase in sodium channels allows for the ectopic firing seen in axotomized nerves, whereas the upregulation of BDNF enhances NMDA receptors in the spinal cord. Additionally, the proliferation of microglia and T-cells further potentiate NMDA receptors in the spinal cord through BDNF release (in males) and inflammatory cytokines (in women), respectively.

CENTRAL SENSITIZATION FOLLOWING AMPUTATION

Central sensitization is responsible for many of the pain sensitivity changes seen in persistent pathological pain.19 The peripheral and central molecular mechanisms discussed previously work synergistically to induce the formation of sensitization.19 The purpose of nociceptive sensitization is to protect an injured organism from further injury,55 but with chronic pain, the pain continues long after the initial injury.56 The pathological process of central sensitization is based on the mechanism of recruiting new inputs to the nociceptive pathway, such as low threshold mechanoreceptor (Aβ) fibers, resulting in hypersensitivity and allodynia.19 This occurs due to constant peripheral input to the nociceptive c-fibers—such as after amputation—resulting in recurrent activation of NMDA receptors and subsequent spinal long-term potentiation (LTP).19,57 Spinal LTP is a synaptic strengthening caused by heterosynaptic facilitation (recruitment of nonnociceptive, low-threshold inputs) and homosynaptic facilitation (use-dependent facilitation of a synapse due to stimulation) due to repetitive neuronal stimulation.19,57 The development of LTP, along with the enhancement of NMDA receptor responses and decreased GABA inhibition, leads to sensitization that is seen in many pathological pain states.19

NMDA receptors in the dorsal horn play a fundamental role in the development of central sensitization.58 The increased activation of NMDA receptors, along with the neuroplastic changes occurring at the spinal cord, is one of the proposed methods for the neuropathic changes that play a pivotal role in chronic and phantom limb pain following amputation.4 Studies conducted on rats showed that NMDA receptor antagonists dizocilpine and 3((R)-2-carboxypiperazin-4-yl)-propyl-1-phosphonic acid were able to prevent and reverse central sensitization, supporting NMDA receptor’s role in pain pathogenesis and potential for therapeutic capabilities.59

NONMOLECULAR MECHANISMS OF PAIN

Cerebral Cortex Changes

One of the primary complications of amputation is the reorganization (remapping) of the somatosensory and motor cortices.60 The principal concept underlying cortical reorganization is the invasion of neighboring neurons into the deafferented cortex, resulting in the deprived sensorimotor modality being replaced by another.60 For instance, cortical areas of the lip can invade areas previously occupied by the hand in an upper limb amputee.60 Studies have successfully elicited phantom limb sensations in the now-absent extremity provoked by stimulation of the mouth area.61 Similarly, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have also shown an invasion of neighboring neurons in the deafferented cortex of patients with lower limb amputations60 (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Schematic illustration of cortical reorganization following amputation. Following amputation, the deafferented cortical representation of the former limb is replaced by neighboring cortical areas. With an amputated upper limb, the deafferented somatosensory cortex is being replaced by the cortical area representing the lip.

The relationship between phantom limb pain and cortical reorganization has been well documented62; for example, some studies involving upper limb amputees have showed a positive correlation between the magnitude of somatosensory and motor cortex reorganization and phantom limb pain.61,63,64 Along those lines, a study conducted on a patient with an upper extremity amputation who underwent a slow (1 Hz) repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on the primary sensory cortex showed significant reduction in phantom pain.65 Thus, by attenuating aberrant cortical activity in the somatosensory cortex, treatment for phantom limb pain was achieved.65 Additionally, a study conducted on patients with upper and lower limb amputations with phantom pain showed significant benefits with transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex.66 By stimulating the deafferented motor cortex, the reduction in phantom limb pain is believed to be due to the reactivation of the cortical representation of the amputated limb, therefore, reducing the maladaptive plasticity associated with the lack of motor input.66 However, in contrast to these studies, other studies have also shown that phantom limb pain is associated with activation of preserved cortical structure representing the former amputated limb.67 Even though these two cortical phenomena are not mutually exclusive, the exact cortex adaptation responsible for phantom limb pain is still in question.

