Free
Correspondence  |   June 2001
Phantom Limb Sensation: A Need for More Elaborated Studies
Author Notes
  • University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York. sheldon_isaacson@urmc.rochester.edu
Article Information
Correspondence
Correspondence   |   June 2001
Phantom Limb Sensation: A Need for More Elaborated Studies
Anesthesiology 6 2001, Vol.94, 1149. doi:
Anesthesiology 6 2001, Vol.94, 1149. doi:
In Reply:—
We thank Drs. Bromage, Melzack, and Gentili for their interest in our work. Both letters express concern about the relatively short duration of observation in our study.
Our study differs from that of Gentili et al.  1 and Bromage and Melzack 2 in two respects. (1) We exclusively studied lower extremity phantom proprioception after subarachnoid block. The difference in local anesthetic onset between subarachnoid block in the 3- to 8-min range 3 and major peripheral and epidural blocks in the 10- to 30-min range, 4 depending on local anesthetic used, or the potential for variable or incomplete anesthetic blockade with these nonsubarachnoid blocks may account for the delayed phantom phenomena emergence that these authors observed in their studies. Our observations clearly show that a phantom sensation can develop within 10 min, especially in the originally flexed limb. (2) Our subjects were forced to limit their limb position perception to either bent or straight. Limiting the subject response to a two-category variable of bent or straight may have resulted in a greater and possibly earlier yield of phantom perceptions in our study. These yields are clearly documented for each time point. In addition, it should be pointed out that the study of Drs. Bromage and Melzack and the study of Dr. Gentili involved phantom observations of affected limbs that necessitated surgery. Our study evaluated normal, healthy limbs that were not being operated on. The confounding influence of pathophysiologic pain or injury on the incidence of phantom sensations has yet to be determined and may result in different phantom yields.
We were well-aware of the work by Moriyama et al.  and Gentili et al.  ; however, they were not cited because full manuscripts have not been published to date. In developing our study design, our protocol attempted to balance time of onset of sensory and proprioceptive block with surgical time delay concerns. In addition, a surgical procedure scheduled for 45–60 min would not be able to tolerate plain lidocaine spinal anesthesia with a research delay longer than 12–15 min. However, neuroplastic phenomena do show change with time, as clearly demonstrated by numerous experimental works on hippocampal long-term potentiation. 5 Proprioceptive phantom sensation as a manifestation of spinal cord neuroplasticity may exhibit time-dependent changes as well.
We do not claim a formal opposition between the existence of any classic body schema and the neuroplastic processes that we documented. Our observations suggest that a neuroplastic processes seems to override or dominate any existing default “position of rest” or “tetrapod” settings for the period of our observations. In this respect, a longer observation time using our protocol may yield more information either to confirm our initial observations or to reflect subsequent migration to any default settings observed at later times from the noted authors’ studies.
References
Gentili M, Bernard JM, Bonnet F, Mazoit JX: Phantom limb sensation under upper limb block and clinical criteria of efficiency (abstract). A nesthesiology 1999; 91: A991Gentili, M Bernard, JM Bonnet, F Mazoit, JX
Bromage PR, Melzack R: Phantom limbs and the body schema. Can Anaesth Soc J 1974; 21: 267–74Bromage, PR Melzack, R
Cousins MJ: Neural blockade, Pain Management, 3rd edition. Edited by Bridenbaugh P, Greene NM. Philadelphia, Lippincott–Raven, 1998, pp 213–4
Miller RD: Anesthesia, 5th edition. Vol 2. Philadelphia, Churchill Livingstone, 2000, pp 507
Bennett MR: The concept of long term potentiation of transmission at synapses. Prog Neurobiol 2000; 50: 109–37Bennett, MR