Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for phantom pain and stump pain following amputation in adults

From pulse width modulated TENS to cortical modulation: based on EEG functional connectivity analysis

Modulation in the temporal pattern of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), such as Pulse width modulated (PWM), has been considered a new dimension in pain and neurorehabilitation therapy. Recently, the potentials of PWM TENS have been studied on sensory profiles and corticospinal activity. However, the underlying mechanism of PWM TENS on cortical network which might lead to pain alleviation is not yet investigated. Therefore, we recorded cortical activity using electroencephalography (EEG) from 12 healthy subjects and assessed the alternation of the functional connectivity at the cortex level up to an hour following the PWM TENS and compared that with the effect of conventional TENS. The connectivity between eight brain regions involved in sensory and pain processing was calculated based on phase lag index and spearman correlation. The alteration in segregation and integration of information in the network were investigated using graph theory. The proposed analysis discovered several statistically significant network changes between PWM TENS and conventional TENS, such as increased local strength and efficiency of the network in high gamma-band in primary and secondary somatosensory sources one hour following stimulation. Our findings regarding the long-lasting desired effects of PWM TENS support its potential as a therapeutic intervention in clinical research.

A case of phantom pain and stump pain that was effectively controlled by ultrasound-guided ulnar and median peripheral nerve blocks

Phantom limb pain and stump pain are often intractable, and their incidences are relatively high. We report a case of a patient with phantom limb and stump pain of the finger, who was successfully treated by peripheral nerve blocks. The patient was a male truck driver in his fifties, who had his left annular finger amputated in an accident 2 years previously. Owing to poor pain control at the stump of his finger, he was referred to our department. The initial examination revealed pain about numerical rating scale (NRS) 6/10 in the left annular finger transection as well as allodynia. Although some pain relief had been observed with postoperative medication, he still had persistent resting pain of about NRS 4/10. Therefore, blocks of the ulnar nerve and median nerve were performed. After the blocks were performed, the pain improved to NRS 1 to 2/10, and pain upon movement also almost disappeared. Peripheral nerve blocks can be a useful treatment modality for phantom limb pain and stump pain in the fingers, as in this case.

A novel mixed reality system to manage phantom pain in-home: results of a pilot clinical trial

Introduction

Mirror therapy for phantom limb pain (PLP) is a well-accepted treatment method that allows participants to use a mirror to visually perceive the missing limb. Mixed reality options are now becoming increasingly available, but an in-home virtual mirror therapy option has yet to be adequately investigated.

Methods

We had previously developed a mixed reality system for Managing Phantom Pain (Mr. MAPP) that registers the intact limb and mirrors it onto the amputated limb with the system's visual field, allowing the user to engage with interactive games targeting different large lower limb movements. Feasibility and pilot outcomes of treating patients with lower extremity PLP by using Mr. MAPP at home for 1 month were evaluated in this study. Pain intensity and interference were assessed using the McGill Pain Questionnaire, Brief Pain Inventory, and a daily exercise diary. Function was assessed using the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). The clinical trial registry number for this study is NCT04529083.

Results

This pilot study showed that it was feasible for patients with PLP to use Mr. MAPP at home. Among pilot clinical outcomes, statistically significant differences were noted in mean current pain intensity [1.75 (SD = 0.46) to 1.125 (SD = 0.35) out of 5, P = .011] and PSFS goal scores [4.28 (SD = 2.27) to 6.22 (SD = 2.58) out of 10, P = .006], with other outcome measures showing non-significant trends towards improvement.

Discussion

This pilot study revealed that in-home use of Mr. MAPP has potential to provide pain relief and improve function in patients with lower extremity PLP and is feasible. Each scale used provided unique perspective on the functional impact of PLP. Further expanded studies and investigation, including a fully powered clinical trial, with these scales are warranted.

Clinical Trial Registration

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04529083, Identifier: NCT04529083.

The experience of sensorimotor integration of a lower limb sensory neuroprosthesis: A qualitative case study

Introduction

Lower limb prosthesis users often struggle to navigate uneven terrain or ambulate in low light conditions where it can be challenging to rely on visual cues for balance and walking. Sensory feedback about foot-floor interactions may allow users to reduce reliance on secondary sensory cues and improve confidence and speed when navigating difficult terrain. Our group has developed a Sensory Neuroprosthesis (SNP) to restore sensation to people with lower limb amputation by pairing electrical stimulation of nerves in the residual limb applied via implanted neurotechnology with pressure sensors in the insole of a standard prosthesis. Stimulation applied to the nerves evoked sensations perceived as originating on the missing leg and foot.

Methods

This qualitative case study reports on the experiences of a 68-year-old with a unilateral trans-tibial amputation who autonomously used the SNP at home for 31 weeks. Interview data collected throughout the study period was analyzed using a grounded theory approach with constant comparative methods to understand his experience with this novel technology and its impacts on his daily life.

Results

A conceptual model was developed that explained the experience of integrating SNP-provided sensory feedback into his body and motor plans. The model described the requirements of integration, which were a combination of a low level of mental focus and low stimulation levels. While higher levels of stimulation and focus could result in distinct sensory percepts and various phantom limb experiences, optimal integration was associated with SNP-evoked sensation that was not readily perceivable. Successful sensorimotor integration of the SNP resulted in improvements to locomotion, a return to a more normal state, an enhancement of perceived prosthesis utility, and a positive outlook on the experience.