The majority of research regarding phantom limb pain analyzes patients with traumatic amputation, but few focus on the central nervous system changes of congenital amputees (children born without all or part of a limb). Prevailing historical dogma for these patients has denied the existence of phantom limb pain, as consistent peripheral input is necessary for the cortex to develop somatosensory representation of the limb.68 A major study from 1998 showed that it was rare for congenital amputees to experience phantom limb pain and sensation and that cortical reorganization was low and similar to traumatic amputees without phantom pain.69 However, several case studies have shown that congenital amputees can have vivid phantom sensations and pain starting at a young age.7072 As such, humans may have an innate sensation of limbs that is genetically determined, along with experiential factors that play a part in the development of limb sensation.73 Thus, the development of phantom limb pain may also possess both a genetic and an environmental component.

Changes in Spinal Cord and Peripheral Neurons following Amputation

Reinnervation of motor neurons following amputation is a fundamental adaptation that occurs in the peripheral nervous system.74 Studies have shown that motor neurons to the former limb can reinnervate residual muscles proximal to the amputation site.75 Specifically, in monkeys, residual muscles were found to gain additional innervation from those motor neurons formerly supplying distal muscle targets.75 This was also supported by experimentation on rats, which showed that stimulation of amputation-deprived areas of the primary motor cortex resulted in movements of the residual muscles proximal to the stump.74 The reinnervation of motor neurons could be a possible mechanism responsible for the reorganization of the primary motor cortex commonly seen in persons with amputations, and it could potentially play a role in the development of phantom limb movement sensation.75,76 Additionally, since motor cortex reorganization is correlated with phantom limb pain,62 reinnervation of motor neurons could be an underlying influence in the pathogenesis of this neuropathic syndrome.

Sensory afferents from both the residual stump and skin have also been shown to reinnervate postamputation-deprived territories in the cuneate nucleus and external cuneate nucleus.77 The cuneate nucleus relays information to the somatosensory cortex and, therefore, provides a potential mechanism in which stimulation of stump muscles and skin can result in phantom limb sensations.77 Additionally, the reorganization of the neurons in the cuneate nucleus could provide an underlying mechanism responsible for the cortical reorganization seen in the somatosensory cortex,77 which has also been shown to be correlated with phantom limb pain.62

TREATMENTS

Treatment for pathologic pain following amputation most commonly focuses on centrally mediated mechanisms, employing various strategies including medications, cognitive therapy, and spinal cord stimulation.4,78 Medications such as nortriptyline, pregabalin (generic version of Lyrica), opiates, and ketamine can be effective at treating this pain through blockage of receptors associated with central sensitization as well as increasing inhibition at the nerve to reduce pathologic stimulation.19,79,80 Despite many studies demonstrating “statistically significant” improvement in phantom limb pain with pharmacological treatment, this relief is oftentimes not clinically relevant from the patient’s perspective.81,82

In contrast, mirror therapy has demonstrated success in achieving a significant reduction in phantom limb pain for these patients.83,84 Mirror therapy utilizes a flat mirror to project the image of the intact limb onto the absent limb, providing the illusion of movement.4 Although the patient is aware of this illusion, it is thought that mirror therapy results in stimulation of quiescent areas of the cortex previously associated with the amputated extremity, thereby reducing resultant phantom limb sensations.79 Mental imagery therapy has also shown efficacy in reducing phantom limb pain by encouraging the patient to imagine movements in the phantom limb, similarly stimulating these deprived neurons in the cortex.79 A study involving patients with upper limb amputations who partook in the mental imagery program demonstrated significant reduction in phantom limb pain.79,85 Furthermore, studies have also shown that spinal cord stimulation reduces phantom limb pain through a mechanism referred to as gate-control theory.78,86 This theory employs that the electrical stimulation of nonpainful Aβ fibers in the dorsal column of the spinal cord blocks transmission of pain from neighboring nociceptive nerve fibers; thus, the nonpainful Aβ fibers act as a “gate” blocking neighboring pain pathways.86

