Intramuscular stimulation of tibialis anterior in human subjects: the effects of discharge variability on force production and fatigue

The Anti-Inflammatory Action of Pulsed Radiofrequency-A Hypothesis and Potential Applications

In 2013, it was reported that pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) could be applied to obtain a systemic anti-inflammatory effect. Patients with chronic pain and patients with an inflammatory condition from other disciplines could potentially profit from this finding. At that time, intravenous application was used, but since then, it became clear that it could be applied transcutaneously as well. This procedure was named RedoxPRF. This can be used both for regional and for systemic application. Recently, the basic element of the mode of action has been clarified from the analysis of the effects of PRF on a standard model of muscle injury in rats. The objective of this paper is to present a hypothesis on the mode of action of RedoxPRF now that the basic mechanism has become known. Cell stress causes an increased production of free radicals, disturbing the redox equilibrium, causing oxidative stress (OS) either directly or secondarily by other types of stress. Eventually, OS causes inflammation and an increased sympathetic (nervous) system activity. In the acute form, this leads to immune paralysis; in the chronic form, to immune tolerance and chronic inflammation. It is hypothesized that RedoxPRF causes a reduction of free radicals by a recombination of radical pairs. For systemic application, the target cells are the intravascular immune cells that pass through an activated area as on an assembly line. Hypothesis conclusions: 1. RedoxPRF treatment works selectively on OS. It has the unique position of having a point of engagement at the most upstream level of the train of events. 2. RedoxPRF has the potential of being a useful tool in the treatment of inflammatory diseases and possibly of stage 4 cancer. 3. In the treatment of chronic pain, RedoxPRF is an entirely new method because it is different from ablation as well as from stimulation. We propose the term "functional restoration". 4. Controlled studies must be conducted to develop this promising new field in medicine further.

Short-Term Effects of PENS versus Dry Needling in Subjects with Unilateral Mechanical Neck Pain and Active Myofascial Trigger Points in Levator Scapulae Muscle: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Procedures such as dry needling (DN) or percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) are commonly proposed for the treatment of myofascial trigger points (MTrP). The aim of the present study is to investigate if PENS is more effective than DN in the short term in subjects with mechanical neck pain. This was an evaluator-blinded randomized controlled trial. Subjects were recruited through announcements and randomly allocated into DN or PENS groups. Pain intensity, disability, pressure pain threshold (PPT), range of motion (ROM), and side-bending strength were measured. The analyses included mixed-model analyses of variance and pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni correction. The final sample was composed of 44 subjects (22 per group). Both groups showed improvements in pain intensity (ηp2 = 0.62; p < 0.01), disability (ηp2 = 0.74; p < 0.01), PPT (ηp2 = 0.79; p < 0.01), and strength (ηp2 = 0.37; p < 0.01). The PENS group showed greater improvements in disability (mean difference, 3.27; 95% CI, 0.27-6.27) and PPT (mean difference, 0.88-1.35; p < 0.01). Mixed results were obtained for ROM. PENS seems to produce greater improvements in PPT and disability in the short term.

Insights About the Neuroplasticity State on the Effect of Intramuscular Electrical Stimulation in Pain and Disability Associated With Chronic Myofascial Pain Syndrome (MPS): A Double-Blind, Randomized, Sham-Controlled Trial

Background: There is limited evidence concerning the effect of intramuscular electrical stimulation (EIMS) on the neural mechanisms of pain and disability associated with chronic Myofascial Pain Syndrome (MPS). Objectives: To provide new insights into the EIMS long-term effect on pain and disability related to chronic MPS (primary outcomes). To assess if the neuroplasticity state at baseline could predict the long-term impact of EIMS on disability due to MPS we examined the relationship between the serum brain-derived-neurotrophic-factor (BDNF) and by motor evoked potential (MEP). Also, we evaluated if the EIMS could improve the descending pain modulatory system (DPMS) and the cortical excitability measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) parameters. Methods: We included 24 right-handed female with chronic MPS, 19-65 years old. They were randomically allocated to receive ten sessions of EIMS, 2 Hz at the cervical paraspinal region or a sham intervention (n = 12). Results: A mixed model analysis of variance revealed that EIMS decreased daily pain scores by -73.02% [95% confidence interval (CI) = -95.28 to -52.30] and disability due to pain -43.19 (95%CI, -57.23 to -29.39) at 3 months of follow up. The relative risk for using analgesics was 2.95 (95% CI, 1.36 to 6.30) in the sham group. In the EIMS and sham, the change on the Numerical Pain Scale (NPS0-10) throughout CPM-task was -2.04 (0.79) vs. -0.94 (1.18), respectively, (P = 0.01). EIMS reduced the MEP -28.79 (-53.44 to -4.15), while improved DPMS and intracortical inhibition. The MEP amplitude before treatment [(Beta = -0.61, (-0.58 to -0.26)] and a more significant change from pre- to post-treatment on serum BDNF) (Beta = 0.67; CI95% = 0.07 to 1.26) were predictors to EIMS effect on pain and disability due to pain. Conclusion: These findings suggest that a bottom-up effect induced by the EIMS reduced the analgesic use, improved pain, and disability due to chronic MPS. This effect might be mediated by an enhancing of corticospinal inhibition as seen by an increase in IC and a decrease in MEP amplitude. Likewise, the MEP amplitude before treatment and the changes induced by the EIMS in the serum BDNF predicted it's long-term clinical impact on pain and disability due MPS. The trial is recorded in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02381171.