Discussion

These outcomes emerged over the course of the nearly 8 month study, suggesting that findings from long-term home studies of SNPs may differ from those of short-term in-laboratory tests. Our findings on the experience of sensorimotor integration of the SNP have implications for the optimal training of SNP users and the future deployment of clinical SNP systems for long-term home use.

[Practice of perioperative phantom limb pain prevention in Germany: a nationwide survey]

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of phantom limb pain after major amputation remains high and affected patients suffer from relevant impairments in the quality of life. Perioperative treatment strategies may prevent phantom limb pain. This study aims to assess the state of the perioperative anesthesiological pain management for major amputations. Furthermore, it analyzes potentials for optimization and barriers towards a better treatment of patients with amputations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This online survey was distributed by the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) mailing list of anesthesiological consultants. It was approved by the Charité ethics board.

RESULTS

Overall, 402 persons participated in this survey. Mostly, general anesthesia (85%), regional anesthesia (63%) and neuraxial anesthesia (49%) were performed in different combinations. Furthermore, 72% of participants reported using i.v. opioids postoperatively, mostly applied via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). In contrast, preoperative regional anesthesia (74%) and gabapentinoids (67%) were seen as potential methods to improve treatment; however, barrier analysis revealed that treatment options are limited especially by organizational aspects and intrinsic patient factors.

CONCLUSION

This survey describes the current practice of phantom limb pain prevention in Germany. It shows an unmet need for specialized perioperative pain treatment. As the evidence regarding treatment recommendations is limited, further research questions can be deduced from this study.

An Algorithm Approach to Phantom Limb Pain

Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a common condition that occurs following both upper and lower limb amputation. First recognized and described in 1551 by Ambroise Pare, research into its underlying pathology and effective treatments remains a very active and growing field. To date, however, there is little consensus regarding the optimal management of phantom limb pain. With few large well-designed clinical trials of which to make treatment recommendations, as well as significant heterogeneity in clinical response to available treatments, the management of PLP remains challenging. Below we summarize the current state of knowledge in the field, as well as propose an algorithm for the approach to the treatment of PLP.

Effects of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Pain and Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is the usage of a mild electrical current through electrodes that stimulate nerves. Patients with malignancies experience pain and chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. A systematic review was performed to find research evaluating the effect of TENS on these two common symptoms decreasing the quality of life in cancer patients. PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE were searched. Original studies, namely randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials, published between April 2007 and May 2020, were considered. The quality of the selected studies was assessed. Seven papers were incorporated in a qualitative synthesis, with 260 patients in total. The studies varied in terms of design, populations, endpoints, quality, treatment duration, procedures and follow-up period. Based on the results, no strict recommendations concerning TENS usage in the cancer patient population could be issued. However, the existing evidence allows us to state that TENS is a safe procedure that may be self-administered by the patients with malignancy in an attempt to relieve different types of pain. There is a need for multi-center, randomized clinical trials with a good methodological design and adequate sample size.

Does TENS Reduce the Intensity of Acute and Chronic Pain? A Comprehensive Appraisal of the Characteristics and Outcomes of 169 Reviews and 49 Meta-Analyses

Background and Objectives: Uncertainty about the clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) to alleviate pain spans half a century. There has been no attempt to synthesise the entire body of systematic review evidence. The aim of this comprehensive review was to critically appraise the characteristics and outcomes of systematic reviews evaluating the clinical efficacy of TENS for any type of acute and chronic pain in adults. Materials and Methods: We searched electronic databases for full reports of systematic reviews of studies, overviews of systematic reviews, and hybrid reviews that evaluated the efficacy of TENS for any type of clinical pain in adults. We screened reports against eligibility criteria and extracted data related to the characteristics and outcomes of the review, including effect size estimates. We conducted a descriptive analysis of extracted data. Results: We included 169 reviews consisting of eight overviews, seven hybrid reviews and 154 systematic reviews with 49 meta-analyses. A tally of authors' conclusions found a tendency toward benefits from TENS in 69/169 reviews, no benefits in 13/169 reviews, and inconclusive evidence in 87/169 reviews. Only three meta-analyses pooled sufficient data to have confidence in the effect size estimate (i.e., pooled analysis of >500 events). Lower pain intensity was found during TENS compared with control for chronic musculoskeletal pain and labour pain, and lower analgesic consumption was found post-surgery during TENS. The appraisal revealed repeated shortcomings in RCTs that have hindered confident judgements about efficacy, resulting in stagnation of evidence. Conclusions: Our appraisal reveals examples of meta-analyses with 'sufficient data' demonstrating benefit. There were no examples of meta-analyses with 'sufficient data' demonstrating no benefit. Therefore, we recommend that TENS should be considered as a treatment option. The considerable quantity of reviews with 'insufficient data' and meaningless findings have clouded the issue of efficacy. We offer solutions to these issues going forward.

