Əsas səhifə

Çap

Əks əlaqə

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

Mündəricat

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

Sübutlu məlumatların xülasələri
10.09.2013 • Sonuncu dəyişiklik 10.09.2013
Editors

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) may alleviate pain but does not improve function in chronic low back pain.

A Cochrane review included four trials with a total of 585 patients. The trials differed in study design, methodological quality, inclusion and exclusion criteria, type and method of TENS application, treatment schedule, co-interventions and final outcomes.

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.

A RCT included 236 adult patients consulting for chronic LBP, with or without radicular pain. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either active (n = 117) or sham (n = 119) TENS in four 1-h daily treatment sessions for 3 months. he primary outcome measured was improvement of functional status at 6 weeks (Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire). Secondary outcome measures were improvement of functional status at 3 months, pain relief (weekly visual analogue scale assessments), positive functional repercussions of pain levels on quality of life, a diminution of the use of analgesic and anti-inflammatory medication, satisfaction with the overall treatment strategy and compliance. Functional status did not differ between the groups, whether at 6 weeks or 3 months (p = 0.351 at 6 weeks). An improvement of at least 50% in lumbar pain between the first and last assessments was achieved by 25.0% of patients in the active TENS group compared with 6.7% in the sham TENS group (p = 0.0003), corresponding to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 5. Respective numbers in radicular pain were 33.8% vs. 15.0%, NNT=5. Other outcome measures did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Comment: The quality of evidence is downgraded by sparse data and inconsistency (variability in results across studies and heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes).

Ədəbiyyat

  1. Khadilkar A, Odebiyi DO, Brosseau L, Wells G. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus placebo for chronic low-back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008(4):CD003008.
  2. Buchmuller A, Navez M, Milletre-Bernardin M et al. Value of TENS for relief of chronic low back pain with or without radicular pain. Eur J Pain 2012;16(5):656-65.