A Brief Mind-body Intervention Is Feasible and May Prevent Persistent Pain After Acute Orthopaedic Traumas: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Authors: Vranceanu Ana-Maria , Jochimsen Kate N. , Brewer Julie R. , Briskin Ellie A. , Parker Robert A. , Macklin Eric A. , Ring David , Jacobs Cale , Ly Thuan , Archer Kristin R. , Conley Caitlin E. W. , Harris Mitchel , Matuszewski Paul E. , Obremskey William T. , Laverty David , Bakhshaie Jafar ,   and the TOR Study Teama
Published: June 2024

Background

Approximately 20% to 50% of patients develop persistent pain after traumatic orthopaedic injuries. Psychosocial factors are an important predictor of persistent pain; however, there are no evidence-based, mind-body interventions to prevent persistent pain for this patient population.

Questions/purposes

(1) Does the Toolkit for Optimal Recovery after Injury (TOR) achieve a priori feasibility benchmarks in a multisite randomized control trial (RCT)? (2) Does TOR demonstrate a preliminary effect in improving pain, as well as physical and emotional function?

Methods

This pilot RCT of TOR versus a minimally enhanced usual care comparison group (MEUC) was conducted among 195 adults with an acute orthopaedic traumatic injury at risk for persistent pain at four geographically diverse Level 1 trauma centers between October 2021 to August 2023. Fifty percent (97 of 195) of participants were randomized to TOR (mean age 43 ± 17 years; 67% [65 of 97] women) and 50% (98) to MEUC (mean age 45 ± 16 years; 67% [66 of 98] women). In TOR, 24% (23 of 97) of patients were lost to follow-up, whereas in the MEUC, 17% (17 of 98) were lost. At 4 weeks, 78% (76 of 97) of patients in TOR and 95% (93 of 98) in the MEUC completed the assessments; by 12 weeks, 76% (74 of 97) of patients in TOR and 83% (81 of 98) in the MEUC completed the assessments (all participants were still included in the analysis consistent with an intention-to-treat approach). The TOR has four weekly video-administered sessions that teach pain coping skills. The MEUC is an educational pamphlet. Both were delivered in addition to usual care. Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment (the percentage of patients who met study criteria and enrolled) and data collection, appropriateness of treatment (the percent of participants in TOR who score above the midpoint on the Credibility and Expectancy Scale), acceptability (the percentage of patients in TOR who attend at least three of four sessions), and treatment satisfaction (the percent of participants in TOR who score above the midpoint on the Client Satisfaction Scale). Secondary outcomes included additional feasibility (including collecting data on narcotics and rescue medications and adverse events), fidelity (whether the intervention was delivered as planned) and acceptability metrics (patients and staff), pain (numeric rating scale), physical function (Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire [SMFA], PROMIS), emotional function (PTSD [PTSD Checklist], depression [Center for Epidemiologic Study of Depression]), and intervention targets (pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety, coping, and mindfulness). Assessments occurred at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks.

Results

Several outcomes exceeded a priori benchmarks: feasibility of recruitment (89% [210 of 235] of eligible participants consented), appropriateness (TOR: 73% [66 of 90] scored > midpoint on the Credibility and Expectancy Scale), data collection (79% [154 of 195] completed all surveys), satisfaction (TOR: 99% [75 of 76] > midpoint on the Client Satisfaction Scale), and acceptability (TOR: 73% [71 of 97] attended all four sessions). Participation in TOR, compared with the MEUC, was associated with improvement from baseline to postintervention and from baseline to follow-up in physical function (SMFA, baseline to post: -7 [95% CI -11 to -4]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -6 [95% CI -11 to -1]; p = 0.02), PROMIS (PROMIS-PF, baseline to follow-up: 2 [95% CI 0 to 4]; p = 0.045), pain at rest (baseline to post: -1.2 [95% CI -1.7 to -0.6]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -1 [95% CI -1.7 to -0.3]; p = 0.003), activity (baseline to post: -0.7 [95% CI -1.3 to -0.1]; p = 0.03; baseline to follow-up: -0.8 [95% CI -1.6 to -0.1]; p = 0.04), depressive symptoms (baseline to post: -6 [95% CI -9 to -3]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -5 [95% CI -9 to -2]; p < 0.002), and posttraumatic symptoms (baseline to post: -4 [95% CI -7 to 0]; p = 0.03; baseline to follow-up: -5 [95% CI -9 to -1]; p = 0.01). Improvements were generally clinically important and sustained or continued through the 3 months of follow-up (that is, above the minimum clinically important different [MCID] of 7 for the SMFA, the MCID of 3.6 for PROMIS, the MCID of 2 for pain at rest and pain during activity, the MCID of more than 10% change in depressive symptoms, and the MCID of 10 for posttraumatic symptoms). There were treatment-dependent improvements in pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety, coping, and mindfulness.

Conclusion

TOR was feasible and potentially efficacious in preventing persistent pain among patients with an acute orthopaedic traumatic injury. Using TOR in clinical practice may prevent persistent pain after orthopaedic traumatic injury.

Level of Evidence

Level I, therapeutic study.