Ghoname E A, Craig W F, White P F, Ahmed H E, Hamza M A, Henderson B N, Gajraj N M, Huber P J, Gatchel R J
Eugene McDermott Center for Pain Management, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas 75235-9068, USA.
JAMA. 1999 Mar 3;281(9):818-23. doi: 10.1001/jama.281.9.818.
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.
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.
A randomized, single-blinded, sham-controlled, crossover study from March 1997 to December 1997.
An ambulatory pain management center at a university medical center.
Twenty-nine men and 31 women with LBP secondary to degenerative disk disease.
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.
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).
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.
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.
在美国,腰痛(LBP)导致了相当严重的残疾和工资损失。常用的阿片类和非阿片类镇痛药会产生不良反应,并且在治疗这类患者群体时长期益处有限。
比较一种新型非药物疼痛治疗方法——经皮电神经刺激(PENS)与经皮神经电刺激(TENS)以及屈伸运动疗法对长期腰痛患者的有效性。
1997年3月至1997年12月进行的一项随机、单盲、假对照、交叉研究。
一所大学医学中心的门诊疼痛管理中心。
29名男性和31名女性,患有因椎间盘退变引起的腰痛。
四种治疗方式(假PENS、PENS、TENS和运动疗法),每种方式每周进行3次,每次30分钟,共持续3周。
治疗前和治疗后疼痛、身体活动及睡眠质量的视觉模拟评分(VAS);每日镇痛药使用量;一份整体患者评估问卷;以及健康状况调查简表(SF - 36)。
每次治疗后,PENS在降低VAS疼痛评分方面比假PENS、TENS和运动疗法显著更有效(治疗后疼痛的VAS平均±标准差分别为3.4±1.4厘米、5.5±1.9厘米、5.6±1.9厘米和6.4±1.9厘米)。与假PENS、TENS和运动疗法相比,PENS使非阿片类镇痛药的每日平均口服摄入量(每天2.6±1.4片)降至每天1.3±1.0片(P<0.008),假PENS、TENS和运动疗法分别为每天2.5±1.1片、2.2±1.0片和2.6±1.2片。与其他三种方式相比,91%的患者报告PENS在减轻腰痛方面最有效。PENS疗法在改善身体活动、睡眠质量和幸福感方面也显著更有效(每项P<0.05)。SF - 36调查证实,与假PENS、TENS和运动疗法相比PENS在治疗后改善功能更明显。
在这项假对照研究中,PENS在为长期腰痛患者提供短期疼痛缓解和改善身体功能方面比TENS或运动疗法更有效。