Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Facci, Ligia Maria [UNIFESP]
Data de Publicação: 2011
Outros Autores: Nowotny, Jean Paulus, Tormem, Fabio, Trevisani, Virgínia Fernandes Moça [UNIFESP]
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-31802011000400003
http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/6162
Resumo: CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current are the most used electrotherapy methods, although there is little scientific evidence to support their use. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of TENS and interferential current among patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Single-blind randomized controlled trial in the Department of Physiotherapy, Centro Universitário de Maringá. METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients were randomly divided into three groups: TENS (group 1), interferential current (group 2) and controls (group 3). The patients designated for electrotherapy received ten 30-minute sessions, while the control group remained untreated. All patients and controls were evaluated before and after treatment using a visual analog scale and the McGill Pain and Roland Morris questionnaires, and regarding their use of additional medications. RESULTS: There was a mean reduction on the visual analog scale of 39.18 mm with TENS, 44.86 mm with interferential current and 8.53 mm among the controls. In the Roland Morris questionnaire, group 1 had a mean reduction of 6.59; group 2, 7.20; and group 3, 0.70 points. In group 1, 84% of the patients stopped using medications after the treatment; in group 2, 75%; and in group 3, 34%. There was no statistically significant difference between the TENS and interferential current groups (P > 0.05); a difference was only found between these groups and the controls (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There was no difference between TENS and interferential current for chronic low back pain treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01017913.
id UFSP_4968738a4575c43c141d9a5cf08a093f
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unifesp.br/:11600/6162
network_acronym_str UFSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
repository_id_str 3465
spelling Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trialEfeitos da estimulação elétrica nervosa transcutânea (TENS) e da corrente interferencial (CI) em pacientes com lombalgia crônica não específica: ensaio clínico randomizadoPhysical therapyRehabilitationElectric stimulation therapyBack painSpineFisioterapiaReabilitaçãoTerapia por estimulação elétricaDor nas costasColuna vertebralCONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current are the most used electrotherapy methods, although there is little scientific evidence to support their use. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of TENS and interferential current among patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Single-blind randomized controlled trial in the Department of Physiotherapy, Centro Universitário de Maringá. METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients were randomly divided into three groups: TENS (group 1), interferential current (group 2) and controls (group 3). The patients designated for electrotherapy received ten 30-minute sessions, while the control group remained untreated. All patients and controls were evaluated before and after treatment using a visual analog scale and the McGill Pain and Roland Morris questionnaires, and regarding their use of additional medications. RESULTS: There was a mean reduction on the visual analog scale of 39.18 mm with TENS, 44.86 mm with interferential current and 8.53 mm among the controls. In the Roland Morris questionnaire, group 1 had a mean reduction of 6.59; group 2, 7.20; and group 3, 0.70 points. In group 1, 84% of the patients stopped using medications after the treatment; in group 2, 75%; and in group 3, 34%. There was no statistically significant difference between the TENS and interferential current groups (P > 0.05); a difference was only found between these groups and the controls (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There was no difference between TENS and interferential current for chronic low back pain treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01017913.CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Estimulação elétrica nervosa transcutânea (TENS) e corrente interferencial são os métodos de eletroterapia mais utilizados, embora haja poucas evidências científicas que suportem seu uso. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar os efeitos da TENS e da corrente interferencial em pacientes com lombalgia crônica não específica. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Ensaio clínico randomizado, simples-cego, no Departamento de Fisioterapia do Centro Universitário de Maringá. MÉTODOS: Cento e cinquenta pacientes foram randomicamente divididos em três grupos: TENS (grupo 1), corrente interferencial (grupo 2) e controle (grupo 3). Os pacientes designados à eletroterapia receberam 10 sessões de 30 minutos, enquanto o grupo controle permaneceu sem tratamento. Todos os pacientes e os controles foram avaliados antes e depois do tratamento usando a escala visual analógica, os questionários McGill de dor e Roland Morris, e quanto ao uso de medicamentos. RESULTADOS: Houve redução média na escala visual analógica de 39,18 mm com TENS, de 44,86 mm com a corrente interferencial e 8.53 mm no grupo controle. No questionário Roland Morris, o grupo 1 teve redução média de 6,59, o grupo 2 de 7,20 e o grupo 3 de 0,70 pontos. 