Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Facci, Ligia Maria
Publication Date: 2011
Other Authors: Nowotny, Jean Paulus, Tormem, Fabio, Trevisani, Virgínia Fernandes Moça
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: São Paulo medical journal (Online)
Download full: https://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1608
Summary: CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current are the most used electrotherapy methods, although there is little scientific evidence to support their use. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of TENS and interferential current among patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Single-blind randomized controlled trial in the Department of Physiotherapy, Centro Universitário de Maringá. METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients were randomly divided into three groups: TENS (group 1), interferential current (group 2) and controls (group 3). The patients designated for electrotherapy received ten 30-minute sessions, while the control group remained untreated. All patients and controls were evaluated before and after treatment using a visual analog scale and the McGill Pain and Roland Morris questionnaires, and regarding their use of additional medications. RESULTS: There was a mean reduction on the visual analog scale of 39.18 mm with TENS, 44.86 mm with interferential current and 8.53 mm among the controls. In the Roland Morris questionnaire, group 1 had a mean reduction of 6.59; group 2, 7.20; and group 3, 0.70 points. In group 1, 84% of the patients stopped using medications after the treatment; in group 2, 75%; and in group 3, 34%. There was no statistically significant difference between the TENS and interferential current groups (P > 0.05); a difference was only found between these groups and the controls (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There was no difference between TENS and interferential current for chronic low back pain treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01017913.
id APM-1_07b99bb2e66ee18840d58d2a5f6417ea
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.diagnosticoetratamento.emnuvens.com.br:article/1608
network_acronym_str APM-1
network_name_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trialEfeitos da estimulação elétrica nervosa transcutânea (TENS) e da corrente interferencial (CI) em pacientes com lombalgia crônica não específica: ensaio clínico randomizadoFisioterapia (especialidade)ReabilitaçãoTerapia por estimulação elétricaDor nas costasColuna vertebralPhysical therapy (specialty)RehabilitationElectric stimulation therapyBack painSpineCONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current are the most used electrotherapy methods, although there is little scientific evidence to support their use. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of TENS and interferential current among patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Single-blind randomized controlled trial in the Department of Physiotherapy, Centro Universitário de Maringá. METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients were randomly divided into three groups: TENS (group 1), interferential current (group 2) and controls (group 3). The patients designated for electrotherapy received ten 30-minute sessions, while the control group remained untreated. All patients and controls were evaluated before and after treatment using a visual analog scale and the McGill Pain and Roland Morris questionnaires, and regarding their use of additional medications. RESULTS: There was a mean reduction on the visual analog scale of 39.18 mm with TENS, 44.86 mm with interferential current and 8.53 mm among the controls. In the Roland Morris questionnaire, group 1 had a mean reduction of 6.59; group 2, 7.20; and group 3, 0.70 points. In group 1, 84% of the patients stopped using medications after the treatment; in group 2, 75%; and in group 3, 34%. There was no statistically significant difference between the TENS and interferential current groups (P > 0.05); a difference was only found between these groups and the controls (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There was no difference between TENS and interferential current for chronic low back pain treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01017913.CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Estimulação elétrica nervosa transcutânea (TENS) e corrente interferencial são os métodos de eletroterapia mais utilizados, embora haja poucas evidências científicas que suportem seu uso. O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar os efeitos da TENS e da corrente interferencial em pacientes com lombalgia crônica não específica. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Ensaio clínico randomizado, simples-cego, no Departamento de Fisioterapia do Centro Universitário de Maringá. MÉTODOS: Cento e cinquenta pacientes foram randomicamente divididos em três grupos: TENS (grupo 1), corrente interferencial (grupo 2) e controle (grupo 3). Os pacientes designados à eletroterapia receberam 10 sessões de 30 minutos, enquanto o grupo controle permaneceu sem tratamento. Todos os pacientes e os controles foram avaliados antes e depois do tratamento usando a escala visual analógica, os questionários McGill de dor e Roland Morris, e quanto ao uso de medicamentos. RESULTADOS: Houve redução média na escala visual analógica de 39,18 mm com TENS, de 44,86 mm com a corrente interferencial e 8.53 mm no grupo controle. No questionário Roland Morris, o grupo 1 teve redução média de 6,59, o grupo 2 de 7,20 e o grupo 3 de 0,70 pontos. 