Resolving Long-Standing Uncertainty about the Clinical Efficacy of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) to Relieve Pain: A Comprehensive Review of Factors Influencing Outcome

Pain is managed using a biopsychosocial approach and pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a technique whereby pulsed electrical currents are administered through the intact surface of the skin with the intention of alleviating pain, akin to 'electrically rubbing pain away'. Despite over 50 years of published research, uncertainty about the clinical efficacy of TENS remains. The purpose of this comprehensive review is to critically appraise clinical research on TENS to inform future strategies to resolve the 'efficacy-impasse'. The principles and practices of TENS are described to provide context for readers unfamiliar with TENS treatment. The findings of systematic reviews evaluating TENS are described from a historical perspective to provide context for a critical evaluation of factors influencing the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs); including sample populations, outcome measures, TENS techniques, and comparator interventions. Three possibilities are offered to resolve the impasse. Firstly, to conduct large multi-centered RCTs using an enriched enrolment with randomized withdrawal design, that incorporates a 'run-in phase' to screen for potential TENS responders and to optimise TENS treatment according to individual need. Secondly, to meta-analyze published RCT data, irrespective of type of pain, to determine whether TENS reduces the intensity of pain during stimulation, and to include a detailed assessment of levels of certainty and precision. Thirdly, to concede that it may be impossible to determine efficacy due to insurmountable methodological, logistical and financial challenges. The consequences to clinicians, policy makers and funders of this third scenario are discussed. I argue that patients will continue to use TENS irrespective of the views of clinicians, policy makers, funders or guideline panel recommendations, because TENS is readily available without prescription; TENS generates a pleasant sensory experience that is similar to easing pain using warming and cooling techniques; and technological developments such as smart wearable TENS devices will improve usability in the future. Thus, research is needed on how best to integrate TENS into existing pain management strategies by analyzing data of TENS usage by expert-patients in real-world settings.

Efficacy of a combination of hypnosis and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for chronic non-cancer pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic non-cancer pain, which persists for at least three months, seriously affects quality of life. Chronic non-cancer pain patients are usually managed by a multidisciplinary team using pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. Nurses perform transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and hypnosis, which are widely used in France for the treatment of chronic pain in pain departments.

OBJECTIVE

To assess pain relief at three months, comparing a simultaneous combination of hypnosis and TENS (intervention) with TENS alone (control).

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-80 years, suffering from chronic peripheral neuropathic and/or nociceptive non-cancer pain were included (September 2013 to May 2017) and followed for six months. The primary outcome was the pain intensity difference (by visual analog scale score) between month 3 and baseline. The secondary outcomes, assessed at months 3 and 6, were SF36 score, analgesics consumption and number of TENS sessions performed at home (last seven days).

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were included, suffering from a combination of chronic non-cancer nociceptive and neuropathic pain, with a mean pain intensity of about sixty out of a hundred. The results show an important pain reduction (forty percent) in both groups at 3 months. No significant difference was observed between the control and intervention groups. Similarly, SF36 score, change in analgesic intake and patient compliance did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first randomized controlled study showing a decrease of pain intensity and a high level of compliance with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone or associated to hypnosis. The combination does not seem to be more efficient than transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone. Chronic non-cancer pain remains a major issue and a substantial proportion of patients do not appear to benefit from interventions.

IMPACT

This study increases our understanding of the combination of two non-pharmacological methods in chronic non-cancer pain patients. The combination of the two non-pharmacological strategies did not appear to be more efficient than one alone. Further research on non-pharmacological treatments targeting to patient's characteristics are needed to find appropriate strategies in patients with complex multidimensional pain conditions. Clinical Trial Number: NCT01944150 (Sept. 17, 2013).

Neuromodulation for Pain Management in the Inpatient Setting: A Narrative Review

Pain is highly prevalent and pharmacological therapy is not always efficacious. There are a few pathophysiological reasons to believe that neuromodulation would increase the rate of success of pain management. This review article is focused on that aspect, discussing non-invasive or minimally invasive neuromodulation techniques in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. This article provides an in-depth discussion of the multiple neuromodulation techniques available over time to be suitable and effective when used as analgesic therapies for chronic pain. We reviewed the literature and discussed all available neuromodulation options that were tested in the inpatient and outpatient setting. Neuromodulation plays a very important role in treating chronic pain in both inpatient and outpatient setting.

Clinical updates on phantom limb pain

Phantom limb pain is highly prevalent after amputation. Treatment results will probably benefit from an interdisciplinary team and individually adapted surgical, prosthetic and pain medicine approaches.

Introduction:

Most patients with amputation (up to 80%) suffer from phantom limb pain postsurgery. These are often multimorbid patients who also have multiple risk factors for the development of chronic pain from a pain medicine perspective. Surgical removal of the body part and sectioning of peripheral nerves result in a lack of afferent feedback, followed by neuroplastic changes in the sensorimotor cortex. The experience of severe pain, peripheral, spinal, and cortical sensitization mechanisms, and changes in the body scheme contribute to chronic phantom limb pain. Psychosocial factors may also affect the course and the severity of the pain. Modern amputation medicine is an interdisciplinary responsibility.

Methods:

This review aims to provide an interdisciplinary overview of recent evidence-based and clinical knowledge.

