Tugay Nazan, Akbayrak Türkan, Demirtürk Funda, Karakaya Ilkim Citak, Kocaacar Ozge, Tugay Umut, Karakaya Mehmet Gürhan, Demirtürk Fazli
Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Muğla School of Health Sciences, Muğla University, Muğla, Turkey.
Pain Med. 2007 May-Jun;8(4):295-300. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00308.x.
To compare the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current in primary dysmenorrhea.
A prospective, randomized, and controlled study.
Hacettepe University School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation.
Thirty-four volunteer subjects with primary dysmenorrhea (mean age: 21.35 +/- 1.70 years) were included. Statistical analyses were performed in 32 subjects who completed all measures.
Fifteen subjects received interferential current application for 20 minutes and 17 subjects received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for 20 minutes when they were experiencing dysmenorrhea.
Physical characteristics, years since menarche, length of menstrual cycle (days), and duration of menstruation (days) were recorded. Visual analog scale ( VAS) intensities of menstrual pain, referred lower limb pain, and low back pain were recorded before treatment, and immediately, 8 hours, and 24 hours after treatment.
Intensities of the evaluated parameters decreased beginning from just after the applications in both groups (P<0.05). Intensity of referring low back pain in first three measurement times was different between the groups (P<0.05), but this difference is thought to be due to the baseline values of the groups. So, it can be said that no superiority existed between the methods (P>0.05).
Both transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current appear to be effective in primary dysmenorrhea. As they are free from the potentially adverse effects of analgesics, and no adverse effects are reported in the literature nor observed in this study, a clinical trial of their effectiveness in comparison with untreated and placebo-treated control groups is warranted.
比较经皮电刺激神经疗法和干扰电流疗法对原发性痛经的疗效。
一项前瞻性、随机对照研究。
哈杰泰佩大学物理治疗与康复学院。
纳入34名原发性痛经志愿者受试者（平均年龄：21.35±1.70岁）。对完成所有测量的32名受试者进行统计分析。
15名受试者在痛经发作时接受20分钟的干扰电流治疗，17名受试者接受20分钟的经皮电刺激神经疗法治疗。
记录身体特征、初潮年龄、月经周期长度（天）和月经持续时间（天）。在治疗前、治疗后即刻、8小时和24小时记录痛经、下肢牵涉痛和腰痛的视觉模拟评分（VAS）强度。
两组在治疗后即刻，所评估参数的强度均开始下降（P<0.05）。两组在前三次测量时的腰痛牵涉痛强度存在差异（P<0.05），但这种差异被认为是由于两组的基线值不同所致。因此，可以说两种方法之间不存在优越性（P>0.05）。
经皮电刺激神经疗法和干扰电流疗法对原发性痛经似乎均有效。由于它们没有镇痛药的潜在不良反应，且文献中未报道也未在本研究中观察到不良反应，因此有必要开展一项与未治疗组和安慰剂治疗对照组相比其疗效的临床试验。
