Institute Neurolife.
Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, University Rey Juan Carlos.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Dec 18;99(51):e23785. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023785.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effectiveness of non-invasive neuro-adaptive electrostimulation (NAE) therapy for treating chronic pain and disability in patients with fibromyalgia. METHOD/DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, sham-controlled study was conducted in 37 women with fibromyalgia. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either active NAE (n = 20) or stimulation with a sham device (n = 17). Participants in the experimental arm received eight 30-minute sessions over 4 weeks (2 sessions per week). The sham group received eight 30-minute sessions of sham stimulation. Therapeutic effects on pain relief, disability, and quality of life were evaluated using outcome measures at baseline, at 4 weeks, and after 3 months' follow-up. RESULTS: The findings indicated a significant reduction of pain in the active NAE group compared with the sham group immediately post-intervention, with a difference on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of 3 points (P = .001), and at 3 months' follow-up (P = .02). There were significant intragroup differences between the groups (P < .05) at post-intervention. After the intervention, both groups presented significant reductions on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) with respect to baseline (P = .004), but not at the 3-month follow-up. In the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in thumb variable we found significant differences between the groups at the 3-month follow-up (P = .02). No additional benefits for conditioned pain modulation and disability were observed between groups at the 3-month follow-up. Furthermore, anxiety/depression and catastrophizing improved in both groups, but no differences between groups were found. CONCLUSIONS: In this fibromyalgia cohort, NAE therapy significantly improved pain and quality of life at 4 weeks, but not at 3-month follow-up, compared with the sham stimulation group. Future investigations are needed in larger populations to confirm these findings.
背景:评估非侵入性神经适应电刺激(NAE)疗法治疗纤维肌痛患者慢性疼痛和残疾的有效性。 方法/设计:在 37 名纤维肌痛女性患者中进行了一项前瞻性、随机、假对照研究。参与者被随机分配接受主动 NAE(n=20)或假设备刺激(n=17)。实验组接受 8 次 30 分钟的治疗,共 4 周(每周 2 次)。假刺激组接受 8 次 30 分钟的假刺激。使用基线、4 周和 3 个月随访时的结局测量评估治疗对缓解疼痛、残疾和生活质量的影响。 结果:研究结果表明,与假刺激组相比,主动 NAE 组在干预后即刻疼痛明显减轻,视觉模拟量表(VAS)差值为 3 分(P=0.001),且在 3 个月随访时仍有差异(P=0.02)。两组间在干预后存在显著的组内差异(P<0.05)。干预后,两组的纤维肌痛影响问卷(FIQ)均较基线显著降低(P=0.004),但在 3 个月随访时没有差异。在拇指条件疼痛调制(CPM)变量中,我们发现组间在 3 个月随访时有显著差异(P=0.02)。在 3 个月随访时,组间在条件疼痛调制和残疾方面没有观察到额外的获益。此外,两组的焦虑/抑郁和灾难化都有所改善,但组间无差异。 结论:在这个纤维肌痛队列中,与假刺激组相比,NAE 疗法在 4 周时显著改善了疼痛和生活质量,但在 3 个月随访时没有改善。需要在更大的人群中进行进一步的研究来证实这些发现。
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2012-12-14
Pain Med. 2010-6
Biomedicines. 2025-4-17
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022-9-23