Results:

The scientific evidence for best practice is weak and contrasted by various clinical reports describing the polypragmatic use of drugs and interventional techniques. Approaches to restore the body scheme and integration of sensorimotor input are of importance. Modern techniques, including apps and virtual reality, offer an exciting supplement to already established approaches based on mirror therapy. Targeted prosthesis care helps to obtain or restore limb function and at the same time plays an important role reshaping the body scheme.

Discussion:

Consequent prevention and treatment of severe postoperative pain and early integration of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions are required to reduce severe phantom limb pain. To obtain or restore body function, foresighted surgical planning and technique as well as an appropriate interdisciplinary management is needed.

Neuromodulation Techniques in Phantom Limb Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of neuromodulation techniques in adults with phantom limb pain (PLP).

METHODS

A systematic search was performed, comprising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental (QE) studies that were published from database inception to February 2019 and that measured the effects of neuromodulation in adults with PLP. Hedge's g effect size (ES) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (nine RCTs and five QE noncontrolled studies) were included. The meta-analysis of RCTs showed significant effects for i) excitatory primary motor cortex (M1) stimulation in reducing pain after stimulation (ES = -1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.26 to -0.45); ii) anodal M1 transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in lowering pain after stimulation (ES = -1.50, 95% CI = -2.05 to 0.95), and one-week follow-up (ES = -1.04, 95% CI = -1.64 to 0.45). The meta-analysis of noncontrolled QE studies demonstrated a high rate of pain reduction after stimulation with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (rate = 67%, 95% CI = 60% to 73%) and at one-year follow-up with deep brain stimulation (rate = 73%, 95% CI = 63% to 82%).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from RCTs suggests that excitatory M1 stimulation-specifically, anodal M1 tDCS-has a significant short-term effect in reducing pain scale scores in PLP. Various neuromodulation techniques appear to have a significant and positive impact on PLP, but due to the limited amount of data, it is not possible to draw more definite conclusions.

Benchmarking Residual Limb Pain and Phantom Limb Pain in Amputees through a Patient-reported Outcomes Survey

More than 75% of major limb amputees experience chronic pain; however, data on severity and experience of pain are inconsistent. Without a benchmark using quantitative patient-reported outcomes, it is difficult to critically assess the efficacy of novel treatment strategies. Our primary objective is to report quantitative pain parameters for a large sample of amputees using the validated Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS). Secondarily, we hypothesize that certain patient factors will be associated with worse pain.

METHODS

PROMIS and Numerical Rating Scales for residual limb pain (RLP) and phantom limb pain (PLP) were obtained from a cross-sectional survey of upper and lower extremity amputees recruited throughout North America via amputee clinics and websites. Demographics (gender, age, race, and education) and clinical information (cause, amputation level, and time since amputation) were collected. Regression modeling identified factors associated with worse pain scores (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Seven hundred twenty-seven surveys were analyzed, in which 73.4% reported RLP and 70.4% reported PLP. Median residual PROMIS scores were 46.6 [interquartile range (IQR), 41-52] for RLP Intensity, 56.7 (IQR, 51-61) for RLP Behavior, and 55.9 (IQR, 41-63) for RLP Interference. Similar scores were calculated for PLP parameters: 46.8 (IQR, 41-54) for PLP Intensity, 56.2 (IQR, 50-61) for PLP Behavior, and 54.6 (IQR, 41-62) for PLP Interference. Female sex, lower education, trauma-related amputation, more proximal amputation, and closer to time of amputation increased odds of PLP. Female sex, lower education, and infection/ischemia-related amputation increased odds of RLP.

CONCLUSION

This survey-based analysis provides quantitative benchmark data regarding RLP and PLP in amputees with more granularity than has previously been reported.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupuncture, and spinal cord stimulation on neuropathic, inflammatory and, non-inflammatory pain in rat models

Background

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), manual acupuncture (MA), and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) are used to treat a variety of pain conditions. These non-pharmacological treatments are often thought to work through similar mechanisms, and thus should have similar effects for different types of pain. However, it is unclear if each of these treatments work equally well on each type of pain condition. The purpose of this study was to compared the effects of TENS, MA, and SCS on neuropathic, inflammatory, and non-inflammatory pain models.

Methods

TENS 60 Hz, 200 μs, 90% motor threshold (MT), SCS was applied at 60 Hz, an intensity of 90% MT, and a 0.25 ms pulse width. MA was performed by inserting a stainless-steel needle to a depth of about 4-5 mm at the Sanyinjiao (SP6) and Zusanli (ST36) acupoints on a spared nerve injury (SNI), knee joint inflammation (3% carrageenan), and non-inflammatory muscle pain (intramuscular pH 4.0 injections) in rats. Mechanical withdrawal thresholds of the paw, muscle, and/or joint were assessed before and after induction of the pain model, and daily before and after treatment.

Results

The reduced withdrawal thresholds were significantly reversed by application of either TENS or SCS (P < 0.05). MA, on the other hand, increased the withdrawal threshold in animals with SNI and joint inflammation, but not chronic muscle pain.

Conclusions

TENS and SCS produce similar effects in neuropathic, inflammatory and non-inflammatory muscle pain models while MA is only effective in inflammatory and neuropathic pain models.

