Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic neck pain

High-frequency laser therapy: a new alternative to physiotherapy in the treatment of cervical disk hernia

Introduction

High-frequency laser therapy has been increasingly used in several musculoskeletal disorders, but there is still a lack of evidence for the usage of the device in neck pain. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of physiotherapy, high-frequency laser, and exercise therapy methods in the treatment of pain in cervical disk herniation.

Methods

It was a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Patients aged between 18 and 65 with neck pain and a diagnosis of cervical disk hernia were included in the study. Patients with a history of cervical surgery, rheumatism, cancer, or pacemaker were excluded from the study. The patients were randomized into 15 sessions of physiotherapy, high-frequency laser, or exercise therapy groups and evaluated with a range of motion, visual analog score, Neck Disability Index, and Short Form Health Survey-36 before treatment, after treatment, and in 1st and 3rd months. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

In total, 150 patients were analyzed. There was a significant improvement in range of motion, visual analog score, Neck Disability Index, and Short Form Health Survey-36 scores in three groups after 3-month follow-up (p < 0.05). The improvement was statistically greater in the physiotherapy and high-frequency laser therapy groups (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between these two groups (p > 0.05).

Discussion

The results in the physiotherapy and high-frequency laser therapy groups were better than the exercise group. They may be alternatives to each other in cervical disk hernia treatment.

The effects of conventional treatment in addition to Pilates on biopsychosocial status in chronic neck pain: A randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Although guidelines and systematic reviews recommend the use of exercise in the treatment of chronic pain and neck pain, there are no clear recommendations for conservative treatments frequently used in clinics. The effect of supporting clinical Pilates exercises with passive physiotherapy methods on biopsychosocial status is still unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to investigate the effects of conventional treatment (CT) in addition to clinical Pilates on pain levels, physical condition, functional status, and psychosocial status in individuals with chronic neck pain.

METHODS

Fifty women were randomly divided into 2 groups, the clinical Pilates group (Pilates, n= 25), and the group receiving CT in addition to clinical Pilates (Pilates-CT, n= 25). Both groups received treatment 3 days a week for 6 weeks. The CT program involved the implementation of hot pack (HP) application, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), and therapeutic ultrasound (US) to the cervical area.

RESULTS

CT in addition to Pilates was more effective in reducing the Visual Analog Scale (at rest and during activity), Neck Disability Index, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, NeckPix Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-depression, and Cognitive Exercise Therapy Approach-Biopsychosocial questionnaire scores (p< 0.05) and in increasing the degree of change in the extension range of motion (ROM) and cervical flexor endurance values and scores in the energy parameter of Short Form-36 (p< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

CT provided in addition to Pilates was more effective in reducing pain levels, disability, fear of movement, depression levels, and negative biopsychosocial status and improving extension ROM and cervical flexor endurance, neck awareness, and the energy/vitality parameter of quality of life in individuals with chronic neck pain.

Comparative analysis of photobiomodulation therapy and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for burning mouth: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of photobiomodulation (PBM) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in the treatment of burning mouth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized clinical trial of 25 patients with burning mouth treated by TENS (n=12) and PBM (n=13). The patients were treated weekly for 8 weeks. Two-factor ANOVA was used to determine whether the two interventions promoted significant differences in symptoms (measured with a visual analogue scale), unstimulated salivary flow, xerostomia, and dysgeusia between T0 (baseline), T1 (after the 4th treatment session), T2 (after the 8th treatment session), and T3 (30 days after the end of treatment).

RESULTS

Intragroup comparison of VAS scores for pain showed a significant difference between T0xT1, T0xT2, and T0xT3 in the TENS group and between T0xT2 and T0xT3 in the PBM group (p˂0.001). Intergroup comparison of VAS scores for pain between T2xT3 showed a better response to PBM than to TENS (p=0.003). Patients of the TENS group showed an increase in salivary flow between T1 and T2 (p=0.052). There were no expressive variations in xerostomia or dysgeusia in the two groups analyzed.

CONCLUSION

TENS and PBM were effective in reducing the symptoms of burning mouth during and after treatment. The PBM group showed a better response during follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This clinical trial was registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov (Number: NCT05816200).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

TENS was found to be a safe and effective therapy for burning mouth. Trial registration number (TRN) and date of registration: This clinical trial was registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov (Number: NCT05816200; date: May 08, 2023).

