Suppr超能文献

经皮电神经刺激和经皮脊髓电镇痛:一项基于疗效和机制的初步研究。

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and transcutaneous spinal electroanalgesia: a preliminary efficacy and mechanisms-based investigation.

作者信息

Palmer Shea, Cramp Fiona, Propert Kate, Godfrey Helen

机构信息

School of Health and Social Care, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of the West of England, Blackberry Hill, Bristol BS16 1DD, UK.

出版信息

Physiotherapy. 2009 Sep;95(3):185-91. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2009.04.008. Epub 2009 Jul 15.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and transcutaneous spinal electroanalgesia (TSE) on mechanical pain threshold (MPT) and vibration threshold (VT).

DESIGN

A prospective, single-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Laboratory based.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-four healthy volunteers (12 men and 22 women; mean age+/-standard deviation 30+/-8 years). Exclusion criteria were conditions affecting upper limb sensation and contraindications to electrical stimulation.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were allocated at random to receive TENS (n=8), TSE (n=8), placebo (n=9) or control (n=9). Electrical stimulation was applied for 30 minutes (from time 18 minutes to 48 minutes) via electrodes (5 cmx5 cm) placed centrally above and below the space between the C6 and C7 spinous processes, with 5 cm between electrodes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

MPT (using an algometer) and VT (using a vibrameter) were recorded on seven occasions from the first dorsal interosseous muscle of the right hand - at baseline (0 minutes) and then at 10-minute intervals until the end of the 60-minute testing period.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant group differences in MPT (all p>0.05). Significant group differences in VT were found at 20, 30 and 40 minutes (all p<0.05). Post-hoc tests showed that the TENS group had significantly greater VT than both the placebo [median difference 0.30 microm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.05 to 0.66] and control (0.51 microm, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.97) groups at 20 minutes, and significantly greater VT than the control group (0.69 microm, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.17) at 30 minutes (all p<0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Electrical stimulation did not alter MPT. The increase in VT during TENS may be due to distraction or antidromic block of large-diameter nerve fibres. TSE failed to alter either outcome measure significantly.

摘要

目的

确定经皮电刺激神经疗法(TENS)和经皮脊髓电刺激镇痛法(TSE)对机械痛阈(MPT)和振动阈(VT)的影响。

设计

一项前瞻性、单盲、随机、安慰剂对照试验。

设置

基于实验室。

参与者

34名健康志愿者(12名男性和22名女性;平均年龄±标准差30±8岁)。排除标准为影响上肢感觉的疾病和电刺激的禁忌证。

干预措施

参与者被随机分配接受TENS(n = 8)、TSE(n = 8)、安慰剂(n = 9)或对照(n = 9)。通过置于C6和C7棘突间隙中央上方和下方的电极(5 cm×5 cm)施加电刺激30分钟(从第18分钟至48分钟),电极间距为5 cm。

主要观察指标

在右手第一背侧骨间肌上进行7次测量,记录MPT(使用痛觉计)和VT(使用振动计)——在基线(0分钟)时测量,然后每隔10分钟测量一次,直至60分钟测试期结束。

结果

MPT在组间无统计学显著差异(所有p>0.05)。在20、30和40分钟时,VT在组间存在显著差异(所有p<0.05)。事后检验显示,在20分钟时,TENS组的VT显著高于安慰剂组[中位数差异0.30微米,95%置信区间(CI)-0.05至0.66]和对照组(0.51微米,95%CI 0.05至0.97);在30分钟时,TENS组的VT显著高于对照组(0.69微米,95%CI 0.20至1.17)(所有p<0.008)。

结论

电刺激未改变MPT。TENS期间VT的增加可能是由于注意力分散或大直径神经纤维的逆向阻断。TSE未能显著改变任何一项观察指标。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验