In contrast to centrally mediated treatment strategies, peripherally based treatments are far more targeted, largely focusing on management of symptomatic terminal neuromas and their associated allodynia. Although no standard of treatment has been accepted for neuromas, common treatments can include neurolytic and/or steroid injections, chemical ablation, cryotherapy, and surgical resection.87 The primary goal of surgical resection is removal of pathologic, disorganized swellings of terminal nerve axons, with various methods employed to reduce recurrence.3,87,88 Methods utilized can vary from ligation, relocation into bone or muscle, and nerve capping, for example, but all have notable issues with recurrence as well as clinically significant resolution of pain in the majority of study participants long term.3,87,88 These shortcomings could be theorized to be secondary to a failure to address the underlying cause of the pain, namely neuronal hyperexcitability and aberrant signaling, resulting from a loss of end-organ innervation following amputation.

Two promising strategies in particular to provide neuronal end-organ targets to transected nerves include targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR)89,90 and the regenerative peripheral nerve interface (RPNI).9194 TMR relies on nerve transfer to provide these end-organ targets, anastomosing amputated nerve endings to intact motor nerve branches in nearby residual muscle.89,90 Although this method facilitates muscle reinnervation by the previously transected nerve, it involves sacrifice of an intact motor nerve, replacing one transected nerve for another. In comparison, the RPNI entails implantation of a transected peripheral nerve into a segment of autologous muscle graft, avoiding any additional nerve injury. Over time, the RPNI revascularizes, regenerates, and becomes reinnervated by its contained nerve.92,95,96 As the muscle graft is denervated as a result of the fabrication process for both TMR and RPNI, these now-denervated motor endplates provide functional innervation targets for these formerly “purposeless” transected axons. The prevailing hypothesis underlying these approaches is that through providing end-organ targets for these nerves, it is possible to decrease the aberrant signaling and hypersensitivity often associated with residual nerves postamputation (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Surgical treatment of symptomatic neuroma using RPNIs. A, Following the resection of a sciatic neuroma in a patient with a transfemoral amputation, the nerve was divided into two fascicles. Two autologous free muscle grafts (3 x 1.5 x 1 cm) were harvested (B) and, subsequently, were neurotized using each of the nerve fascicles to create the RPNIs (C).

A prospective study conducted in 2019 utilizing TMR as a treatment arm indicated overall absolute reductions in the prevalence of phantom (−32%) and residual limb pain (−40%) compared with controls at long-term follow-up.90 The RPNI’s efficacy has also been demonstrated in prior retrospective review, as patients undergoing RPNI treatment had a 71% reduction in stump pain and a 53% reduction in phantom limb pain posttreatment.97 These results were consistent with a retrospective review utilizing the construct as a prophylactic measure, demonstrating that 51% of interventional patients developed phantom limb pain compared with 91% in the control, non-RPNI treatment group.98 Clinical prospective studies are currently ongoing, with preliminary results indicating that the RPNI is a promising treatment strategy to address transected nerve pain pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

Following amputation, a complex combination of molecular changes, spinal adaptations, and cerebral cortex reorganization contributes significantly to the development and maintenance of pathological pain. Recent research has indicated that some degree of interdependence exists between postamputation changes in the peripheral and central nervous systems; however, the exact mechanisms underlying this relationship are largely unknown. The ideal treatment strategy would likely require addressing changes at both the peripheral and central levels. For example, an ideal treatment could involve provision of endpoint targets for transected neurons, thereby preventing the downstream cascade of peripheral and spinal cord changes, thereby reestablishing physiologic cerebral mapping. By establishing effective treatment for chronic pain following amputation, there exists significant potential to reduce disability, facilitate prosthetic use, and regain quality of life in this patient population.

Footnotes

Published online 28 September 2022.

