Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter July 1, 2012

Phantom phenomena – Their perceived qualities and consequences from the patient’s perspective

  • Berit Björkman EMAIL logo , Iréne Lund , Staffan Arnér and Lars-Christer Hydén

Abstract

Background and aim

The curious phenomenon phantom limbs early became the object of research, and its underlying mechanisms have been discussed over the years. The complex nature of phantom phenomena makes interpretation of the results ambiguous, regarding both prevalence and the accompanying suffering. There is a lack of knowledge about how amputees experience the meaning and consequences of phantom phenomena. The present aim, therefore, was to investigate how individuals, in an interview situation, described the qualities of possible perceived phantom phenomena, and how their experience affected their lives one month after the amputation/mastectomy.

Methods

Twenty-eight women and men who had undergone a limb amputation or mastectomy were interviewed. The focused, narrative-oriented interviews were transcribed verbatim and the scripts were analysed with content analysis.

Results

One month after the amputation the informants described and related their phantom pain and phantom sensations in sensory-discriminative, motivational-affective and cognitive-evaluative dimensions. The phantom sensations were experienced mainly as more agonizing than the phantom pain.

Despite both the high intensity of and the high annoyance at the phantom pain and phantom sensations, a majority felt that the phantom phenomena were not a hindrance in their attempts to recapture ordinary life. But when the hindrance was evaluated as high, the annoyance was evaluated as the highest possible for both phenomena or for the phantom sensations alone, never for phantom pain alone. The interviewees’ reported attitudes of hindrance were also described and estimated in the light of their sociocultural circumstances. Thus, other preceding and/or co-existent pain conditions as well as factors such as pre-operative information, the respondents’ views on pain treatment, and their knowledge and understanding of phantom phenomena were mentioned and related to the pain-producing situation.

Two-thirds of the interviewees had received post-surgical information and for some, the phenomena were well-known from earlier experience. A majority applied some version of the medical explanation model, irrespective of age or level of education. However neither information nor medical explanation, or both, sufficed for them to understand their own phantom phenomena. Thus, differences between the concepts explanation and understanding seemed significant for the annoyance related to the phantom phenomena.

Regarding background data

(i) the majority of the interviewees had had pre-amputation pain problems; (ii) the breast-cancer phantoms differed in several ways; (iii) there were some age and gender differences in the descriptions of hindrance.

Conclusions and implications

These findings highlight the importance of observing the individual approach to the phenomena as a process of evaluation and selection. In addition, experience and understanding of the phantoms also have sociocultural aspects. There follows the need for individualized communication and information from the clinician, and for incorporating a socioscientific and meaning-centred approach in future studies. The present insights could also be of value in other iatrogenic pain conditions.


DOI of refers to article: 10.1016/j.sjpain.2012.05.074.



Tel.: +46 8 517 75524; fax: +46 8 517 73132.

  1. Conflict of interest

    Conflict of interest statement: No financial or other conflicts of interest are related to this research or the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to the interviewees who kindly participated in the study and to the following coordinators who recruited them: Li Bjelkebo, RN; Helen Lernedal RN; Björn-Ove Ljung MD Associate Professor of Surgery; Sue Mellgrim RN and Anne Skoog, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon.

We also thank Zewar Al-Dabbagh, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Department of Orthopaedics, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna and Kerstin Sandelin, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Surgery, Department of Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna for their valuable comments.

References

[1] Melzack R, Torgeson WS. On the language of pain. Anesthesiology 1971;34:50–9.10.1097/00000542-197101000-00017Search in Google Scholar

[2] Kugelmann R. The psychology and management of pain: gate control as theory and symbol. Theor Psychol 1997;7:43–65.10.1177/0959354397071005Search in Google Scholar

[3] Hill A. Phantom limb pain: a review of the literature on attributes and potential mechanisms. J Pain Symptom Manage 1999;17:125–42.10.1016/S0885-3924(98)00136-5Search in Google Scholar

[4] Melzack R. Phantom limbs. Sci Am 1992;266:90–6.10.1038/scientificamerican0492-120Search in Google Scholar

[5] Kooijman CM, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JHB, Elzinga A, van der Schans CP. Phantom pain and phantom sensations in upper limb amputees: an epidemiological study. Pain 2000;87:33–41.10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00264-5Search in Google Scholar