84% dos pacientes do primeiro grupo, 75% no segundo e 34% no terceiro grupo cessaram a medicação depois do tratamento. Não foi encontrada diferença estatisticamente quando comparados os grupos de TENS e corrente interferencial (P > 0,05), apenas quando comparados estes grupos com o controle (P < 0,0001). CONCLUSÕES: Não há diferença entre TENS e corrente interferencial no tratamento de pacientes com lombalgia crônica. REGISTRO DE ENSAIO CLÍNICO: NCT01017913.São Paulo Medical JournalSão Paulo Medical Journal2011-07-07info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1608São Paulo Medical Journal; Vol. 129 No. 4 (2011); 206-216São Paulo Medical Journal; v. 129 n. 4 (2011); 206-2161806-9460reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)instname:Associação Paulista de Medicinainstacron:APMenghttps://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1608/1503https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFacci, Ligia MariaNowotny, Jean PaulusTormem, FabioTrevisani, Virgínia Fernandes Moça2023-09-08T19:37:30Zoai:ojs.diagnosticoetratamento.emnuvens.com.br:article/1608Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/spmjPUBhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phprevistas@apm.org.br1806-94601516-3180opendoar:2023-09-08T19:37:30São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicinafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
Efeitos da estimulação elétrica nervosa transcutânea (TENS) e da corrente interferencial (CI) em pacientes com lombalgia crônica não específica: ensaio clínico randomizado
title Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
spellingShingle Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
Facci, Ligia Maria
Fisioterapia (especialidade)
Reabilitação
Terapia por estimulação elétrica
Dor nas costas
Coluna vertebral
Physical therapy (specialty)
Rehabilitation
Electric stimulation therapy
Back pain
Spine
title_short Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
title_full Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
title_fullStr Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
title_full_unstemmed Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
title_sort Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial
author Facci, Ligia Maria
author_facet Facci, Ligia Maria
Nowotny, Jean Paulus
Tormem, Fabio
Trevisani, Virgínia Fernandes Moça
author_role author
author2 Nowotny, Jean Paulus
Tormem, Fabio
Trevisani, Virgínia Fernandes Moça
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Facci, Ligia Maria
Nowotny, Jean Paulus
Tormem, Fabio
Trevisani, Virgínia Fernandes Moça
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Fisioterapia (especialidade)
Reabilitação
Terapia por estimulação elétrica
Dor nas costas
Coluna vertebral
Physical therapy (specialty)
Rehabilitation
Electric stimulation therapy
Back pain
Spine
topic Fisioterapia (especialidade)
Reabilitação
Terapia por estimulação elétrica
Dor nas costas
Coluna vertebral
Physical therapy (specialty)
Rehabilitation
Electric stimulation therapy
Back pain
Spine
description CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current are the most used electrotherapy methods, although there is little scientific evidence to support their use. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of TENS and interferential current among patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Single-blind randomized controlled trial in the Department of Physiotherapy, Centro Universitário de Maringá. METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients were randomly divided into three groups: TENS (group 1), interferential current (group 2) and controls (group 3). The patients designated for electrotherapy received ten 30-minute sessions, while the control group remained untreated. All patients and controls were evaluated before and after treatment using a visual analog scale and the McGill Pain and Roland Morris questionnaires, and regarding their use of additional medications. RESULTS: There was a mean reduction on the visual analog scale of 39.18 mm with TENS, 44.86 mm with interferential current and 8.53 mm among the controls. In the Roland Morris questionnaire, group 1 had a mean reduction of 6.59; group 2, 7.20; and group 3, 0.70 points. In group 1, 84% of the patients stopped using medications after the treatment; in group 2, 75%; and in group 3, 34%. There was no statistically significant difference between the TENS and interferential current groups (P > 0.05); a difference was only found between these groups and the controls (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There was no difference between TENS and interferential current for chronic low back pain treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01017913.
publishDate 2011
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2011-07-07
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1608
url https://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1608
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicosapm.emnuvens.com.br/spmj/article/view/1608/1503
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv São Paulo Medical Journal
São Paulo Medical Journal
publisher.none.fl_str_mv São Paulo Medical Journal
São Paulo Medical Journal
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv São Paulo Medical Journal; Vol. 129 No. 4 (2011); 206-216
São Paulo Medical Journal; v. 129 n. 4 (2011); 206-216
1806-9460
reponame:São Paulo medical journal (Online)
instname:Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron:APM
instname_str Associação Paulista de Medicina
instacron_str APM
institution APM
reponame_str São Paulo medical journal (Online)
collection São Paulo medical journal (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv São Paulo medical journal (Online) - Associação Paulista de Medicina
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revistas@apm.org.br
_version_ 1825135066080083968