Disclosure: The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Ziegler-Graham K, MacKenzie EJ, Ephraim PL, et al. Estimating the prevalence of limb loss in the United States: 2005 to 2050. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89:422–429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sarvestani AS, Azam AT. Amputation: a ten-year survey. Trauma Mon. 2013;18:126–129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Eberlin KR, Ducic I. Surgical algorithm for neuroma management: a changing treatment paradigm. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e1952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kaur A, Guan Y. Phantom limb pain: a literature review. Chin J Traumatol. 2018;21:366–368. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dehdashtian A, Bratley JV, Svientek SR, et al. Autologous fat grafting for nerve regeneration and neuropathic pain: current state from bench-to-bedside. Regen Med. 2020;15:2209–2228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mckechnie PS, John A. Anxiety and depression following traumatic limb amputation: a systematic review. Injury. 2014;45:1859–1866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kashani JH, Frank RG, Kashani SR, et al. Depression among amputees. J Clin Psychiatry. 1983;44:256–258 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hsu E, Cohen SP. Postamputation pain: epidemiology, mechanisms, and treatment. J Pain Res. 2013;6:121–136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Basbaum AI, Bautista DM, Scherrer G, et al. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of pain. Cell. 2009;139:267–284. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Verma V, Singh N, Singh Jaggi A. Pregabalin in neuropathic pain: evidences and possible mechanisms. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2014;12:44–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chen SR, Xu Z, Pan HL. Stereospecific effect of pregabalin on ectopic afferent discharges and neuropathic pain induced by sciatic nerve ligation in rats. Anesthesiology. 2001;95:1473–1479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Vaso A, Adahan HM, Gjika A, et al. Peripheral nervous system origin of phantom limb pain. Pain. 2014;155:1384–1391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Krames ES. The role of the dorsal root ganglion in the development of neuropathic pain. Pain Med. 2014;15:1669–1685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pope JE, Deer TR, Kramer J. A systematic review: current and future directions of dorsal root ganglion therapeutics to treat chronic pain. Pain Med. 2013;14:1477–1496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ma RSY, Kayani K, Whyte-Oshodi D, et al. Voltage gated sodium channels as therapeutic targets for chronic pain. J Pain Res. 2019;12:2709–2722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Levinson SR, Luo S, Henry MA. The role of sodium channels in chronic pain. Muscle Nerve. 2012;46:155–165. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Collins KL, Russell HG, Schumacher PJ, et al. A review of current theories and treatments for phantom limb pain. J Clin Invest. 2018;128:2168–2176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Costigan M, Scholz J, Woolf CJ. Neuropathic pain: a maladaptive response of the nervous system to damage. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2009;32:1–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Latremoliere A, Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: a generator of pain hypersensitivity by central neural plasticity. J Pain. 2009;10:895–926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jensen TS, Finnerup NB. Allodynia and hyperalgesia in neuropathic pain: clinical manifestations and mechanisms. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13:924–935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Eldabe S, Burger K, Moser H, et al. Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation in the treatment of phantom limb pain (PLP). Neuromodulation. 2015;18:610–616; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rush AM, Cummins TR, Waxman SG. Multiple sodium channels and their roles in electrogenesis within dorsal root ganglion neurons. J Physiol. 2007;579(Pt 1):1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bennett DL, Clark XAJ, Huang J, et al. The role of voltage-gated sodium channels in pain signaling. Physiol Rev. 2019;99:1079–1151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Vysokov N, McMahon SB, Raouf R. The role of NaV channels in synaptic transmission after axotomy in a microfluidic culture platform. Sci Rep. 2019;9:12915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cregg R, Momin A, Rugiero F, et al. Pain channelopathies. J Physiol. 2010;588:1897–1904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hoyt SB, London C, Ok H, et al. Benzazepinone Nav1.7 blockers: potential treatments for neuropathic pain. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2007;17:6172–6177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.McGowan E, Hoyt SB, Li X, et al. A peripherally acting Na(v)1.7 sodium channel blocker reverses hyperalgesia and allodynia on rat models of inflammatory and neuropathic pain. