AIM: To determine the quantitative effect and technique of use of the anodal current for the treatment of palmoplantar hyperhidrosis on local areas of the palms and soles. METHODS: Twelve patients (four males and eight females) with idiopathic palmoplantar hyperhidrosis were enrolled in this study. Having determined the initial sweat intensities of both hands using the pad glove method, direct electrical current (d.c.) treatment was applied to the palms of the patients using a complete regulated d.c. unit for which the current and potential ranges were 0-30 mA and 0-90 V, respectively. Electrodes were placed into two separate water plates, and covered with pad made from gauze and cotton material. The pads were moisturized with tap water for current conduction. The anodal current was applied to the right hands of six patients (group I) and to the left hands of the remainder (group II). After seven treatments had been completed for the palms, the final sweat intensities of the hands were measured. RESULTS: In both groups, the final sweat intensities of the hands subjected to the anodal current were significantly decreased in comparison with the initial values, regardless of whether the anodal current was applied to the right or left hand (P < 0.05). In contrast, the final sweat intensities of the other hands subjected to the cathodal current were not significantly decreased (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that the anodal current is more effective in reducing sweating on the palms when applied either to the right or left hand. In the treatment of palmoplantar or localized hyperhidrosis, the anodal current should be referenced first to treat the sweatier hand or foot, or a local hyperhidrotic area of the skin. The selection of the anodal current for one hand for the first five or seven sessions appears to be more effective than the use of polarity changes for each session.
AIM: To determine the quantitative effect and technique of use of the anodal current for the treatment of palmoplantar hyperhidrosis on local areas of the palms and soles. METHODS: Twelve patients (four males and eight females) with idiopathic palmoplantar hyperhidrosis were enrolled in this study. Having determined the initial sweat intensities of both hands using the pad glove method, direct electrical current (d.c.) treatment was applied to the palms of the patients using a complete regulated d.c. unit for which the current and potential ranges were 0-30 mA and 0-90 V, respectively. Electrodes were placed into two separate water plates, and covered with pad made from gauze and cotton material. The pads were moisturized with tapwater for current conduction. The anodal current was applied to the right hands of six patients (group I) and to the left hands of the remainder (group II). After seven treatments had been completed for the palms, the final sweat intensities of the hands were measured. RESULTS: In both groups, the final sweat intensities of the hands subjected to the anodal current were significantly decreased in comparison with the initial values, regardless of whether the anodal current was applied to the right or left hand (P < 0.05). In contrast, the final sweat intensities of the other hands subjected to the cathodal current were not significantly decreased (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that the anodal current is more effective in reducing sweating on the palms when applied either to the right or left hand. In the treatment of palmoplantar or localized hyperhidrosis, the anodal current should be referenced first to treat the sweatier hand or foot, or a local hyperhidrotic area of the skin. The selection of the anodal current for one hand for the first five or seven sessions appears to be more effective than the use of polarity changes for each session.