Remote Analgesic Effects Of Conventional Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation: A Scientific And Clinical Review With A Focus On Chronic Pain

BACKGROUND

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a safe, noninvasive treatment for chronic pain that can be self-administered. Conventional TENS involves stimulation of peripheral sensory nerves at a strong, non-painful level. Following the original gate-control theory of pain, stimulation is typically near the target pain. As another option, remote stimulation may also be effective and offers potential advantages.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review examines mechanisms underlying the remote analgesic effects of conventional TENS and appraises the clinical evidence.

METHODS

A literature search for English-language articles was performed on PubMed. Keywords included terms related to the location of TENS . Citations from primary references and textbooks were examined for additional articles.

RESULTS

Over 30 studies reported remote analgesic effects of conventional TENS. The evidence included studies using animal models of pain, experimental pain in humans, and clinical studies in subjects with chronic pain. Three types of remote analgesia were identified: at the contralateral homologous site, at sites distant from stimulation but innervated by overlapping spinal segments, and at unrelated extrasegmental sites.

CONCLUSION

There is scientific and clinical evidence that conventional TENS has remote analgesic effects. This may occur through modulation of pain processing at the level of the dorsal horn, in brainstem centers mediating descending inhibition, and within the pain matrix. A broadening of perspectives on how conventional TENS produces analgesia may encourage researchers, clinicians, and medical-device manufacturers to develop novel ways of using this safe, cost-effective neuromodulation technique for chronic pain.

The clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for acute and chronic pain: a protocol for a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for any type of acute and chronic pain in adults.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We intend to search electronic databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, PEDRO, Web of Science, AMED and SPORTDiscus) from inception to the present day to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCT) on the use of TENS in adults for any type of pain including acute pain, chronic pain and cancer-related pain. We will screen the RCTs against eligibility criteria for inclusion in our review. Two reviewers will independently undertake RCT selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Primary outcomes will be: (i) participant-reported pain relief of ≥30% expressed as frequency (dichotomous) data; and (ii) participant-reported pain intensity expressed as mean (continuous) data. We will conduct meta-analyses to determine risk ratio for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised MD for continuous data for TENS versus placebo TENS, no treatment or waiting list control, standard of care, and other treatments. Subgroup analyses will include different pain conditions (eg, acute vs chronic), TENS intensity, during versus after TENS, TENS as a sole treatment versus TENS in combination with other treatments and TENS administered as a single dose versus repetitive dose.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review will not use data from individual participants, and the results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented at a conference.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019125054.

Management of pain in individuals with spinal cord injury: Guideline of the German-Speaking Medical Society for Spinal Cord Injury

Introduction: Pain is a prominent complication in spinal cord injury (SCI). It can either occur as a direct or as an indirect consequence of SCI and it often heavily influences the quality of life of affected individuals. In SCI, nociceptive and neuropathic pain can equally emerge at the same time above or below the level of injury. Thus, classification and grading of pain is frequently difficult. Effective treatment of SCI-related pain in general and of neuropathic pain in particular is challenging. Current treatment options are sparse and their evidence is considered to be limited. Considering these aspects, a clinical practice guideline was developed as basis for an optimized, comprehensive and standardized pain management in SCI-related pain.

Methods: The German-Speaking Medical Society for Spinal Cord Injury (Deutschsprachige Medizinische Gesellschaft für Paraplegiologie – DMGP) developed a clinical practice guideline that received consensus from seven further German-speaking medical societies and one patient organization. The evidence base from clinical trials and meta-analyses was summarized and subjected to a structured consensus-process in accordance with the regulations of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) and the methodological requirements of the “German instrument for methodological guideline appraisal”.

Results: This consensus-based guideline (S2k classification according to the AWMF guidance manual and rules) resulted in seven on-topic statements and 17 specific recommendations relevant to the classification, assessment and therapy of pain directly or indirectly caused by SCI. Recommended therapeutic approaches comprise pharmacological (e.g. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or anticonvulsants) and non-pharmacological (e.g. physical activity or psychotherapeutic techniques) strategies for both nociceptive and neuropathic pain.

Discussion: Assessment of SCI-related pain is standardized and respective methods in terms of examination, classification and grading of pain are already in use and validated in German language. In contrast, valid, evidence-based and efficient therapeutic options are limited and ask for further clinical studies, ideally randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses.