84% dos pacientes do primeiro grupo, 75% no segundo e 34% no terceiro grupo cessaram a medicação depois do tratamento. Não foi encontrada diferença estatisticamente quando comparados os grupos de TENS e corrente interferencial (P > 0,05), apenas quando comparados estes grupos com o controle (P < 0,0001). CONCLUSÕES: Não há diferença entre TENS e corrente interferencial no tratamento de pacientes com lombalgia crônica. REGISTRO DE ENSAIO CLÍNICO: NCT01017913.Centro Universitário de MaringáUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) Escola Paulista de MedicinaUNIFESP, EPMSciELOAssociação Paulista de Medicina - APMCentro Universitário de MaringáUniversidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)Facci, Ligia Maria [UNIFESP]Nowotny, Jean PaulusTormem, FabioTrevisani, Virgínia Fernandes Moça [UNIFESP]2015-06-14T13:42:45Z2015-06-14T13:42:45Z2011-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion206-216application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-31802011000400003São Paulo Medical Journal. Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM, v. 129, n. 4, p. 206-216, 2011.10.1590/S1516-31802011000400003S1516-31802011000400003.pdf1516-3180S1516-31802011000400003http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/6162engSão Paulo Medical Journalinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNIFESPinstname:Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)instacron:UNIFESP2024-08-05T01:55:52Zoai:repositorio.unifesp.br/:11600/6162Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://www.repositorio.unifesp.br/oai/requestbiblioteca.csp@unifesp.bropendoar:34652024-08-05T01:55:52Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
Efeitos da estimulação elétrica nervosa transcutânea (TENS) e da corrente interferencial (CI) em pacientes com lombalgia crônica não específica: ensaio clínico randomizado
title Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
spellingShingle Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
Facci, Ligia Maria [UNIFESP]
Physical therapy
Rehabilitation
Electric stimulation therapy
Back pain
Spine
Fisioterapia
Reabilitação
Terapia por estimulação elétrica
Dor nas costas
Coluna vertebral
title_short Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
title_full Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
title_fullStr Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
title_sort Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
author Facci, Ligia Maria [UNIFESP]
author_facet Facci, Ligia Maria [UNIFESP]
Nowotny, Jean Paulus
Tormem, Fabio
Trevisani, Virgínia Fernandes Moça [UNIFESP]
author_role author
author2 Nowotny, Jean Paulus
Tormem, Fabio
Trevisani, Virgínia Fernandes Moça [UNIFESP]
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Centro Universitário de Maringá
Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Facci, Ligia Maria [UNIFESP]
Nowotny, Jean Paulus
Tormem, Fabio
Trevisani, Virgínia Fernandes Moça [UNIFESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Physical therapy
Rehabilitation
Electric stimulation therapy
Back pain
Spine
Fisioterapia
Reabilitação
Terapia por estimulação elétrica
Dor nas costas
Coluna vertebral
topic Physical therapy
Rehabilitation
Electric stimulation therapy
Back pain
Spine
Fisioterapia
Reabilitação
Terapia por estimulação elétrica
Dor nas costas
Coluna vertebral
description CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current are the most used electrotherapy methods, although there is little scientific evidence to support their use. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of TENS and interferential current among patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Single-blind randomized controlled trial in the Department of Physiotherapy, Centro Universitário de Maringá. METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients were randomly divided into three groups: TENS (group 1), interferential current (group 2) and controls (group 3). The patients designated for electrotherapy received ten 30-minute sessions, while the control group remained untreated. All patients and controls were evaluated before and after treatment using a visual analog scale and the McGill Pain and Roland Morris questionnaires, and regarding their use of additional medications. RESULTS: There was a mean reduction on the visual analog scale of 39.18 mm with TENS, 44.86 mm with interferential current and 8.53 mm among the controls. In the Roland Morris questionnaire, group 1 had a mean reduction of 6.59; group 2, 7.20; and group 3, 0.70 points. In group 1, 84% of the patients stopped using medications after the treatment; in group 2, 75%; and in group 3, 34%. There was no statistically significant difference between the TENS and interferential current groups (P > 0.05); a difference was only found between these groups and the controls (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There was no difference between TENS and interferential current for chronic low back pain treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01017913.
publishDate 2011
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2011-01-01
2015-06-14T13:42:45Z
2015-06-14T13:42:45Z
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-31802011000400003
São Paulo Medical Journal. Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM, v. 129, n. 4, p. 206-216, 2011.
10.1590/S1516-31802011000400003
S1516-31802011000400003.pdf
1516-3180
S1516-31802011000400003
http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/6162
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-31802011000400003
http://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/6162
identifier_str_mv São Paulo Medical Journal. Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM, v. 129, n. 4, p. 206-216, 2011.
10.1590/S1516-31802011000400003
S1516-31802011000400003.pdf
1516-3180
S1516-31802011000400003
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv São Paulo Medical Journal
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 206-216
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
instname:Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
instacron:UNIFESP
instname_str Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
instacron_str UNIFESP
institution UNIFESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv biblioteca.csp@unifesp.br
_version_ 1814268349543088128