Search

Background: Photobiomodulation (PBM) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) are used to reduce neck pain., Objective: To investigate the immediate and 1-month post-treatment effects of 10 treatment sessions of PBM and TENS delivered over 2 weeks on pain intensity in individuals with neck pain., Methods: Individuals with neck pain were randomized into four groups: PBM+TENS, PBM, TENS, and Sham., Primary Outcome: pain intensity at rest., Secondary Outcomes: pain intensity during movement, pressure pain threshold (PPT), temporal summation (TS), conditioned pain modulation (CPM), cervical range of motion (ROM), psychosocial factors, drug intake for neck pain, and global perceived effect (GPE). All outcome assessments were made pre- and post-treatment. Mean differences and 95 % confidence intervals were calculated for between-group comparisons., Results: A total of 144 participants were recruited. No significant between-group difference was observed for pain intensity at rest, TS, CPM, ROM, psychosocial factors, and drug intake. The PBM+TENS showed a reduction in pain intensity during movement and GPE compared to the PBM (MD: 1.0 points; 95 % CI: 0.0, 2.0; MD: 2.0 points; 95 % CI: 1.0, 3.0) and Sham (MD: 2.0 points; 95 % CI: 1.0, 3.0; MD: 2.0 points; 95 % CI: 1.0, 3.0) groups. PBM+TENS presented a medium effect size to increase local PPT compared to PBM and Sham groups. TENS presented a medium effect size to increase local PPT compared to PBM and Sham groups. TENS presented a medium effect size to increase distant PPT compared to other groups., Conclusions: The use of PBM or TENS was not effective for reducing pain intensity at rest. The combination of PBM and TENS was effective in improving pain intensity during movement, local hyperalgesia, and the GPE. TENS reduced local and distant hyperalgesia., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest We hereby certify that no party with a direct interest in the results of the research that supports this article has or will confer benefits on us or any organization with which we are affiliated., (Copyright © 2024. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U.)

Background: There is no systematic review assessing the effectiveness of interferential current (IC) in patients with low back pain., Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of IC in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain., Methods: The databases PUBMED, EMBASE, PEDro, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and SCIELO were searched. Randomized controlled trials reporting pain intensity and disability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain, in which IC was applied were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the quality of evidence., Results: Thirteen RCTs were considered eligible for this systematic review (pooled n = 1367). Main results showed moderate-quality evidence and moderate effect sizes that IC probably reduces pain intensity and disability compared to placebo immediately post-treatment (Pain: MD = -1.57 points; 95% CI -2.17, -0.98; Disability: MD = -1.51 points; 95% CI -2.57, -0.46), but not at intermediate-term follow-up. Low-quality evidence with small effect size showed that IC may reduce pain intensity (SMD = -0.32; 95% CI -0.61, -0.03, p = 0.03) compared to TENS immediately post-treatment, but not for disability. There is very low-quality evidence that IC combined with other interventions (massage or exercises) may not further reduce pain intensity and disability compared to the other interventions provided in isolation immediately post-treatment., Conclusion: Moderate-quality evidence shows that IC is probably better than placebo for reducing pain intensity and disability immediately post-treatment in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Richard Eloin Liebano is co-author of studies included in the present review. All other authors have no conflict of interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current have been widely used in clinical practice. However, a systematic review comparing their effects on pain relief has not yet been performed., Objectives: To investigate the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current on acute and chronic pain., Methods: We use Pubmed, Embase, LILACS, PEDro and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials as data sources. Two independent reviewers that selected studies according to inclusion criteria, extracted information of interest and verified the methodological quality of the studies made study selection. The studies were selected if transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current were used as treatment and they had pain as the main outcome, as evaluated by a visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes were the Western Ontario Macmaster and Rolland Morris Disability questionnaires, which were added after data extraction., Results: Eight studies with a pooled sample of 825 patients were included. The methodological quality of the selected studies was moderate, with an average of six on a 0-10 scale (PEDro). In general, both transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current improved pain and functional outcomes without a statistical difference between them., Conclusion: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current have similar effects on pain outcome The low number of studies included in this meta-analysis indicates that new clinical trials are needed., (Copyright © 2018 Associação Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação em Fisioterapia. Publicado por Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To verify the efficacy of high voltage pulsed current in collagen realignment and synthesis and in angiogenesis after the partial rupturing of the Achilles tendon in rats., Method: Forty male Wistar rats were randomized into four groups of 10 animals each: sham, cathodic stimulation, anodic stimulation, and alternating stimulation. Their Achilles tendons were submitted to direct trauma by a free-falling metal bar. Then, the treatment was administered for six consecutive days after the injury. In the simulation group, the electrodes were positioned on the animal, but the device remained off for 30 minutes. The other groups used a frequency of 120 pps, sensory threshold, and the corresponding polarity. On the seventh day, the tendons were removed and sent for histological slide preparation for birefringence and Picrosirius Red analysis and for blood vessel quantification., Results: No significant difference was observed among the groups regarding collagen realignment (types I or III collagen) or quantity of blood vessels., Conclusion: High voltage pulsed current for six consecutive days was not effective in collagen realignment, synthesis, or angiogenesis after the partial rupturing of the Achilles tendon in rats.

