Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: a novel analgesic therapy for diabetic neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) in the management of patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 50 adult patients with type 2 diabetes and peripheral neuropathic pain of >6 months duration involving the lower extremities were randomly assigned to receive active PENS (needles with electrical stimulation at an alternating frequency of 15 and 30 Hz) and sham (needles only) treatments for 3 weeks. Each series of treatments was administered for 30 min three times a week according to a standardized protocol. After a 1-week washout period, all patients were subsequently switched to the other modality. A 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess pain, physical activity, and quality of sleep before each session. The changes in VAS scores and daily requirements for oral analgesic medication were determined during each 3-week treatment period. Patients completed the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Profile of Mood States (POMS) before and after completion of each treatment modality. At the end of the crossover study, a patient preference questionnaire was used to compare the effectiveness of the two modalities. RESULTS: Compared with the pain VAS scores before active (6.2 +/- 1.0) and sham (6.4 +/- 0.9) treatments, pain scores after treatment were reduced to 2.5 +/- 0.8 and 6.3 +/- 1.1, respectively. With active PENS treatment, the VAS activity and sleep scores were significantly improved from 5.2 +/- 1.0 and 5.8 +/- 1.3 to 7.9 +/- 1.0 and 8.3 +/- 0.7, respectively. The VAS scores for pain, activity, and sleep were unchanged from baseline values after the sham treatments. Patients' daily oral nonopioid analgesic requirements decreased by 49 and 14% after active and sham PENS treatments, respectively. The post-treatment physical and mental components of the SF-36, the BDI, and the POMS all showed a significantly greater improvement with active versus sham treatments. Active PENS treatment improved the neuropathic pain symptoms in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: PENS is a useful nonpharmacological therapeutic modality for treating diabetic neuropathic pain. In addition to decreasing extremity pain, PENS therapy improved physical activity, sense of well-being, and quality of sleep while reducing the need for oral nonopioid analgesic medication.

Use of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) in the short-term management of headache.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short-term effects of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) in the management of three types of chronic headache. BACKGROUND: Traditional electroanalgesic therapies have been reported to be effective in the management of acute headache symptoms. However, no controlled studies have been performed in patients with chronic headache. METHODS: Thirty patients with either tension headache, migraine, or posttraumatic headache symptoms of at least 6 months' duration were randomized to receive PENS (needles with electricity) or "needles alone" according to a crossover study design. All treatments were administered for 30 minutes, three times a week for 2 consecutive weeks with 1 week off between the two different treatments. For the PENS treatments, an alternating electrical stimulation frequency of 15 and 30 Hz was used. Pain, activity, and sleep scores were assessed using a 10-cm visual analog scale, with 0 corresponding to the best and 10 to the worst, during the 48-hour period prior to the beginning of the two treatments, immediately before and after each treatment session, and 48 hours after completing each treatment modality. RESULTS: Compared with the needles alone, PENS therapy was significantly more effective in decreasing the overall VAS pain scores for tension-type headache, migraine and posttraumatic headache (58%, 59%, and 52% versus 20%, 15%, and 20%, respectively). Similarly, PENS therapy produced greater improvement in the patients' physical activity (41% to 58% for PENS versus 11% to 21% for needles only) and quality of sleep (41% to 48% for PENS versus 12% to 20% for needles only). However, there were no differences in the pattern of the response to PENS therapy among the three headache groups. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation appears to be a useful complementary therapy to analgesic and antimigraine drugs for the short-term management of headache. Interestingly, the analgesic response to PENS therapy appears to be independent of the origin of the headache symptoms.

The effect of stimulus frequency on the analgesic response to percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with chronic low back pain.

UNLABELLED: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common medical problems in our society. Increasingly, patients are turning to nonpharmacologic analgesic therapies such as percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS). We designed this sham-controlled study to compare the effect of three different frequencies of electrical stimulation on the analgesic response to PENS therapy. Sixty-eight consenting patients with LBP secondary to degenerative lumbar disc disease were treated with PENS therapy at 4 Hz, alternating 15 Hz and 30 Hz (15/30 Hz), and 100 Hz, as well as sham-PENS (0 Hz), according to a randomized, cross-over study design. Each treatment was administered for a period of 30 min three times per week for 2 wk. The pre- and posttreatment assessments included the health status survey short form and visual analog scales for pain, physical activity, and quality of sleep. After receiving all four treatments, patients completed a global assessment questionnaire. The sham-PENS treatments failed to produce changes in the degree of pain, physical activity, sleep quality, or daily intake of oral analgesic medications. In contrast, 4-Hz, 15/30-Hz, and 100-Hz stimulation all produced significant decreases in the severity of pain, increases in physical activity, improvements in the quality of sleep, and decreases in oral analgesic requirements (P < 0.01). Of the three frequencies, 15/30 Hz was the most effective in decreasing pain, increasing physical activity, and improving the quality of sleep (P < 0.05). In the global assessment, 40% of the patients reported that 15/30 Hz was the most desirable therapy, and it was also more effective in improving the patient's sense of well-being. We conclude that the frequency of electrical stimulation is an important determinant of the analgesic response to PENS therapy. Alternating stimulation at 15-Hz and 30-Hz frequencies was more effective than either 4 Hz or 100 Hz in improving outcome measures in patients with LBP. IMPLICATIONS: The frequency of electrical stimulation seems to be an important determinant of the analgesic efficacy of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Mixed low- and high-frequency stimulation was more effective than either low or high frequencies alone in the treatment of patients with low back pain.