[6] Richardson C, Glenn S, Nurmikko T, Horgan M. Incidence of phantom phenomena including phantom limb pain 6 month after major lower amputation in patients with peripheral vascular disease. Clin J Pain 2006;22:353–8.10.1097/01.ajp.0000177793.01415.bdSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Björkman B, Arnér S, Hydén LC. Phantom breast and other syndromes after mastectomy: eight breast cancer patients describe their experiences over time: a 2-year follow-up study. J Pain 2008;11:1018–25.10.1016/j.jpain.2008.06.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Tasmuth T, von Smitten K, Hietanen P, Kataja P, Kalso E. Pain and other symptoms after different treatment modalities of breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1995;6:453–9.10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a059215Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Nikolajsen L, Jensen TS. Phantom limb pain. Br J Anaesth 2001;87:107–16.10.1093/bja/87.1.107Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[10] Fraser CM, Halligan PW, Robertson IH, Kirker SG. Characterising phantom limb phenomena in upper limb amputees. Prosthet Orthot Int 2001;25:235–42.10.1080/03093640108726607Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Aglioti S, Cortese F, Franchini C. Rapid sensory remapping in the adult human brain as inferred from phantom breast perception. NeuroReport 1994;5: 473–6.10.1097/00001756-199401120-00026Search in Google Scholar

[12] Rothemund Y, Grüsser SM, Liebeskind U, Schlag PM, Flor H. Phantom phenomena in mastectomized patients and their relation to chronic and acute pre-mastectomy pain. Pain 2004;107:140–6.10.1016/j.pain.2003.10.007Search in Google Scholar

[13] Dijkstra PU, Rietman JS, Geertzen JH. Phantom breast sensations and phantom breast pain: a 2-year prospective study and a methodological analysis of literature. Eur J Pain 2007;11:99–108.10.1016/j.ejpain.2006.01.002Search in Google Scholar

[14] Jensen TS, Krebs B, Nielsen J, Rasmussen P. Immediate and long-term phantom limb pain in amputees: pre-amputation limb pain. Pain 1985;21:267–78.10.1016/0304-3959(85)90090-9Search in Google Scholar

[15] Horgan O, MacLachlan M. Psychosocial adjustment to lower limb amputation: a review. Disabil Rehabil 2007;26:837–50.10.1080/09638280410001708869Search in Google Scholar

[16] Björkman B, Arnér A, Lund I, Hydén L-C. Adult limb and breast amputees’ experience and descriptions of phantom phenomena – a qualitative study. Scand J Pain 2010;1:43–9.10.1016/j.sjpain.2009.09.001Search in Google Scholar

[17] Berelson B. Content analysis in communication research. 2nd ed New York: Macmillan Company; 1971.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Research methods in the social sciences. 4th ed London: Hodder Headline PLC; 1994.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Silverman D. Interpreting qualitative data. Methods for analyzing talk text and interaction. 3rd ed London: Sage Publications; 2006.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. JAN Res Methodol 2007:107–15.10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.xSearch in Google Scholar

[21] Katz J, Melzack R. Pain ‘memories’ in phantom limbs: review and clinical observations. Pain 1990;43:319–36.10.1016/0304-3959(90)90029-DSearch in Google Scholar

[22] Giummarra M, Gibson SJ, Georgiou-Karistianis, Bradshaw JL. Central mechanism in phantom limb perception: the past, present and future. Brain Res Rev 2007;54:219–32.10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.01.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Hunter JP, Katz J, Davis KD. The effect of tactile and visual inputs on phantom limbs awareness. Brain 2003;126:579–89.10.1093/brain/awg054Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Svensson I, Sjöström B, Haljamäe H. Influence of expectations and actual pain experiences on satisfaction with postoperative pain management. Eur J Pain 2001;5:125–33.10.1053/eujp.2001.0227Search in Google Scholar

[25] Halligan PW. Phantom limbs: the body in mind. Cognit Neuropsychiatr 2002;7:251–68.10.1080/13546800244000111Search in Google Scholar

[26] Morin C, Lund JP, Villarroel T, Clokie CML, Feine JS. Differences between the sexes in post-surgical pain. Pain 2000;85:79–85.10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00248-1Search in Google Scholar

[27] Wilkins KL, McGrath PJ, Finley A, Katz J. Prospective diary study of non-painful and painful phantom sensations in a pre-selected sample of child and adolescent amputees reporting phantom limbs. Clin J Pain 2004;20:293–301.10.1097/00002508-200409000-00003Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[28] Kleinman A. The illness narratives: suffering healing & the human condition. New York: Basic Books; 1988.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Bury M. Chronical illness as biographical disruption. Soc Health Ill 1982;2:167–82.10.1111/1467-9566.ep11339939Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[30] Hydén L-C. Illness and narrative. Soc Health Ill 1997;19:48–69.10.1002/9781405165518.wbeosi016Search in Google Scholar

[31] Bülow P. Making sense of contested illness. Thesis for doctorial degree. The Tema Institute – Department of Communication Studies, Linköping University, 2003, 32–33.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Zola IK. Culture and symptoms – an analysis of patients’ presenting complaints. Am Sociol Rev 1966;3:615–30.10.2307/2091854Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2011-07-22
Revised: 2012-02-03
Accepted: 2012-02-29
Published Online: 2012-07-01
Published in Print: 2012-07-01

© 2012 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain

Downloaded on 3.2.2023 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1016/j.sjpain.2012.02.007/html
Scroll Up Arrow