Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2011 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
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 |