Allen Christian B, Williamson Tyler K, Norwood Stephen M, Gupta Ashim
University of the Incarnate Word School of Osteopathic Medicine, San Antonio, TX, 78235, USA.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
Pain Ther. 2023 Dec;12(6):1339-1354. doi: 10.1007/s40122-023-00554-6. Epub 2023 Sep 26.
Multiple forms of electrical stimulation (ES) potentially offer widely varying clinical benefits. Diminished function commonly associated with acute and chronic pain lessens productivity and increases medical costs. This review aims to compare the relative effects of various forms of ES on functional and pain outcomes.
A comprehensive literature search focused on studies of commonly marketed forms of ES used for treatment of pain and improvement of function. Peer-reviewed manuscripts were categorized as "Important" (systematic review or meta-analysis, randomized controlled trial, observational cohort study) and "Minor" (retrospective case series, case report, opinion review) for each identified form of ES.
Varying forms of ES have markedly different technical parameters, applications, and indications, based on clinically meaningful impact on pain perception, function improvement, and medication reduction. Despite being around for decades, there is limited quality evidence for most forms of ES, although there are several notable exceptions for treatment of specific indications. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has well-demonstrated beneficial effects for rehabilitation of selective spinal cord injured (SCI), post-stroke, and debilitated inpatients. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) has similarly shown effectiveness in rehabilitation of some stroke, SCI, and foot drop outpatients. H-Wave device stimulation (HWDS) has moderate supportive evidence for treatment of acute and refractory chronic pain, consistently demonstrating improvements in function and pain measures across diverse populations. Interestingly, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), the most widely used form of ES, demonstrated insignificant or very low levels of pain and functional improvement.
Ten of 13 reviewed forms of ES have only limited quality evidence for clinically significant reduction of pain or improvement of function across different patient populations. NMES and FES have reasonably demonstrated effectiveness, albeit for specific clinical rehabilitation indications. HWDS was associated with the most clinically significant outcomes, in terms of functional improvement combined with reduction of pain and medication use. More rigorous long-term clinical trials are needed to further validate appropriate use and specific indications for most forms of ES.
II.
多种形式的电刺激(ES)可能带来广泛不同的临床益处。通常与急慢性疼痛相关的功能减退会降低生产力并增加医疗成本。本综述旨在比较各种形式的电刺激对功能和疼痛结局的相对影响。
进行全面的文献检索,重点关注用于治疗疼痛和改善功能的常见市售电刺激形式的研究。对于每种确定的电刺激形式,同行评审的手稿被分类为“重要”(系统评价或荟萃分析、随机对照试验、观察性队列研究)和“次要”(回顾性病例系列、病例报告、观点综述)。
基于对疼痛感知、功能改善和药物减少的临床有意义的影响,不同形式的电刺激具有明显不同的技术参数、应用和适应症。尽管已经存在数十年,但大多数形式的电刺激的高质量证据有限,不过在治疗特定适应症方面有几个显著的例外。神经肌肉电刺激(NMES)对选择性脊髓损伤(SCI)、中风后和虚弱住院患者的康复具有充分证明的有益效果。功能性电刺激(FES)在一些中风、SCI和足下垂门诊患者的康复中同样显示出有效性。H波装置刺激(HWDS)对急性和难治性慢性疼痛的治疗有中等支持证据,在不同人群中持续显示出功能和疼痛指标的改善。有趣的是,最广泛使用的电刺激形式经皮电刺激神经疗法(TENS)显示出微不足道或非常低水平的疼痛和功能改善。
在审查的13种电刺激形式中,有10种在不同患者群体中,对于临床上显著减轻疼痛或改善功能仅有有限的高质量证据。NMES和FES已合理证明有效,尽管是针对特定的临床康复适应症。就功能改善以及疼痛和药物使用减少而言,HWDS与最具临床意义的结局相关。需要更严格的长期临床试验来进一步验证大多数形式电刺激的适当使用和特定适应症。
II级