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:951–958. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kretschmer T, Happel LT, England JD, et al. Accumulation of PN1 and PN3 sodium channels in painful human neuroma-evidence from immunocytochemistry. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2002;144:803–810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Devor M. Sodium channels and mechanisms of neuropathic pain. J Pain. 2006;7(1 Suppl 1):S3–S12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kalso E. Sodium channel blockers in neuropathic pain. Curr Pharm Des. 2005;11:3005–3011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Koplovitch P, Devor M. Dilute lidocaine suppresses ectopic neuropathic discharge in dorsal root ganglia without blocking axonal propagation: a new approach to selective pain control. Pain. 2018;159:1244–1256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bhattacharya A, Wickenden AD, Chaplan SR. Sodium channel blockers for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Neurotherapeutics. 2009;6:663–678. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sah DWY, Ossipov MH, Porreca F. Neurotrophic factors as novel therapeutics for neuropathic pain. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2003;2:460–472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wang Z, Li H. Serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels in patients with diabetic neuropathic pain. Neurosci Lett. 2021;752:135655. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Obata K, Noguchi K. BDNF in sensory neurons and chronic pain. Neurosci Res. 2006;55:1–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Obata K, Yamanaka H, Dai Y, et al. Differential activation of extracellular signal-regulated protein kinase in primary afferent neurons regulates brain-derived neurotrophic factor expression after peripheral inflammation and nerve injury. J Neurosci. 2003;23:4117–4126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Merighi A, Salio C, Ghirri A, et al. BDNF as a pain modulator. Prog Neurobiol. 2008;85:297–317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lin YT, Ro LS, Wang HL, et al. Up-regulation of dorsal root ganglia BDNF and trkB receptor in inflammatory pain: an in vivo and in vitro study. J Neuroinflammation. 2011;8:126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bennett GJ. Update on the neurophysiology of pain transmission and modulation: focus on the NMDA-receptor. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2000;19(1 Suppl):S2–S6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kerr BJ, Bradbury EJ, Bennett DL, et al. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor modulates nociceptive sensory inputs and NMDA-evoked responses in the rat spinal cord. J Neurosci. 1999;19:5138–5148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Garraway SM, Huie JR. Spinal plasticity and behavior: BDNF-induced neuromodulation in uninjured and injured spinal cord. Neural Plast. 2016;2016:9857201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Matthews K. Could blockade of brain-derived neurotrophic factor be used to treat neuropathic pain? Nat Clin Pract Neurol. 2006;2:176–177. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Geng SJ, Liao FF, Dang WH, et al. Contribution of the spinal cord BDNF to the development of neuropathic pain by activation of the NR2B-containing NMDA receptors in rats with spinal nerve ligation. Exp Neurol. 2010;222:256–266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cejas PJ, Martinez M, Karmally S, et al. Lumbar transplant of neurons genetically modified to secrete brain-derived neurotrophic factor attenuates allodynia and hyperalgesia after sciatic nerve constriction. Pain. 2000;86:195–210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cirulli F, Berry A, Alleva E. Intracerebroventricular administration of brain-derived neurotrophic factor in adult rats affects analgesia and spontaneous behaviour but not memory retention in a Morris Water Maze task. Neurosci Lett. 2000;287:207–210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Siuciak JA, Wong V, Pearsall D, et al. BDNF produces analgesia in the formalin test and modifies neuropeptide levels in rat brain and spinal cord areas associated with nociception. Eur J Neurosci. 1995;7:663–670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Trang T, Beggs S, Salter MW. ATP receptors gate microglia signaling in neuropathic pain. Exp Neurol. 2012;234:354–361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Beggs S, Trang T, Salter MW. P2X4R + microglia drive neuropathic pain. Nat Neurosci. 2012;15:1068–1073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Mapplebeck JCS, Beggs S, Salter MW. Molecules in pain and sex: a developing story. Mol Brain. 2017;10:9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Trang T, Salter MW. P2X4 purinoceptor signaling in chronic pain. Purinergic Signal. 2012;8:621–628. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sorge RE, Mapplebeck JC, Rosen S, et al. Different immune cells mediate mechanical pain hypersensitivity in male and female mice. Nat Neurosci. 2015;18:1081–1083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Tsuda M, Shigemoto-Mogami Y, Koizumi S, et al. P2X4 receptors induced in spinal microglia gate tactile allodynia after nerve injury. Nature. 2003;424:778–783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mapplebeck JCS, Beggs S, Salter MW. Sex differences in pain: a tale of two immune cells. Pain. 2016;157(Suppl 1):S2–S6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Landari E, Hustveit O, Trumpy IG, et al. Ketamine as single dose analgesics on acute postoperative pain in both genders following surgical removals of third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;71:E38. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Ji RR, Kohno T, Moore KA, et al. Central sensitization and LTP: do pain and memory share similar mechanisms? Trends Neurosci. 2003;26:696–705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Grace PM, Hutchinson MR, Maier SF, et al. Pathological pain and the neuroimmune interface. Nat Rev Immunol. 2014;14:217–231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Baron R, Hans G, Dickenson AH. Peripheral input and its importance for central sensitization. Ann Neurol. 2013;74:630–636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Woolf CJ. Dissecting out mechanisms responsible for peripheral neuropathic pain: implications for diagnosis and therapy. Life Sci. 2004;74:2605–2610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Woolf CJ, Thompson SWN. The induction and maintenance of central sensitization is dependent on N-methyl-D-aspartic acid receptor activation; implications for the treatment of post-injury pain hypersensitivity states. Pain. 1991;44:293–299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Gunduz ME, Pinto CB, Saleh Velez FG, et al. Motor cortex reorganization in limb amputation: a systematic review of TMS motor mapping studies. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Lotze M, Flor H, Grodd W, et al. Phantom movements and pain. An fMRI study in upper limb amputees. Brain. 2001;124(Pt 11):2268–2277. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Flor H, Nikolajsen L, Staehelin Jensen T. Phantom limb pain: a case of maladaptive CNS plasticity? Nat Rev Neurosci 2006;7:873–881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Karl A, Birbaumer N, Lutzenberger W, et al. Reorganization of motor and somatosensory cortex in upper extremity amputees with phantom limb pain. J Neurosci. 2001;21:3609–3618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Karl A, Mühlnickel W, Kurth R, et al. Neuroelectric source imaging of steady-state movement-related cortical potentials in human upper extremity amputees with and without phantom limb pain. Pain. 2004;110:90–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Grammer GG, Williams-Joseph S, Cesar A, et al. Significant reduction in phantom limb pain after low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to the primary sensory cortex. Mil Med. 2015;180:e126–e128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Bolognini N, Spandri V, Ferraro F, et al. Immediate and sustained effects of 5-day transcranial direct current stimulation of the motor cortex in phantom limb pain. J Pain. 2015;16:657–665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Makin TR, Scholz J, Filippini N, et al. Phantom pain is associated with preserved structure and function in the former hand area. Nat Commun. 2013;4:1570. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Saadah ES, Melzack R. Phantom limb experiences in congenital limb-deficient adults. Cortex. 1994;30:479–485. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Flor H, Elbert T, Mühlnickel W, et al. Cortical reorganization and phantom phenomena in congenital and traumatic upper-extremity amputees. Exp Brain Res. 1998;119:205–212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Price EH. A critical review of congenital phantom limb cases and a developmental theory for the basis of body image. Conscious Cogn. 2006;15:310–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Brugger P, Kollias SS, Müri RM, et al. Beyond re-membering: phantom sensations of congenitally absent limbs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000;97:6167–6172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Scatena P. Phantom representations of congenitally absent limbs. Percept Mot Skills. 1990;70(3 Pt 2):1227–1232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Melzack R, Israel R, Lacroix R, et al. Phantom limbs in people with congenital limb deficiency or amputation in early childhood. Brain. 1997;120(Pt 9):1603–1620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Qi HX, Stewart Phillips W, Kaas JH. Connections of neurons in the lumbar ventral horn of spinal cord are altered after long-standing limb loss in a macaque monkey. Somatosens Mot Res. 2004;21:229–239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Wu CW, Kaas JH. Spinal cord atrophy and reorganization of motoneuron connections following long-standing limb loss in primates. Neuron. 