Francis Richard P, Marchant Paul, Johnson Mark I
Centre for Pain Research, Faculty of Health, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK.
Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2011 Sep;31(5):363-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-097X.2011.01025.x. Epub 2011 Apr 18.
To compare the hypoalgesic effects of conventional transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (high frequency, low intensity) and acupuncture-like TENS (AL-TENS, low frequency, high intensity) on cold-induced pain.
Randomized controlled parallel group study comparing the effects of strong non-painful AL-TENS, conventional TENS and placebo (no current) TENS on cold-pressor pain threshold (CPT) and pain intensity. Two baseline (pre-intervention) measures and three during intervention measures of CPT and cold pain intensity (four point category scale) were recorded.
Physiology laboratory in Leeds Metropolitan University.
One hundred and twenty-one healthy participants.
Each participant received one of three TENS interventions over their flexor digitorum profundus: (i) high pulse rate TENS with a strong non-painful paraesthesia (conventional), (ii) low-rate burst mode TENS that caused strong non-painful phasic muscle twitching (acupuncture like) or (iii) no current (placebo) TENS.
Difference between conventional TENS and AL-TENS in cold pain threshold relative to pre-TENS baseline after 25 min of stimulation.
No differences were detected for CPT or cold pain intensity during conventional TENS compared with AL-TENS. When compared with placebo TENS, the confidence intervals for the ratio of intervention CPT to baseline CPT, for both AL-TENS (0·966, 1·424) and conventional TENS (0·948, 1·401), were close to the positive side of one, although neither reached statistical significance.
Unlike some previous studies, the present study detected no differences in hypoalgesia between AL-TENS, conventional TENS and placebo (no current) TENS during stimulation.
比较传统经皮电刺激神经疗法(TENS,高频、低强度)和类针刺TENS(AL-TENS,低频、高强度)对冷诱导疼痛的镇痛效果。
随机对照平行组研究,比较强非痛性AL-TENS、传统TENS和安慰剂(无电流)TENS对冷加压痛阈(CPT)和疼痛强度的影响。记录了两项基线(干预前)测量以及CPT和冷痛强度(四点分类量表)的三项干预期间测量值。
利兹都市大学的生理学实验室。
121名健康参与者。
每位参与者在其指深屈肌上接受三种TENS干预之一:(i)高脉冲率TENS,伴有强非痛性异常感觉(传统型),(ii)低频率爆发模式TENS,可引起强非痛性阶段性肌肉抽搐(类针刺),或(iii)无电流(安慰剂)TENS。
刺激25分钟后,传统TENS和AL-TENS在冷痛阈方面相对于TENS前基线的差异。
与AL-TENS相比,传统TENS期间的CPT或冷痛强度未发现差异。与安慰剂TENS相比,AL-TENS(0·966,1·424)和传统TENS(0·948,1·401)的干预CPT与基线CPT之比的置信区间均接近1的正值,尽管两者均未达到统计学显著性。
与之前的一些研究不同,本研究未发现刺激期间AL-TENS、传统TENS和安慰剂(无电流)TENS在镇痛方面存在差异。