Electrical muscle stimulation as an adjunct to exercise therapy in the treatment of nonacute low back pain: A randomized trial

The Influence of Active, Passive, and Manual Therapy Interventions for Low Back Pain on Opioid Prescription and Health Care Utilization

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore associations between the utilization of active, passive, and manual therapy interventions for low back pain (LBP) with 1-year escalation-of-care events, including opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, specialty care visits, and hospitalizations.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 4827 patients identified via the Military Health System Data Repository who received physical therapist care for LBP in 4 outpatient clinics between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2018. One-year escalation-of-care events were evaluated based on type of physical therapist interventions (ie, active, passive, or manual therapy) received using adjusted odds ratios.

RESULTS

Most patients (89.9%) received active interventions. Patients with 10% higher proportion of visits that included at least 1 passive intervention had a 3% to 6% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. Similarly, with 10% higher proportion of passive to active interventions used during the course of care, there was a 5% to 11% higher likelihood of 1-year escalation-of-care events. When compared to patients who received active interventions only, the likelihood of incurring 1-year escalation-of-care events was 50% to 220% higher for those who received mechanical traction and 2 or more different passive interventions, but lower by 50% for patients who received manual therapy.

CONCLUSION

Greater use of passive interventions for LBP was associated with elevated odds of 1-year escalation-of-care events. In addition, the use of specific passive interventions such as mechanical traction in conjunction with active interventions resulted in suboptimal escalation-of-care events, while the use of manual therapy was associated with more favorable downstream health care outcomes.

IMPACT

Physical therapists should be judicious in the use of passive interventions for the management of LBP as they are associated with greater likelihood of receiving opioid prescriptions, spinal injections, and specialty care visits.

A Personalized Electronic Tattoo for Healthcare Realized by On-the-Spot Assembly of an Intrinsically Conductive and Durable Liquid-Metal Composite

Conventional electronic (e-) skins are a class of thin-film electronics mainly fabricated in laboratories or factories, which is incapable of rapid and simple customization for personalized healthcare. Here a new class of e-tattoos is introduced that can be directly implemented on the skin by facile one-step coating with various designs at multi-scale depending on the purpose of the user without a substrate. An e-tattoo is realized by attaching Pt-decorated carbon nanotubes on gallium-based liquid-metal particles (CMP) to impose intrinsic electrical conductivity and mechanical durability. Tuning the CMP suspension to have low-zeta potential, excellent wettability, and high-vapor pressure enables conformal and intimate assembly of particles directly on the skin in 10 s. Low-cost, ease of preparation, on-skin compatibility, and multifunctionality of CMP make it highly suitable for e-tattoos. Demonstrations of electrical muscle stimulators, photothermal patches, motion artifact-free electrophysiological sensors, and electrochemical biosensors validate the simplicity, versatility, and reliability of the e-tattoo-based approach in biomedical engineering.

Therapeutic Effectiveness of AxioBionics Wearable Therapy Pain Management System in Patients with Chronic Lower Back Pain

Chronic lower back pain is one of the most common medical conditions leading to a significant decrease in quality of life. This study retrospectively analyzed whether the AxioBionics Wearable Therapy Pain Management (WTPM) System, a customized and wearable electrical stimulation device, alleviated chronic lower back pain, and improved muscular function. This study assessed self-reported pain levels using the visual analog scale before and during the use of the AxioBionics WTPM System when performing normal activities such as sitting, standing, and walking (n = 69). Results showed that both at-rest and activity-related pain were significantly reduced during treatment with the AxioBionics WTPM System (% reduction in pain: 64% and 60%, respectively; P < .05). Thus, this study suggests that the AxioBionics WTPM System is efficacious in treating chronic lower back pain even when other therapies have failed to sufficiently decrease reported pain levels.

[Electrical muscle stimulation in combination with heat for patients with chronic, nonspecific low back pain : A randomized, double-blind, stratified, placebo-controlled clinical trial]

BACKGROUND

Chronic non-specific low back pain (LBP) causes more disability than any other medical condition worldwide. Electrical muscle stimulation in combination with heat (EMS/H) for management of LBP has yet not been properly studied. Our hypothesis was that EMS/H provides better pain relief and improves subjective and objective data compared to standard treatment.

