Akshay S. Vakharia

Effect of the Duration of Electrical Stimulation on the Analgesic Response in Patients with Low Back Pain

BACKGROUND Electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves produces acute analgesic effects. This randomized, sham-controlled, crossover study was designed to evaluate the effect of differing durations of electrical stimulation on the analgesic response to percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in 75 consenting patients with low back pain. METHODS All patients received electrical stimulation for four different time intervals (0, 15, 30, and 45 min) in a random sequence over the course of an 11-week study period. All active percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation treatments were administered using alternating frequencies of 15 and 30 Hz three times per week for 2 consecutive weeks. The prestudy assessments included the health status survey short form questionnaire and 10-cm visual analog scale scores for pain, physical activity, and quality of sleep, with 0 being the best and 10 being the worst. The pain scoring was repeated 5-10 min after each 60-min study session and 24 h after the last treatment session with each of the four methods. The daily oral analgesic requirements were assessed during each of the four treatment blocks. At the end of each 2-week treatment block, the questionnaire was repeated. RESULTS Electrical stimulation using percutaneously placed needles produced short-term improvements in the visual analog scale pain, physical activity, and quality of sleep scores, and a reduction in the oral analgesic requirements. The 30-min and 45-min durations of electrical stimulation produced similar hypoalgesic effects (48+/-21% and 46+/-19%, respectively) and were significantly more effective than either 15 min (21+/-17%) or 0 min (10+/-11%). The 30- and 45-min treatments were also more effective in improving physical activity and sleep scores over the course of the 2-week treatment period. In contrast to the sham treatment (0 min), the health status survey short form revealed that electrical stimulation for 15 to 45 min three times per week for 2 weeks improved patient function. CONCLUSION The recommended duration of electrical stimulation with percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation therapy is 30 min.

The effect of stimulus frequency on the analgesic response to percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with chronic low back pain

UNLABELLED Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common medical problems in our society. Increasingly, patients are turning to nonpharmacologic analgesic therapies such as percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS). We designed this sham-controlled study to compare the effect of three different frequencies of electrical stimulation on the analgesic response to PENS therapy. Sixty-eight consenting patients with LBP secondary to degenerative lumbar disc disease were treated with PENS therapy at 4 Hz, alternating 15 Hz and 30 Hz (15/30 Hz), and 100 Hz, as well as sham-PENS (0 Hz), according to a randomized, cross-over study design. Each treatment was administered for a period of 30 min three times per week for 2 wk. The pre- and posttreatment assessments included the health status survey short form and visual analog scales for pain, physical activity, and quality of sleep. After receiving all four treatments, patients completed a global assessment questionnaire. The sham-PENS treatments failed to produce changes in the degree of pain, physical activity, sleep quality, or daily intake of oral analgesic medications. In contrast, 4-Hz, 15/30-Hz, and 100-Hz stimulation all produced significant decreases in the severity of pain, increases in physical activity, improvements in the quality of sleep, and decreases in oral analgesic requirements (P < 0.01). Of the three frequencies, 15/30 Hz was the most effective in decreasing pain, increasing physical activity, and improving the quality of sleep (P < 0.05). In the global assessment, 40% of the patients reported that 15/30 Hz was the most desirable therapy, and it was also more effective in improving the patients sense of well-being. We conclude that the frequency of electrical stimulation is an important determinant of the analgesic response to PENS therapy. Alternating stimulation at 15-Hz and 30-Hz frequencies was more effective than either 4 Hz or 100 Hz in improving outcome measures in patients with LBP. IMPLICATIONS The frequency of electrical stimulation seems to be an important determinant of the analgesic efficacy of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Mixed low- and high-frequency stimulation was more effective than either low or high frequencies alone in the treatment of patients with low back pain.

Percutaneous neuromodulation therapy: does the location of electrical stimulation effect the acute analgesic response?

We studied the effect of the location of electrical stimulation on the acute analgesic response to percutaneous neuromodulation therapy in patients with nonradiating neck pain. Sixty-eight patients received three different nonpharmacologic modalities, namely “needles only” (neck), local (neck) dermatomal stimulation, and remote (lower back) dermatomal stimulation in a random sequence over the course of an 11-wk study period. All treatments were given for 30 min, 3 times per week for 3 wk, with 1 wk “off” between each modality. The assessment tools included the health status survey short form (SF-36) questionnaire, as well as 10-cm visual analog scales for assessing pain, physical activity, and quality of sleep. The pain visual analog scale was repeated 5–10 min after each treatment session. The daily oral nonopioid analgesic requirements were recorded in the patient diary during the entire study period. At the end of each 3-wk treatment block, the SF-36 questionnaire was repeated. Compared with needles only and remote dermatomal stimulation, local dermatomal stimulation produced a significantly greater decrease in pain (38% ± 17% vs 9% ± 16% and 13% ± 18%), increase in physical activity (41% ± 21% vs 11% ± 17% and 16% ± 15%), and improvement in the quality of sleep (34% ± 18% vs 7% ± 17% and 10% ± 18%) compared with baseline values (P <0.05). The need for oral analgesic medications was decreased by an average of 6% ± 15%, 37% ± 18%, and 9% ± 13% during the 3-wk treatment period with the needle only, local dermatomal, and remote dermatomal stimulation, respectively. The posttreatment SF-36 test results revealed that all three modalities produced improvements compared with the prestudy scores for both the physical component summary and mental component summary. However, the magnitude of the changes in the physical component summary and mental component summary with local dermatomal stimulation was significantly greater (+7.9 and +3.6, respectively) than needle only (+3.4 and +1.7, respectively) or remote dermatomal stimulation (+3.7 and +1.9, respectively). No side effects were reported at the needle insertion sites. We conclude that electrical stimulation at the specific dermatomal levels corresponding to the local pathology produces greater short-term improvements in pain control, physical activity, and quality of sleep in patients with chronic neck pain. Implications The location of peripheral electrical stimulation influences the acute analgesic response to percutaneous modulation therapy in patients with long-term neck pain. This study demonstrates that electrical stimulation at the involved dermatomal levels produced a greater hypoalgesic effect than remote dermatomal stimulation. These data suggest that percutaneous modulation therapy-induced analgesia results from neuromodulatory changes.

The effect of montage on the analgesic response to percutaneous neuromodulation therapy.

The analgesic response to percutaneous neuromodulation therapy (PNT) is influenced by the location, frequency, and duration of electrical stimulation. We evaluated the effect of different patterns of stimulation (montages) on the acute analgesic response to PNT when applied at the same dermatomal le