Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Reduces Acute Low Back Pain during Emergency Transport (original) (raw)
Related papers
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: Basic science mechanisms and clinical effectiveness
Journal of Pain, 2003
n Abstract: Following amputation, 50% to 90% of individuals experience phantom and/or stump pain. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) may prove to be a useful adjunct analgesic intervention, although a recent systematic review was unable to judge effectiveness owing to lack of quality evidence. The aim of this pilot study was to gather data on the effect of TENS on phantom pain and stump pain at rest and on movement. Ten individuals with a transtibial amputation and persistent moderate-to-severe phantom and/or stump pain were recruited. Inclusion criteria was a baseline pain score of ‡3 using 0 to 10 numerical rating scale (NRS). TENS was applied for 60 minutes to generate a strong but comfortable TENS sensation at the site of stump pain or projected into the site of phantom pain. Outcomes at rest and on movement before and during TENS at 30 minutes and 60 minutes were changes in the intensities of pain, nonpainful phantom sensation, and prosthesis embodiment. Mean (SD) pain intensity scores were reduced by 1.8 (1.6) at rest (P < 0.05) and 3.9 (1.9) on movement (P < 0.05) after 60 minutes of TENS. For five participants, it was possible to project TENS sensation into the phantom limb by placing the electrodes over transected afferent nerves. Nonpainful phantom sensations and prosthesis embodiment remained unchanged. This study has demonstrated that TENS has potential for reducing phantom pain and stump pain at rest and on movement. Projecting TENS sensation into the phantom limb might facilitate perceptual embodiment of prosthetic limbs. The findings support the delivery of a feasibility trial. n
Pain, 2021
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an interventional nonpharmacologic treatment used for chronic pain and other indications. Methods for evaluating the safety and efficacy of SCS have evolved from uncontrolled and retrospective studies to prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although randomization overcomes certain types of bias, additional challenges to the validity of RCTs of SCS include blinding, choice of control groups, nonspecific effects of treatment variables (eg, paresthesia, device programming and recharging, psychological support, and rehabilitative techniques), and safety considerations. To address these challenges, 3 professional societies (Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials, Institute of Neuromodulation, and International Neuromodulation Society) convened a meeting to develop consensus recommendations on the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of RCTs of SCS for chronic pain. This article summarizes the results of this meeting. Highlights of our recommendations include disclosing all funding source and potential conflicts; incorporating mechanistic objectives when possible; avoiding noninferiority designs without internal demonstration of assay sensitivity; achieving and documenting double-blinding whenever possible; documenting investigator and site experience; keeping all information provided to patients balanced with respect to expectation of benefit; disclosing all information provided to patients, including verbal scripts; using placebo/sham controls when possible; capturing a complete set of outcome assessments; accounting for ancillary pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments in a clear manner; providing a complete description of intended and actual programming interactions; making a prospective ascertainment of SCS-specific safety outcomes; training patients and researchers on appropriate expectations, outcome assessments, and other key aspects of study performance; and providing transparent and complete reporting of results according to applicable reporting guidelines.
Foundational Research Could Improve Future Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Evaluations
Medicina, 2022
Background and objectives: There is a lack of good quality evidence regarding the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic musculoskeletal pain, including chronic low back pain. High quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been called for to establish effectiveness over and above placebo and some guidance has already been offered regarding the design of such trials. This article expands the discussion regarding the design of future TENS trials. There is qualitative evidence of the complexity of TENS as an intervention which should be considered in future TENS evaluations. This complexity includes multiple benefits reported by patients, depending on their chosen contexts of TENS use. The ideal content and delivery of support for patients to optimise TENS use also lacks consensus. There is no evidence that a TENS education package has been designed to support the complex set of behaviours and choices which experienced users suggest are r...
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial
Spine, 2005
Study Design. A prospective, randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled trial of intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain (CDLBP).
The Lancet Neurology, 2019
Background Spinal cord stimulation has been an established treatment for chronic back and leg pain for more than 50 years; however, outcomes are variable and unpredictable, and objective evidence of the mechanism of action is needed. A novel spinal cord stimulation system provides the first in vivo, real-time, continuous objective measure of spinal cord activation in response to therapy via recorded evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in patients during daily use. These ECAPs are also used to optimise programming and deliver closed-loop spinal cord stimulation by adjusting the stimulation current to maintain activation within patients' therapeutic window. We aimed to examine pain relief and the extent of spinal cord activation with ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain. Methods This multicentre, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial was done at 13 specialist clinics, academic centres, and hospitals in the USA. Patients with chronic, intractable pain of the back and legs (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] pain score ≥60 mm; Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score 41-80) who were refractory to conservative therapy, on stable pain medications, had no previous experience with spinal cord stimulation, and were appropriate candidates for a spinal cord stimulation trial were screened. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (investigational group) or fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation (control group). The randomisation sequence was computer generated with permuted blocks of size 4 and 6 and stratified by site. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to the treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain with no increase in pain medications. Non-inferiority (δ=10%) followed by superiority were tested in the intention-to-treat population at 3 months (primary analysis) and 12 months (additional prespecified analysis) after the permanent implant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02924129, and is ongoing.
Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface, 2008
Objectives. In spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy, limited pain relief during the temporary trial period is generally considered to be predictive of poor long-term benefit. To validate or refute this perception, the long-term outcomes of subjects who reported less than 50% pain relief during a temporary SCS trial were examined. Materials and Methods. Twelve subjects with intractable pain underwent implantation of trial SCS systems. After a trial period in which they reported less than 50% pain relief, they each received a permanent SCS implant. Pain ratings and complications were tracked for 6-18 months. Results. At the end of the temporary trial period, the average pain relief was 21%; no subject reported 50% or better pain relief. More favorable outcomes were reported after activation of the permanent system, however. At all follow-up time points, at least a third of the subjects reported better than 50% pain relief, and the average pain relief varied over time between 44% and 83%. All complications were readily resolved and no subjects withdrew from the study. Conclusions. Although SCS provided limited pain relief during the trial period, efficacy was more satisfactory after permanent implantation. Several subjects went on to experience nearly complete pain relief for up to 18 months (the maximum follow-up visit for study purposes), and no subject chose to discontinue SCS therapy. SCS appears to be a viable treatment option for patients who fail trials, raising some doubt as to the predictive sensitivity and specificity of the trial period. Thus, although outcome of a temporary trial period may be suggestive of later efficacy with SCS, it may not be the sole predictor of success. Alternatively, the arbitrary benchmark of 50% pain relief that is typically used to define the success of a temporary trial may be too stringent and unreliable.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010
BACKGROUND Amputee pain may present in a body part that has been amputated (phantom pain) or at the site of amputation (stump pain), or both. Phantom pain and stump pain are complex and multidimensional and the underlying pathophysiology remains unclear. The mainstay treatments for phantom pain and stump pain are predominately pharmacological. The condition remains a severe burden for those who are affected by it. There is increasing acknowledgement of the need for non-drug interventions and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) may have an important role to play. TENS has been recommended as a treatment option for phantom pain and stump pain. To date there has been no systematic review of available evidence and the effectiveness of TENS for phantom pain and stump pain is currently unknown. OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic effectiveness of TENS for the treatment of phantom pain and stump pain following amputation in adults. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched MEDLINE, Cochran...
Trials
Background: The TRIAL-STIM Study aims to assess the diagnostic performance, clinical outcomes and costeffectiveness of a screening trial prior to full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device. Methods/design: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a superiority, parallel-group, three-centre, randomised controlled trial in patients with chronic neuropathic pain with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation. The study will take place in three UK centres: South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (The James Cook University Hospital); Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. A total of 100 adults undergoing SCS implantation for the treatment of neuropathy will be included. Subjects will be recruited from the outpatient clinics of the three participating sites and randomised to undergo a screening trial prior to SCS implant or an implantation-only strategy in a 1:1 ratio. Allocation will be stratified by centre and minimised on patient age (≥ 65 or < 65 years), gender, presence of failed back surgery syndrome (or not) and use of high frequency (HF10™) (or not). The primary outcome measure is the numerical rating scale (NRS) at 6 months compared between the screening trial and implantation strategy and the implantation-only strategy. Secondary outcome measures will include diagnostic accuracy, the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months as measured on the NRS, health-related quality-of-life (EQ-5D), function (Oswestry Disability Index) , patient satisfaction (Patients' Global Impression of Change) and complication rates. A nested qualitative study will be carried out in parallel for a total of 30 of the patients recruited in each centre (10 at each centre) to explore their views of the screening trial, implantation and overall use of the SCS device. The economic evaluation will take the form of a cost-utility analysis. Discussion: The TRIAL-STIM Study is a randomised controlled trial with a nested qualitative study and economic evaluation aiming to determine the clinical utility of screening trials of SCS as well as their cost-effectiveness. The nested qualitative study will seek to explore the patient's view of the screening trials, implantation and overall use of SCS.
Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface, 2019
Objectives: The recent availability of paraesthesia/sensation free spinal cord stimulation (SCS) modalities allow the design of clinical trials of SCS using placebo/sham controls and blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers. The aims of this study were to: 1) systematically review the current evidence base of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS placebo/sham trials and 2) to undertake a methodological critique of their methods. Based on this critique, we developed a checklist for the design and reporting of future RCTs of SCS. Materials and Methods: Electronic data bases were searched from inception until January 2019 for RCTs of SCS using a placebo/ sham control. RCTs with only an active comparator arm were excluded. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis. Results: Searches identified 12 eligible RCTs. SCS modalities included paraesthesia stimulation, subthreshold, burst, and highfrequency SCS and were mainly conducted in patients with failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, and refractory angina. The quality and transparency of reporting of the methods of placebo stimulation, blinding of patients, clinicians, and researchers varied markedly across studies. Conclusions: To date the methods of placebo/sham control and blinding in RCTs have been poorly reported, leading to concerns about the validity and replicability of the findings. Important aspects that need to be clearly reported in the design of placebo-/sham-controlled RCTs of SCS include the transparent reporting of stimulation programming parameters, patient position during perception threshold measurement, management of the patient handheld programmer, frequency of recharging, and assessment of the fidelity of blinding.