METHODS

Between 2015 and 2017, we conducted a 6 week randomized, double-blind, stratified, placebo controlled clinical trial, comparing two different forms of EMS/H with placebo treatment with a follow-up 12 weeks after randomization. Patients >18 years with LBP for >6 months and a pain intensity of numerical rating scale (NRS) ≥4/10 were enrolled.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were recruited. Patients were representative of a LBP population with moderate to severe pain (NRS 5.7/10). After 18 treatments, we found a statistically significant pain reduction, which was also observed at the 12 week follow-up.

CONCLUSION

EMS/H is an effective and safe method for managing LBP. A clinically relevant and persisting pain reduction, a stable decrease in self-perceived disability, an improvement in both mood and affective characterization as well as sensory characterization of pain, muscle strength and endurance may have a significant impact on the management of LBP.

The effect of exercise therapy, dry needling, and nonfunctional electrical stimulation on radicular pain: a case report

A 43-year-old male, office worker with history of chronic radicular low back pain radiating into the left leg was admitted to a sports medicine research center, neuroscience institute. During the past year, he visited a physiotherapist and orthopedic experts. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed a protruded disc at L4–5 level. Additionally, electromyography indicated that there was bilateral moderate irritation at the L5–S1 root. We designed a management package including exercise therapy, dry needling, and nonfunctional electrical stimulation for four sessions. Outcomes included pain intensity, pain with lumbar flexion, with the numerical rating scale (NRS), visual analogue scale (VAS), and function measured with the Oswestry Disability Index before and after the intervention. After 4 treatment sessions, the patient reported a reduction in pain intensity from a 9 to 2 on the NRS and from 90 to 30 on the VAS. In addition, the patient was able to perform lumbar flexion fully without pain.

The effects of transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation on the activation of deep lumbar stabilizing muscles of patients with lumbar degenerative kyphosis

[Purpose] To investigate the effectiveness of three different neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) protocols for the deep lumbar stabilizing muscles of patients with lumbar degenerative kyphosis (LDK). [Subjects and Methods] Twenty patients with LDK were recruited. Three stimulation protocols were investigated: stimulation of the abdominal muscles (protocol A); stimulation of the lumbar muscles (protocol B); and simultaneous stimulation of the abdominal and lumbar muscles (protocol A+B). Images of the obliquus externus (OE), obliquus internus (OI), transversus abdominis (TrA), and lumbar multifidus (LM) muscles were captured by real-time ultrasound imaging (RUSI). [Results] The thickness of LM was significantly greater during stimulation than at rest for all three protocols. Thicknesses of the abdominal muscles (TrA, OI, and OE) were significantly greater during stimulation than at rest for protocols A and A+B. Thickness increases in LM were significantly greater during protocols B and A+B, but not during protocol A. Thickness increases in the abdominal muscles (TrA, OI, and OE) were significantly greater during protocols A and A+B, but not during protocol B. [Conclusion] NMES can significantly activate the deep lumbar stabilizing muscles of patients with LDK. Protocol A+B of NMES is recommended to aid postural correction and low back pain (LBP) in patients with LDK.

Activations of deep lumbar stabilizing muscles by transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation of lumbar paraspinal regions

Objective

To investigate changes in lumbar multifidus (LM) and deep lumbar stabilizing abdominal muscles (transverse abdominis [TrA] and obliquus internus [OI]) during transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) of lumbar paraspinal L4-L5 regions using real-time ultrasound imaging (RUSI).

Methods

Lumbar paraspinal regions of 20 healthy physically active male volunteers were stimulated at 20, 50, and 80 Hz. Ultrasound images of the LM, TrA, OI, and obliquus externus (OE) were captured during stimulation at each frequency.

Results

The thicknesses of superficial LM and deep LM as measured by RUSI were greater during NMES than at rest for all three frequencies (p<0.05). The thicknesses in TrA, OI, and OE were also significantly greater during NMES of lumbar paraspinal regions than at rest (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The studied transcutaneous NMES of the lumbar paraspinal region significantly activated deep spinal stabilizing muscle (LM) and the abdominal lumbar stabilizing muscles TrA and OI as evidenced by RUSI. The findings of this study suggested that transcutaneous NMES might be useful for improving spinal stability and strength in patients having difficulty initiating contraction of these muscles.