Coping with Phantom Limb Pain

Phantom limb pain is a chronic neuropathic pain that develops in 45-85% of patients who undergo major amputations of the upper and lower extremities and appears predominantly during two time frames following an amputation: the first month and later about 1 year. Although in most patients the frequency and intensity of pain diminish over time, severe pain persists in about 5-10%. It has been proposed that factors in both the peripheral and central nervous systems play major roles in triggering the development and maintenance of pain associated with extremity amputations. Chronic pain is physically and mentally debilitating, affecting an individual's capacity for self-care, but also diminishing an individual's daily capacity for personal and economic independence. In addition, the pain may lead to depression and feelings of hopelessness. A National Center for Biotechnology Information study found that in the USA alone, the annual cost of dealing with neuropathic pain is more than $600 billion, with an estimated 20 million people in the USA suffering from this condition. Although the pain can be reduced by antiepileptic drugs and analgesics, they are frequently ineffective or their side effects preclude their use. The optimal approach for eliminating neuropathic pain and improving individuals' quality of life is the development of novel techniques that permanently prevent the development and maintenance of neuropathic pain, or that eliminate the pain once it has developed. What is still required is understanding when and where an effective novel technique must be applied, such as onto the nerve stump of the transected peripheral axons, dorsal root ganglion neurons, spinal cord, or cortex to induce the desired influences. This review, the second of two in this journal volume, examines the techniques that may be capable of reducing or eliminating chronic neuropathic pain once it has developed. Such an understanding will improve amputees' quality of life by blocking the mechanisms that trigger and/or maintain PLP and chronic neuropathic pain.

Brain and spinal stimulation therapies for phantom limb pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Although many treatments exist for phantom limb pain (PLP), the evidence supporting them is limited and there are no guidelines for PLP management. Brain and spinal cord neurostimulation therapies are targeted at patients with chronic PLP but have yet to be systematically reviewed.

OBJECTIVE

To determine which types of brain and spinal stimulation therapy appear to be the best for treating chronic PLP.

DESIGN

Systematic reviews of effectiveness and epidemiology studies, and a survey of NHS practice.

POPULATION

All patients with PLP.

INTERVENTIONS

Invasive interventions - deep brain stimulation (DBS), motor cortex stimulation (MCS), spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. Non-invasive interventions - repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Phantom limb pain and quality of life.

DATA SOURCES

Twelve databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) and clinical trial registries were searched in May 2017, with no date limits applied.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full texts. Data extraction and quality assessments were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by another. A questionnaire was distributed to clinicians via established e-mail lists of two relevant clinical societies. All results were presented narratively with accompanying tables.

RESULTS

Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 30 non-comparative group studies, 18 case reports and 21 epidemiology studies were included. Results from a good-quality RCT suggested short-term benefits of rTMS in reducing PLP, but not in reducing anxiety or depression. Small randomised trials of tDCS suggested the possibility of modest, short-term reductions in PLP. No RCTs of invasive therapies were identified. Results from small, non-comparative group studies suggested that, although many patients benefited from short-term pain reduction, far fewer maintained their benefits. Most studies had important methodological or reporting limitations and few studies reported quality-of-life data. The evidence on prognostic factors for the development of chronic PLP from the longitudinal studies also had important limitations. The results from these studies suggested that pre-amputation pain and early PLP intensity are good predictors of chronic PLP. Results from the cross-sectional studies suggested that the proportion of patients with severe chronic PLP is between around 30% and 40% of the chronic PLP population, and that around one-quarter of chronic PLP patients find their PLP to be either moderately or severely limiting or bothersome. There were 37 responses to the questionnaire distributed to clinicians. SCS and DRG stimulation are frequently used in the NHS but the prevalence of use of DBS and MCS was low. Most responders considered SCS and DRG stimulation to be at least sometimes effective. Neurosurgeons had mixed views on DBS, but most considered MCS to rarely be effective. Most clinicians thought that a randomised trial design could be successfully used to study neurostimulation therapies.

LIMITATION

There was a lack of robust research studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently available studies of the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of neurostimulation treatments do not provide robust, reliable results. Therefore, it is uncertain which treatments are best for chronic PLP.

FUTURE WORK

Randomised crossover trials, randomised N-of-1 trials and prospective registry trials are viable study designs for future research.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017065387.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain - an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty.

METHODS

Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain - an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty.

METHODS

Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.

Assistive technologies for pain management in people with amputation: a literature review

The prevalence of limb amputation is increasing globally as a devastating experience that can physically and psychologically affect the lifestyle of a person. The residual limb pain and phantom limb pain are common disabling sequelae after amputation surgery. Assistive devices/technologies can be used to relieve pain in people with amputation. The existing assistive devices/technologies for pain management in people with amputation include electrical nerve block devices/technologies, TENS units, elastomeric pumps and catheters, residual limb covers, laser systems, myoelectric prostheses and virtual reality systems, etc. There is a great potential to design, fabricate, and manufacture some portable, wireless, smart, and thin devices/technologies to stimulate the spinal cord or peripheral nerves by electrical, thermal, mechanical, and pharmaceutical stimulus. Although some preliminary efforts have been done, more attention must be paid by researchers, clinicians, designers, engineers, and manufacturers to the post amputation pain and its treatment methods.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

