 |
|
Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Low Back Pain
A Randomized Crossover Study
El-sayed A. Ghoname, MD;
William F. Craig, MD;
Paul F. White, PhD, MD;
Hesham E. Ahmed, MD;
Mohamed A. Hamza, MD;
Brent N. Henderson, PhD;
Noor M. Gajraj, MD;
Philip J. Huber, MD;
Robert J. Gatchel, PhD
JAMA. 1999;281:818-823.
Context Low back pain (LBP) contributes to considerable disability and lost wages in the United States. Commonly used opioid and nonopioid analgesic drugs produce adverse effects and are of limited long-term benefit in the management of this patient population.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of a novel nonpharmacologic pain therapy, percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and flexion-extension exercise therapies in patients with long-term LBP.
Design A randomized, single-blinded, sham-controlled, crossover study from March 1997 to December 1997.
Setting An ambulatory pain management center at a university medical center.
Patients Twenty-nine men and 31 women with LBP secondary to degenerative disk disease.
Interventions Four therapeutic modalities (sham-PENS, PENS, TENS, and exercise therapies) were each administered for a period of 30 minutes 3 times a week for 3 weeks.
Main Outcome Measures Pretreatment and posttreatment visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain, physical activity, and quality of sleep; daily analgesic medication usage; a global patient assessment questionnaire; and Health Status Survey Short Form (SF-36).
Results PENS was significantly more effective in decreasing VAS pain scores after each treatment than sham-PENS, TENS, and exercise therapies (after-treatment mean ± SD VAS for pain, 3.4 ± 1.4 cm, 5.5 ± 1.9 cm, 5.6 ± 1.9 cm, and 6.4 ± 1.9 cm, respectively). The average ± SD daily oral intake of nonopioid analgesics (2.6±1.4 pills per day) was decreased to 1.3±1.0 pills per day with PENS (P<.008) compared with 2.5±1.1, 2.2±1.0, and 2.6±1.2 pills per day with sham-PENS, TENS, and exercise, respectively. Compared with the other 3 modalities, 91% of the patients reported that PENS was the most effective in decreasing their LBP. The PENS therapy was also significantly more effective in improving physical activity, quality of sleep, and sense of well-being (P<.05 for each). The SF-36 survey confirmed that PENS improved posttreatment function more than sham-PENS, TENS, and exercise.
Conclusions In this sham-controlled study, PENS was more effective than TENS or exercise therapy in providing short-term pain relief and improved physical function in patients with long-term LBP.
Author Affiliations: Eugene McDermott Center for Pain Management, Departments of Anesthesiology and Pain Management (Drs Ghoname, Craig, White, Ahmed, Hamza, and Gajraj), Surgery (Dr Huber), and Psychiatry (Drs Henderson and Gatchel), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Acupuncture Analgesia: II. Clinical Considerations
Wang et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2008;106:611-621.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Quality of life in chronic illness: perceptions of parents and paediatricians
Janse et al.
Arch. Dis. Child. 2005;90:486-491.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Comparison of Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation with Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Long-Term Pain Relief in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain
Yokoyama et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2004;98:1552-1556.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Electroanalgesia: Does It Have a Place in the Routine Management of Acute and Chronic Pain?
White
Anesth. Analg. 2004;98:1197-1198.
FULL TEXT
The Short- and Long-Term Benefit in Chronic Low Back Pain Through Adjuvant Electrical Versus Manual Auricular Acupuncture
Sator-Katzenschlager et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2004;98:1359-1364.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Acupuncture for chronic low back pain in older patients: a randomized, controlled trial
Meng et al.
Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003;42:1508-1517.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Electrical Stimulation of Auricular Acupuncture Points Is More Effective Than Conventional Manual Auricular Acupuncture in Chronic Cervical Pain: A Pilot Study
Sator-Katzenschlager et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2003;97:1469-1473.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Philadelphia Panel Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines on Selected Rehabilitation Interventions for Low Back Pain
Philadelphia Panel Members et al.
ptjournal 2001;81:1641-1674.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Effect of Montage on the Analgesic Response to Percutaneous Neuromodulation Therapy
White et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2001;92:483-487.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Electroanalgesia: Its Role in Acute and Chronic Pain Management
White et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2001;92:505-513.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Percutaneous Neuromodulation Therapy: Does the Location of Electrical Stimulation Effect the Acute Analgesic Response?
White et al.
Anesth. Analg. 2000;91:949-954.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation or Acupuncture • Response
Pinsker et al.
Anesth. Analg. 1999;89:1065-1065.
FULL TEXT
Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Treatment of Low Back Pain
Berkman et al.
JAMA 1999;282:941-942.
FULL TEXT
Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Low Back Pain
JWatch General 1999;1999:3-3.
FULL TEXT
|