Evidence-based risk assessment and recommendations for physical activity: arthritis, osteoporosis, and low back pain

We systematically reviewed the safety of physical activity (PA) for people with arthritis, osteoporosis, and low back pain. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Sport Discus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1966 through March 2008) for relevant articles on PA and adverse events. A total of 111 articles met our inclusion criteria. The incidence for adverse events during PA was 3.4%-11% (0.06%-2.4% serious adverse events) and included increased joint pain, fracture, and back pain for those with arthritis, osteoporosis, and low back pain, respectively. Recommendations were based on the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, which applies Levels of Evidence based on type of study ranging from high-quality randomized controlled trials (Level 1) to anecdotal evidence (Level 4) and Grades from A (strong) to C (weak). Our main recommendations are that (i) arthritic patients with highly progressed forms of disease should avoid heavy load-bearing activities, but should participate in non-weight-bearing activities (Level 2, Grade A); and (ii) patients with osteoporosis should avoid trunk flexion (Level 2, Grade A) and powerful twisting of the trunk (Level 3, Grade C); (iii) patients with acute low back pain can safely do preference-based PA (i.e., PA that does not induce pain), including low back extension and flexion (Level 2, Grade B); (iv) arthritic patients with stable disease without progressive joint damage and patients with stable osteoporosis or low back pain can safely perform a variety of progressive aerobic or resistance-training PAs (Level 2, Grades A and B). Overall, the adverse event incidence from reviewed studies was low. PA can safely be done by most individuals with musculoskeletal conditions.

Physiotherapy and low back pain in the injured worker: an examination of current practice during the subacute phase of healing

PURPOSE

To describe current physiotherapy practice for injured workers with subacute low back pain (SA-LBP).

METHOD

A chart audit of discharged workers was conducted over three episodes of care: 4-6 weeks (T1), 6-8 weeks (T2), and 8-10 weeks (T3) post-injury. The prevalence and reproducibility of parameters for common interventions were calculated as the percentage of active charts over time. Focus groups were used to validate audit results and deepen our understanding of practice.

RESULTS

In all, 164 charts were audited. The most prevalent interventions were (1) for manual therapy, joint mobilization and traction; (2) for electrophysical agents (EPAs), heat, ultrasound, and interferential therapy; and (3) for exercise, core stabilization exercises. Transcript analyses revealed that participants viewed injured workers with SA-LBP in a positive light, emphasized the importance of physiotherapy, and discussed SA-LBP in five themes: time frame, non-specific diagnosis, mixed client outlook, change in pain presentation, and the transition from a passive to a more active treatment approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The pattern of decreasing passive and increasing active interventions is consistent with the focus-group participants' description of how they approach treatment of clients with SA-LBP. Also noted was a higher prevalence of interventions poorly supported by evidence and lower prevalence of interventions well supported by evidence.

Analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Estimates of treatment effects reported in placebo-controlled randomized trials are less subject to bias than those estimates provided by other study designs. The objective of this meta-analysis was to estimate the analgesic effects of treatments for non-specific low back pain reported in placebo-controlled randomized trials.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsychInfo and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for eligible trials from earliest records to November 2006. Continuous pain outcomes were converted to a common 0-100 scale and pooled using a random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 76 trials reporting on 34 treatments were included. Fifty percent of the investigated treatments had statistically significant effects, but for most the effects were small or moderate: 47% had point estimates of effects of <10 points on the 100-point scale, 38% had point estimates from 10 to 20 points and 15% had point estimates of >20 points. Treatments reported to have large effects (>20 points) had been investigated only in a single trial.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis revealed that the analgesic effects of many treatments for non-specific low back pain are small and that they do not differ in populations with acute or chronic symptoms.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus placebo for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was introduced more than 30 years ago as a therapeutic adjunct to the pharmacological management of pain. However, despite widespread use, its effectiveness in chronic low-back pain (LBP) is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether TENS is more effective than placebo for the management of chronic LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro and CINAHL were searched up to July 19, 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing TENS to placebo in patients with chronic LBP were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials, assessed their methodological quality and extracted relevant data. If quantitative meta-analysis was not possible, a qualitative synthesis was performed, taking into consideration 5 levels of evidence as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group.

MAIN RESULTS

Four high-quality RCTs (585 patients) met the selection criteria. Clinical heterogeneity prevented the use of meta-analysis. Therefore, a qualitative synthesis was completed. There was conflicting evidence about whether TENS was beneficial in reducing back pain intensity and consistent evidence in two trials (410 patients) that it did not improve back-specific functional status. There was moderate evidence that work status and the use of medical services did not change with treatment. Conflicting results were obtained from two studies regarding generic health status, with one study showing no improvement on the modified Sickness Impact Profile and another study showing significant improvements on several, but not all subsections of the SF-36 questionnaire. Multiple physical outcome measures lacked statistically significant improvement relative to placebo. In general, patients treated with acupuncture-like TENS responded similarly to those treated with conventional TENS. However, in two of the trials, an inadequate stimulation intensity was used for acupuncture-like TENS, given that muscle twitching was not induced. Optimal treatment schedules could not be reliably determined based on the available data. Adverse effects included minor skin irritation at the site of electrode placement.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At this time, the evidence from the small number of placebo-controlled trials does not support the use of TENS in the routine management of chronic LBP. Further research is encouraged.

Imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials: a systematic review of the literature

The placebo is an important tool to blind patients to treatment allocation and therefore minimise some sources of bias in clinical trials. However, placebos that are improperly designed or implemented may introduce bias into trials. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the adequacy of placebo interventions used in low back pain trials. Electronic databases were searched systematically for randomised placebo-controlled trials of conservative interventions for low back pain. Trial selection and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. A total of 126 trials using over 25 different placebo interventions were included. The strategy most commonly used to enhance blinding was the provision of structurally equivalent placebos. Adequacy of blinding was assessed in only 13% of trials. In 20% of trials the placebo intervention was a potentially genuine treatment. Most trials that assessed patients' expectations showed that the placebo generated lower expectations than the experimental intervention. Taken together, these results demonstrate that imperfect placebos are common in low back pain trials; a result suggesting that many trials provide potentially biased estimates of treatment efficacy. This finding has implications for the interpretation of published trials and the design of future trials. Implementation of strategies to facilitate blinding and balance expectations in randomised groups need a higher priority in low back pain research.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, interferential current, electrical muscle stimulation, ultrasound, and thermotherapy

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven to be very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing among available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to CLBP, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in the management of chronic LBP.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Chronic low back pain (LBP) affects a significant proportion of the population. TENS was introduced more than 30 years ago as an adjunct to pharmacologic pain management. However, despite its widespread use, the usefulness of TENS in chronic LBP is still controversial.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2005), up to April 1, 2005. Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of TENS on chronic LBP were included. Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochrane's Q test. A fixed effect model was used throughout for calculating continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case a random effects model was used. Results are presented as weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences were calculated by dividing the difference between the treated and control by the baseline variance. Standardized mean differences were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios.

RESULTS

Two RCTs (175 patients) were included. They differed with respect to study design, methodologic quality, inclusion and exclusion criteria, characteristics of TENS application, treatment schedule, cointerventions, and measured outcomes. In one RCT, TENS produced significantly greater pain relief than the placebo control. However, in the other RCT, no statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups were shown for multiple outcome measures. Preplanned subgroup analyses, intended to examine the impact of different stimulation parameters, sites of TENS application, treatment durations, and baseline patient characteristics were not possible because of the small number of included trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the efficacy of TENS as an isolated intervention in the management of chronic LBP is limited and inconsistent. Larger, multicenter, RCTs are needed to better resolve its role in this condition. Increased attention should be given to the risks and benefits of long-term use, which more appropriately addresses the realities of managing chronic low back pain.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic low-back pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic low-back pain (LBP) affects a significant proportion of the population. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) was introduced more than 30 years ago as an adjunct to the pharmacological management of pain. However, despite its widespread use, the usefulness of TENS in chronic LBP is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of TENS in the management of chronic LBP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PEDro up to April 1, 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of TENS on chronic LBP were included. Abstracts were excluded unless further data could be obtained from the authors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data using predetermined forms. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochrane's Q test. A fixed effect model was used throughout for calculating continuous variables, except where heterogeneity existed, in which case, a random effects model was used. Results are presented as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), where the difference between the treated and control groups was weighted by the inverse of the variance. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated by dividing the difference between the treated and control by the baseline variance. SMD were used when different scales were used to measure the same concept. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed with odds ratios.

MAIN RESULTS

The only two RCTs (175 patients) meeting eligibility criteria differed in study design, methodological quality, inclusion and exclusion criteria, type and method of TENS application, treatment schedule, co-interventions and final outcomes. In one RCT, TENS produced significantly greater pain relief than the placebo control. However, in the other RCT, no statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups were shown for multiple outcome measures. Pre-planned subgroup analyses, intended to examine the impact of different stimulation parameters, sites of TENS application, treatment durations and baseline patient characteristics were not possible due to the small number of included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconsistent evidence to support the use of TENS as a single treatment in the management of chronic LBP. Larger, multi-center, randomized controlled trials are needed to better assess the true effectiveness of TENS. Special attention should be given to the risks and benefits of long-term use, which more appropriately addresses the realities of managing chronic low-back pain.