Fibromyalgia is characterised by persistent, widespread pain; sleep problems; and fatigue. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is the delivery of pulsed electrical currents across the intact surface of the skin to stimulate peripheral nerves and is used extensively to manage painful conditions. TENS is inexpensive, safe, and can be self-administered. TENS reduces pain during movement in some people so it may be a useful adjunct to assist participation in exercise and activities of daily living. To date, there has been only one systematic review in 2012 which included TENS, amongst other treatments, for fibromyalgia, and the authors concluded that TENS was not effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of TENS alone or added to usual care (including exercise) compared with placebo (sham) TENS; no treatment; exercise alone; or other treatment including medication, electroacupuncture, warmth therapy, or hydrotherapy for fibromyalgia in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 January 2017: CENTRAL (CRSO); MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase (Ovid); CINAHL (EBSCO); PsycINFO (Ovid); LILACS; PEDRO; Web of Science (ISI); AMED (Ovid); and SPORTDiscus (EBSCO). We also searched three trial registries. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised trials of TENS treatment for pain associated with fibromyalgia in adults. We included cross-over and parallel-group trial designs. We included studies that evaluated TENS administered using non-invasive techniques at intensities that produced perceptible TENS sensations during stimulation at either the site of pain or over nerve bundles proximal (or near) to the site of pain. We included TENS administered as a sole treatment or TENS in combination with other treatments, and TENS given as a single treatment or as a course of treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently determined study eligibility by assessing each record and reaching agreement by discussion. A third review author acted as arbiter. We did not anonymise the records of studies before assessment. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies before entering information into a 'Characteristics of included studies' table. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 30% or greater or 50% or greater, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). We assessed the evidence using GRADE and added 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies (seven RCTs, one quasi-RCT, 315 adults (299 women), aged 18 to 75 years): six used a parallel-group design and two used a cross-over design. Sample sizes of intervention arms were five to 43 participants.Two studies, one of which was a cross-over design, compared TENS with placebo TENS (82 participants), one study compared TENS with no treatment (43 participants), and four studies compared TENS with other treatments (medication (two studies, 74 participants), electroacupuncture (one study, 44 participants), superficial warmth (one cross-over study, 32 participants), and hydrotherapy (one study, 10 participants)). Two studies compared TENS plus exercise with exercise alone (98 participants, 49 per treatment arm). None of the studies measured participant-reported pain relief of 50% or greater or PGIC. Overall, the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and in particular all were at high risk of bias for sample size.Only one study (14 participants) measured the primary outcome participant-reported pain relief of 30% or greater. Thirty percent achieved 30% or greater reduction in pain with TENS and exercise compared with 13% with exercise alone. One study found 10/28 participants reported pain relief of 25% or greater with TENS compared with 10/24 participants using superficial warmth (42 °C). We judged that statistical pooling was not possible because there were insufficient data and outcomes were not homogeneous.There were no data for the primary outcomes participant-reported pain relief from baseline of 50% or greater and PGIC.There was a paucity of data for secondary outcomes. One pilot cross-over study of 43 participants found that the mean (95% confidence intervals (CI)) decrease in pain intensity on movement (100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) during one 30-minute treatment was 11.1 mm (95% CI 5.9 to 16.3) for TENS and 2.3 mm (95% CI 2.4 to 7.7) for placebo TENS. There were no significant differences between TENS and placebo for pain at rest. One parallel group study of 39 participants found that mean ± standard deviation (SD) pain intensity (100-mm VAS) decreased from 85 ± 20 mm at baseline to 43 ± 20 mm after one week of dual-site TENS; decreased from 85 ± 10 mm at baseline to 60 ± 10 mm after single-site TENS; and decreased from 82 ± 20 mm at baseline to 80 ± 20 mm after one week of placebo TENS. The authors of seven studies concluded that TENS relieved pain but the findings of single small studies are unlikely to be correct.One study found clinically important improvements in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) subscales for work performance, fatigue, stiffness, anxiety, and depression for TENS with exercise compared with exercise alone. One study found no additional improvements in FIQ scores when TENS was added to the first three weeks of a 12-week supervised exercise programme.No serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies although there were reports of TENS causing minor discomfort in a total of 3 participants.The quality of evidence was very low. We downgraded the GRADE rating mostly due to a lack of data; therefore, we have little confidence in the effect estimates where available.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of TENS for fibromyalgia. We found a small number of inadequately powered studies with incomplete reporting of methodologies and treatment interventions.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain, which is due to nerve disease or damage, represents a significant burden on people and society. It can be particularly unpleasant and achieving adequate symptom control can be difficult. Non-pharmacological methods of treatment are often employed by people with neuropathic pain and may include transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). This review supersedes one Cochrane Review 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain' (Nnoaham 2014) and one withdrawn protocol 'Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults' (Claydon 2014). This review replaces the original protocol for neuropathic pain that was withdrawn.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic effectiveness of TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, PEDro, LILACS (up to September 2016) and various clinical trials registries. We also searched bibliographies of included studies for further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials where TENS was evaluated in the treatment of central or peripheral neuropathic pain. We included studies if they investigated the following: TENS versus placebo (sham) TENS, TENS versus usual care, TENS versus no treatment and TENS in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of neuropathic pain in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all database search results and identified papers requiring full-text assessment. Subsequently, two review authors independently applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to these studies. The same review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies with 724 participants. We found a range of treatment protocols in terms of duration of care, TENS application times and intensity of application. Briefly, duration of care ranged from four days through to three months. Similarly, we found variation of TENS application times; from 15 minutes up to hourly sessions applied four times daily. We typically found intensity of TENS set to comfortable perceptible tingling with very few studies titrating the dose to maintain this perception. Of the comparisons, we had planned to explore, we were only able to undertake a quantitative synthesis for TENS versus sham TENS. Insufficient data and large diversity in the control conditions prevented us from undertaking a quantitative synthesis for the remaining comparisons.For TENS compared to sham TENS, five studies were suitable for pooled analysis. We described the remainder of the studies in narrative form. Overall, we judged 11 studies at high risk of bias, and four at unclear risk. Due to the small number of eligible studies, the high levels of risk of bias across the studies and small sample sizes, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for the pooled analysis and very low individual GRADE rating of outcomes from single studies. For the individual studies discussed in narrative form, the methodological limitations, quality of reporting and heterogeneous nature of interventions compared did not allow for reliable overall estimates of the effect of TENS.Five studies (across various neuropathic conditions) were suitable for pooled analysis of TENS versus sham TENS investigating change in pain intensity using a visual analogue scale. We found a mean postintervention difference in effect size favouring TENS of -1.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.00001, n = 207, six comparisons from five studies) (very low quality evidence). There was no significant heterogeneity in this analysis. While this exceeded our prespecified minimally important difference for pain outcomes, we assessed the quality of evidence as very low meaning we have very little confidence in this effect estimate and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from that reported in this review. Only one study of these five investigated health related quality of life as an outcome meaning we were unable to report on this outcome in this comparison. Similarly, we were unable to report on global impression of change or changes in analgesic use in this pooled analysis.Ten small studies compared TENS to some form of usual care. However, there was great diversity in what constituted usual care, precluding pooling of data. Most of these studies found either no difference in pain outcomes between TENS versus other active treatments or favoured the comparator intervention (very low quality evidence). We were unable to report on other primary and secondary outcomes in these single trials (health-related quality of life, global impression of change and changes in analgesic use).Of the 15 included studies, three reported adverse events which were minor and limited to 'skin irritation' at or around the site of electrode placement (very low quality evidence). Three studies reported no adverse events while the remainder did not report any detail with regard adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we reported on the comparison between TENS and sham TENS. The quality of the evidence was very low meaning we were unable to confidently state whether TENS is effective for pain control in people with neuropathic pain. The very low quality of evidence means we have very limited confidence in the effect estimate reported; the true effect is likely to be substantially different. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment modality.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for postoperative pain control after total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficiency and safety of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain control after total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in Medline (1966 to June 2017), PubMed (1966 to June 2017), Embase (1980 to June 2017), ScienceDirect (1985 to June 2017), and the Cochrane Library. Only randomized controlled trial (RCT) was included. The fixed/random effect model was used according to the heterogeneity tested by I statistic. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 11.0 software.

RESULTS

Five RCTs including 472 patients met the inclusion criteria. The present meta-analysis indicated that there were significant differences between groups in terms of visual analogue scale score at 12 hours (average: 3.58 vs 4.34, SMD = -0.260, 95% CI: -0.442 to -0.078, P = .005), 24 hours (average: 3.18 vs 3.52, SMD = -0.244, 95% CI: -0.426 to -0.063, P = .008), and 48 hours (average: 2.70 vs 2.96, SMD = -0.214, 95% CI: -0.395 to -0.033, P = .021) after total knee arthroplasty. Significant differences were found regarding opioid consumption at 12 hours (average: 14.44 vs 18.54, SMD = -0.503, 95% CI: -0.687 to -0.319, P = .000), 24 hours (average: 16.10 vs 18.40, SMD = -0.262, 95% CI: -0.443 to -0.080, P = .005), and 48 hours (average: 12.92 vs 15.12, SMD = -0.183, 95% CI: -0.364 to -0.002, P = .048).

CONCLUSION

TENS could significantly reduce pain and opioid consumption after total knee arthroplasty. In addition, there were fewer adverse effects in the TENS groups. Higher quality RCTs are required for further research.

A review of the management of phantom limb pain: challenges and solutions

BACKGROUND

Phantom limb pain (PLP) occurs in 50% and 80% of amputees. Although it is often classified as a neuropathic pain, few of the large-scale trials of treatments for neuropathic pain included sufficient numbers of PLP sufferers to have confidence that they are effective in this condition. Many therapies have been administered to amputees with PLP over the years; however, as of yet, there appears to be no first-line treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To comprehensively review the literature on treatment modalities for PLP and to identify the challenges currently faced by clinicians dealing with this pain.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, Cochrane and psycINFO databases were searched using "Phantom limb" initially as a MeSH term to identify treatments that had been tried. Then, a secondary search combining phantom limb with each treatment was performed to find papers specific to each therapy. Each paper was assessed for its research strength using the GRADE system.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight therapies were identified. Overall, the quality of evidence was low. There was one high-quality study which used repetitive transcutaneous magnetic stimulation and found a statistical reduction in pain at day 15 but no difference at day 30. Significant results from single studies of moderate level quality were available for gabapentin, ketamine and morphine; however, there was a risk of bias in these papers. Mirror therapy and associated techniques were assessed through two systematic reviews, which conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support their use.

CONCLUSION

No decisions can be made for the first-line management of PLP, as the level of evidence is too low. Robust studies on homogeneous populations, an understanding of what amputees consider a meaningful reduction in PLP and agreement of whether pain intensity is the legitimate therapeutic target are urgently required.