Additional effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in a therapeutic exercise program for sedentary with chronic neck pain: A double-blind randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the additional effect of high frequency (HF) or low frequency (LF) transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in a specific therapeutic exercise program for the treatment of patients with chronic neck pain.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial. Sixty participants of both sexes and with chronic neck pain were randomized into three groups: therapeutic exercise group + placebo TENS (n = 20), therapeutic exercise group + HF TENS (n = 20) and therapeutic exercise group + low TENS frequency (n = 20). The following assessment instruments were used: Numerical Pain Rating Scale, Neck Disability Index, Pain-Related Catastrophizing Thoughts Scale and Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia. Participants were evaluated before the interventions, after eight treatment sessions and 1 month after the end of treatment. Primary outcome was disability measured after the eight treatment sessions. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity, catastrophizing, and kinesiophobia after eight treatment sessions and pain intensity 4 weeks after the end of the treatment sessions.

RESULTS

The three groups were similar at baseline for personal and clinical characteristics. Regarding the main study analyses, there were no significant (p > 0.05) or clinical (d < 0.80) differences between the groups for the main variable (disability), nor for the secondary variables (pain intensity, catastrophizing and kinesiophobia).

CONCLUSION

HF or LF TENS, compared to placebo TENS, does not provide additional clinical benefits to an exercise program for patients with chronic neck pain.

The effectiveness and safety of electrotherapy in the management of fibromyalgia

Treating fibromyalgia is a challenging task for physicians. With its multifaceted features, fibromyalgia requires a comprehensive management strategy focusing on both the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options. During the last decades, there has been growing evidence regarding the role of electrotherapy in fibromyalgia treatment. In this regard, the present article aimed to review the recent literature on the effectiveness and safety of the electrotherapy in the treatment of fibromyalgia. A literature search was conducted through PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus databases. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), non-invasive brain stimulation (transcranial direct current/magnetic stimulation), and light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation (LASER) emerged as the most commonly examined electrotherapy techniques in fibromyalgia. Currently, there is growing data regarding the effectiveness of electrotherapy in the management of fibromyalgia-related pain. Besides, non-invasive electrotherapy techniques are related to no/minor side effects. Further studies are warranted to identify the optimal treatment protocols for each electrotherapy modality.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic neck pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic neck pain is a highly prevalent condition, affecting 10% to 24% of the general population. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is the noninvasive, transcutaneous use of electrical stimulation to produce analgesia. It is a simple, low-cost and safe intervention used in clinical practice as an adjunct treatment for painful musculoskeletal conditions that have a considerable impact on daily activities, such as chronic neck pain. This review is a split from a Cochrane Review on electrotherapy for neck pain, published in 2013, and focuses specifically on TENS for chronic neck pain.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (alone or in association with other interventions) compared with sham and other clinical interventions for the treatment of chronic neck pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Back and Neck Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers to 9 November 2018. We also screened the reference lists of relevant studies to identify additional trials. There were no language, source, or publication date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults (≥ 18 years of age) with chronic neck pain (lasting > 12 weeks) that compared TENS alone or in combination with other treatments versus active or inactive treatments. The primary outcomes were pain, disability and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors selected the trials, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. A third review author was consulted in case of disagreements. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool (adapted by Cochrane Back and Neck), to assess the risk of bias of individual trials and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We used risk ratios (RRs) to measure treatment effects for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs with a total of 651 participants, mean age 31.7 to 55.5 years, conducted in three different countries (Turkey, Jordan and China). The length of follow-up ranged from one week to six months. Most RCTs used continuous TENS, with a frequency of 60 Hz to 100 Hz, pulse width of 40 μs to 250 μs and tolerable intensity, described as a tingling sensation without contraction, in daily sessions lasting 20 to 60 minutes. Due to heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes, we did not pool individual study data into meta-analyses. Overall, we judged most studies as being at low risk for selection bias and high risk for performance and detection bias. Based on the GRADE approach, there was very low-certainty evidence from two trials about the effects of conventional TENS when compared to sham TENS at short-term (up to 3 months after treatment) follow-up, on pain (assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)) (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.97 to 0.77) and the percentage of participants presenting improvement of pain (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.92). None of the included studies reported on disability or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found very low-certainty evidence of a difference between TENS compared to sham TENS on reducing neck pain; therefore, we are unsure about the effect estimate. At present, there is insufficient evidence regarding the use of TENS in patients with chronic neck pain. Additional well-designed, -conducted and -reported RCTs are needed to reach robust conclusions.

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.