Low Level Continuous Heat Wraps can Increase the Efficiency of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Pain Management

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (05) ◽  
pp. 290-298
Author(s):  
Jerrold Petrofsky ◽  
Michael Laymon ◽  
Haneul Lee
Keyword(s):  
Blood Flow ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Skin Blood Flow ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Continuous Heat

AbstractBoth transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and superficial heat have been used for pain management. While heat has been shown to have a beneficial effect on pain, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation remains controversial. The purpose of the present study was to see if heat, when added to transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, would provide more consistent relief. A total of 180 subjects participated in this study and were randomly divided into 12 groups. Low level continuous heat was applied while electrical stimulation was applied at 2 intensities, 2 frequencies and with 2 waveforms for 4 h. Outcome measures were subjective pain scale, range of motion of the back and skin blood flow of the back. The control groups had no significant difference in pain, range of motion or skin blood flow comparing the data at the beginning and 4 h after (p> 0.05). There was a small reduction in pain with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone while all other groups had a significant improvement in range of motion free of pain, reduction in pain, and increase in skin blood flow from the beginning to the end of the 4-hour period. Since transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation with low level continuous heat showed better outcomes then transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation alone or low level continuous heat alone, combining the 2 interventions seems to offer better outcomes for pain management for health care professionals.

Relative therapeutic efficacy of ketoprofen iontophoresis and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in the management of osteoarthritic knee pains: a pilot study

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olabanji O Jogunola
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Quadriceps Strength ◽  
Pharmacological Therapy ◽  
Joint Disease ◽  
Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Osteoarthritic Knee ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA), also known as degenerative joint disease, has no curative treatment. However, pharmacological therapies such as acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and more recently etodolac (iodine) are commonly used in its treatment. Non-pharmacological therapy, predominantly physiotherapy, is also employed in the treatment of OA. Objective: This research was aimed at determining the relative therapeutic effectiveness of ketoprofen iontophoresis and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in the management of osteoarthritic knee pain.Methods: Twenty subjects with diagnosis of OA of the knee joint were randomly selected into the ketoprofen iontophoresis group and the transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation group. Both groups received quadriceps strength training in addition to their group therapy. Each subject, who had 3 sessions per week over a four-week period, had a total of 12 treatment sessions. Each treatment session lasted 45 minutes.Results: There was a statistically significant decrease in pain intensity and increase in range of motion in both groups but no significant difference in change in both outcome measures between the groups.Conclusion: Management of OA of the knee using either ketoprofen iontophoresis or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in addition to quadriceps strengthening exercises in this pilot study was shown to be effective in pain reduction and to increase range of motion. Neither of the interventions was superior. Future studies using a larger sample size are needed to confirm our findings.

Frostbite

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 571-571
Author(s):  
FORST E. BROWN
Keyword(s):  
Blood Flow ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy ◽  
Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Blood Flow Increase ◽  
Sympathetic Blocks

In Reply.— Rowlingson and Carron suggest consideration of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in the management of frostbite. As they mentioned, sympathetic blocks have been effective in the management of early frostbite; blood flow increase has resulted in the salvage of damaged digits. Interarterial reserpine and prostacycline also have been shown to overcome digital vasoconstriction. In the two patients we described, persistent vasoconstriction as seen in reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) was not the problem. Moreover, the changes seen in the radiographs were not comparable to those seen in RSD.

Acute pain

2021 ◽  
pp. 1151-1180
Author(s):  
Adrian Dashfield ◽  
David Kibblewhite
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Epidural Analgesia ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Acute Pain ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Analgesic Drugs ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Blockade ◽  
Inflammatory Drugs

This chapter discusses the management of acute pain. It begins with an introduction which describes the benefits of acute pain management and the measurement of pain. Analgesic drugs are then described, including paracetamol; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids (including their comparative efficacy). Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), epidural analgesia, and continuous peripheral nerve blockade are described. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and acupuncture are discussed. The management of the patient with persistent pain and a substance misuse disorder is also discussed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of non-opioid adjuvant analgesics.

Does transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) alleviate the pain experienced during bone marrow sampling in addition to standard techniques? A randomised, double-blinded, controlled trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 68 (6) ◽  
pp. 479-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L Tucker ◽  
Mark Rockett ◽  
Mehedi Hasan ◽  
Sarah Poplar ◽  
Simon A Rule
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Sensory Threshold ◽  
Threshold Control ◽  
Electrical Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Significant Difference

AimsBone marrow aspiration and trephine (BMAT) biopsies remain important tests in haematology. However, the procedures can be moderately to severely painful despite standard methods of pain relief. To test the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in alleviating the pain from BMAT in addition to standard analgesia using a numerical pain rating scale (NRS).Methods70 patients requiring BMAT were randomised (1:1) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. –35 patients received TENS impulses at a strong but comfortable amplitude (intervention group) and 35 patients received TENS impulses just above the sensory threshold (control group) (median pulse amplitude 20 and 7 mA, respectively). Patients and operators were blinded to group allocation. Pain assessments were made using a numerical pain scale completed after the procedure.ResultsNo significant difference in NRS pain recalled after the procedure was detected (median pain score 5.7 (95% CI 4.8 to 6.6) in control vs 5.6 (95% CI 4.8 to 6.4) in the intervention group). However, 100% of patients who had previous experience of BMAT and >94% of participants overall felt they benefited from using TENS and would recommend it to others for this procedure. There were no side effects from the TENS device, and it was well tolerated.ConclusionsTENS is a safe, non-invasive adjunct to analgesia for reducing pain during bone marrow biopsy and provides a subjective benefit to most users; however, no objective difference in pain scores was detected when using TENS in this randomised controlled study.Clinical registration numberNCT02005354.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document