Background: Tendon injury is one of the most frequent injuries in sports activities. TENS is a physical agent used in the treatment of pain but its influence on the tendon's healing process is unclear., Objective: To evaluate the influence of TENS on the healing of partial rupture of the Achilles tendon in rats., Method: Sixty Wistar rats were submitted to a partial rupture of the Achilles tendon by direct trauma and randomized into six groups (TENS or Sham stimulation) and the time of evaluation (7, 14, and 21 days post-injury). Burst TENS was applied for 30 minutes, 6 days, 100 Hz frequency, 2 Hz burst frequency, 200 µs pulse duration, and 300 ms pulse train duration. Microscopic analyses were performed to quantify the blood vessels and mast cells, birefringence to quantify collagen fiber alignment, and immunohistochemistry to quantify types I and III collagen fibers., Results: A significant interaction was observed for collagen type I (p=0.020) where the TENS group presented lower percentage in 14 days after the lesion (p=0.33). The main group effect showed that the TENS group presented worse collagen fiber alignment (p=0.001) and lower percentage of collagen III (p=0.001) and the main time effect (p=0.001) showed decreased percentage of collagen III at 7 days (p=0.001) and 14 days (p=0.001) after lesion when compared to 21 days., Conclusions: Burst TENS inhibited collagen I and III production and impaired its alignment during healing of partial rupture of the Achilles tendon in rats.

Background: Although a number of studies have compared the influence of different electrical pulse parameters on maximum electrically induced torque (MEIT) and discomfort, the role of phase duration has been poorly investigated., Objective: To examine the variation in muscle torque and discomfort produced when electrically stimulating quadriceps femoris using pulsed current with three different phase durations in order to establish whether there are any advantages or disadvantages in varying the phase duration over the range examined., Method: This is a two repeated-measures, within-subject study conducted in a research laboratory. The study was divided into 2 parts with 19 healthy young adults in each part.In part 1, MEIT was determined for each phase duration (400, 700, and 1000 µs), using a biphasic pulsed current at a frequency of 50 Hz. In part 2, stimulus amplitude was increased until the contractions reached 40% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and the associated discomfort produced by each phase duration was measured., Results: In part 1 of the study, we found that the average MEITs generated with each phase duration (400, 700, and 1000 µs) were 55.0, 56.3, and 58.0% of MVIC respectively, but the differences were not statistically significant (p=.45). In part 2, we found a statistically significant increase in discomfort over the same range of phase durations. The results indicate that, for a given level of torque production, discomfort increases with increasing phase duration (p=.008)., Conclusions: Greater muscle torque cannot be produced by increasing the stimulus phase duration over the range examined. Greater discomfort is produced by increasing the stimulus phase duration.