2000;28:967–978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Chen R, Cohen LG, Hallett M. Nervous system reorganization following injury. Neuroscience. 2002;111:761–773. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Wu CW, Kaas JH. The effects of long-standing limb loss on anatomical reorganization of the somatosensory afferents in the brainstem and spinal cord. Somatosens Mot Res. 2002;19:153–163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Viswanathan A, Phan PC, Burton AW. Use of spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of phantom limb pain: case series and review of the literature. Pain Pract. 2010;10:479–484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Barbin J, Seetha V, Casillas JM, et al. The effects of mirror therapy on pain and motor control of phantom limb in amputees: a systematic review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2016;59:270–275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Derry S, Bell RF, Straube S, et al. Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1:CD007076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Knotkova H, Cruciani RA, Tronnier VM, et al. Current and future options for the management of phantom-limb pain. J Pain Res. 2012;5:39–49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Alviar MJ, Hale T, Dungca M. Pharmacologic interventions for treating phantom limb pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:CD006380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Foell J, Bekrater-Bodmann R, Diers M, et al. Mirror therapy for phantom limb pain: brain changes and the role of body representation. Eur J Pain (United Kingdom). 2014;18:729–739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Chan BL, Witt R, Charrow AP, et al. Mirror therapy for phantom limb pain. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2206–2207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.MacIver K, Lloyd DM, Kelly S, et al. Phantom limb pain, cortical reorganization and the therapeutic effect of mental imagery. Brain. 2008;131(Pt 8):2181–2191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Aiyer R, Barkin RL, Bhatia A, et al. A systematic review on the treatment of phantom limb pain with spinal cord stimulation. Pain Manag. 2017;7:59–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Lu C, Sun X, Wang C, et al. Mechanisms and treatment of painful neuromas. Rev Neurosc. 2018;29:557–566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Stokvis A, Van der Avoort DJC, Van Neck JW, et al. Surgical management of neuroma pain: a prospective follow-up study. Pain. 2010;151:862–869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Souza JM, Cheesborough JE, Ko JH, et al. Targeted muscle reinnervation: a novel approach to postamputation neuroma pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2984–2990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Dumanian GA, Ko JH, O’Shaughnessy KD, et al. Targeted reinnervation for transhumeral amputees: current surgical technique and update on results. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:863–869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Kubiak CA, Kemp SWP, Cederna PS. Regenerative peripheral nerve interface for management of postamputation neuroma. JAMA Surg. 2018;153:681–682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Svientek SR, Wisely JP, Dehdashtian A, et al. The muscle cuff regenerative peripheral nerve interface for the amplification of intact peripheral nerve signals. J Vis Exp. 2022;179:e63222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Vu PP, Vaskov AK, Irwin ZT, et al. A regenerative peripheral nerve interface allows real-time control of an artificial hand in upper limb amputees. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12:eaay2857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Ursu DC, Urbanchek MG, Nedic A, et al. In vivo characterization of regenerative peripheral nerve interface function. J Neural Eng. 2016;13:026012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Urbanchek MG, Wei B, Baghmanli Z, et al. Long-term stability of regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces (RPNI). Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(Suppl 4S):88–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Kung TA, Langhals NB, Martin DC, et al. Regenerative peripheral nerve interface viability and signal transduction with an implanted electrode. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:1380–1394. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Woo SL, Kung TA, Brown DL, et al. Regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces for the treatment of postamputation neuroma pain: a pilot study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2016;4:e1038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Kubiak CA, Kemp SWP, Cederna PS, et al. Prophylactic regenerative peripheral nerve interfaces to prevent postamputation pain. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144:421e–430e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES