Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS): towards the development of a clinic-friendly method for the evaluation of excitatory and inhibitory pain mechanisms.

IF 2 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Monica Sean, Alexia Coulombe-Lévêque, Matthieu Vincenot, Marylie Martel, Louis Gendron, Serge Marchand, Guillaume Léonard
{"title":"Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS): towards the development of a clinic-friendly method for the evaluation of excitatory and inhibitory pain mechanisms.","authors":"Monica Sean, Alexia Coulombe-Lévêque, Matthieu Vincenot, Marylie Martel, Louis Gendron, Serge Marchand, Guillaume Léonard","doi":"10.1080/24740527.2020.1862624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background: Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) can be measured using a thermode and cold pressor test (CPTest). Unfortunately, these complex and expensive tools are ill-suited for routine clinical assessments. Aims: We aimed to compare the temporal summation and CPM obtained with the thermode + CPTest paradigm to those obtained with a novel paradigm using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). Methods: We assessed temporal summation and CPM in 29 healthy participants, using two paradigms (random order): TENS, and thermode + CPTest. In the TENS paradigm, both the conditioning stimulus (CS) and the test stimulus (TS) were delivered using TENS; in the thermode + CPTest paradigm, the CS consisted of a CPTest and the TS was delivered using a thermode. We compared the average temporal summation and CPM evoked by the two paradigms. Results: Average temporal summation was similar for both modalities (P = 0.90), and the number of participants showing temporal summation was similar in both paradigms (19 with thermode vs. 18 with TENS; P = 1.00). Average CPM response was larger following the thermode + CPTest than following the TENS (P = 0.005), and more participants showed CPM with the thermode + CPTest paradigm compared to the TENS paradigm (24 vs. 14; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Both paradigms were roughly equivalent in the ability to evoke temporal summation (although response to one modality did not predict response to the other), but the TENS paradigm appeared to be less apt to induce a CPM response than the thermode + CPTest paradigm.","PeriodicalId":53214,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur","volume":"5 1","pages":"56-65"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/24740527.2020.1862624","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Pain-Revue Canadienne de la Douleur","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24740527.2020.1862624","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background: Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) can be measured using a thermode and cold pressor test (CPTest). Unfortunately, these complex and expensive tools are ill-suited for routine clinical assessments. Aims: We aimed to compare the temporal summation and CPM obtained with the thermode + CPTest paradigm to those obtained with a novel paradigm using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). Methods: We assessed temporal summation and CPM in 29 healthy participants, using two paradigms (random order): TENS, and thermode + CPTest. In the TENS paradigm, both the conditioning stimulus (CS) and the test stimulus (TS) were delivered using TENS; in the thermode + CPTest paradigm, the CS consisted of a CPTest and the TS was delivered using a thermode. We compared the average temporal summation and CPM evoked by the two paradigms. Results: Average temporal summation was similar for both modalities (P = 0.90), and the number of participants showing temporal summation was similar in both paradigms (19 with thermode vs. 18 with TENS; P = 1.00). Average CPM response was larger following the thermode + CPTest than following the TENS (P = 0.005), and more participants showed CPM with the thermode + CPTest paradigm compared to the TENS paradigm (24 vs. 14; P = 0.01). Conclusions: Both paradigms were roughly equivalent in the ability to evoke temporal summation (although response to one modality did not predict response to the other), but the TENS paradigm appeared to be less apt to induce a CPM response than the thermode + CPTest paradigm.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

经皮神经电刺激(TENS):开发一种临床友好的方法来评估兴奋性和抑制性疼痛机制。
背景:时间累积和条件性疼痛调节(CPM)可以通过热模和冷压试验(CPTest)来测量。不幸的是,这些复杂而昂贵的工具并不适合常规的临床评估。目的:我们的目的是比较热模式+ CPTest模式和经皮神经电刺激(TENS)新模式获得的时间总和和CPM。方法:采用随机顺序的TENS和thermode + CPTest两种范式对29名健康被试的时间总和和CPM进行评估。在TENS范式中,条件刺激(CS)和测试刺激(TS)均采用TENS传递;在热模+ CPTest范例中,CS由CPTest组成,TS使用热模交付。我们比较了两种范式引起的平均时间总和和CPM。结果:两种模式的平均时间总和相似(P = 0.90),两种模式中表现时间总和的参与者数量相似(热模式19人vs. TENS 18人;P = 1.00)。热模+ CPTest的平均CPM反应大于TENS (P = 0.005),并且与TENS相比,热模+ CPTest模式下的CPM反应更多(24 vs. 14;P = 0.01)。结论:两种范式在唤起时间总结的能力上大致相当(尽管对一种模式的反应不能预测对另一种模式的反应),但TENS范式似乎比热模式+ CPTest范式更不容易诱发CPM反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信