Literature DB >> 28017706

Effect of Unmodulated 5-kHz Alternating Currents Versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Mechanical and Thermal Pain, Tactile Threshold, and Peripheral Nerve Conduction: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Crossover Trial.

Juan Avendaño-Coy1, Julio Gómez-Soriano2, Carlos Goicoechea-García3, Julian Angel Basco-López2, Julian Taylor4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of unmodulated 5-kHz alternating current on mechanical pain threshold (MPT), heat pain threshold (HPT), tactile threshold (TT), and peripheral nerve conduction (PNC) compared with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and sham stimulation.
SETTING: National referral center.
DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial. PARTICIPANTS: Healthy volunteers (N=38). No dropouts or adverse events were reported. INTERVENTION: TENS, unmodulated 5-kHz currents, and sham stimulation were applied on the radial nerve for 20 minutes with a 24-hour washout period between them and concealed intervention allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Four measures were taken: before, during, and 2 after the interventions. Algometry was used to assess MPT, a Peltier thermode for HPT using the method of limits, Von Frey filaments for TT, and radial nerve compound action potential.
RESULTS: No differences were observed on MPT, HPT, and PNC when 5-kHz current and TENS were compared. However, TT increased 56.2mN (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.8-83.6) in the TENS group compared with the 5-kHz current group during intervention. Compared with sham stimulation during intervention, MPT increased 4.7N (95% CI, 0.3-9.2) using 5-kHz current and 10.4N (95% CI, 3.5-17.3) with TENS. TT increased 17.2mN (95% CI, 4.7-29.7) with 5-kHz current and 73.4mN (95% CI, 47.5-99.2) with TENS. However, HPT increased 1.0°C (95% CI, 0.2-2.0) only with TENS. For the PNC, no differences were found among the 3 groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Unmodulated 5-kHz current produced an increase in somatosensory thresholds that was greater than placebo but not when compared with TENS; however, participants perceived 5-kHz currents to be more comfortable and showed more habituation to them.
Copyright © 2016 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electric stimulation; Neural conduction; Pain threshold; Rehabilitation; Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28017706     DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.11.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  7 in total

1.  Technical development of transcutaneous electrical nerve inhibition using medium-frequency alternating current.

Authors:  Yushin Kim; Hang-Jun Cho; Hyung-Soon Park
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2018-08-20       Impact factor: 4.262

2.  Effect of high-frequency alternating current transcutaneous stimulation over muscle strength: a controlled pilot study.

Authors:  Diego Serrano-Muñoz; Juan Avendaño-Coy; Cristina Simón-Martínez; Julian Taylor; Julio Gómez-Soriano
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 4.262

3.  20-kHz alternating current stimulation: effects on motor and somatosensory thresholds.

Authors:  Diego Serrano-Muñoz; Juan Avendaño-Coy; Cristina Simón-Martínez; Julian Taylor; Julio Gómez-Soriano
Journal:  J Neuroeng Rehabil       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 4.262

4.  Effect of Percutaneous Electric Stimulation with High-Frequency Alternating Currents on the Sensory-Motor System of Healthy Volunteers: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study.

Authors:  David Martín-Caro Álvarez; Diego Serrano-Muñoz; Juan José Fernández-Pérez; Julio Gómez-Soriano; Juan Avendaño-Coy
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 4.241

5.  Use of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for the Recovery of Oral Function after Orthognathic Surgery.

Authors:  Alberto Cacho; Cristina Tordera; César Colmenero
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 4.964

6.  Transcutaneous electrical nerve inhibition using medium frequency alternating current.

Authors:  Seppe Maris; Michiel Brands; Daniele Lenskens; Geert Braeken; Stefan Kemnitz; Herbert Vanhove; Myles Mc Laughlin; Raf Meesen; Bert Brône; Björn Stessel
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 4.996

7.  Intensity matters: Therapist-dependent dose of spinal transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

Authors:  Diego Serrano-Muñoz; Julio Gómez-Soriano; Elisabeth Bravo-Esteban; María Vázquez-Fariñas; Julian Taylor; Juan Avendaño-Coy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.