{"title":"经皮神经电刺激与干扰电流治疗对膝骨关节炎患者中枢致敏效果的比较。","authors":"Şahide Eda Artuç, Aslı Çalışkan Uçkun, Filiz Acar Sivas, Fatma Gül Yurdakul, Hatice Bodur","doi":"10.3344/kjp.23118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study is primarily aimed to determine whether transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current (IFC) treatments have any effect on central sensitization (CS) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to investigate which treatment is more effective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized controlled trial, 80 patients were randomized into four treatment groups: TENS, Plasebo-TENS, IFC, and Plasebo-IFC. All interventions were applied 5 times a week for 2 weeks. Primary outcome was pressure pain threshold (PPT), which is accepted as the objective indicator of CS, at the painful knee and at the shoulder as a painless distant point. Other outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Timed Up and Go Test, pain catastrophizing scale, Beck Depression Inventory, and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All assessment parameters were improved, without a significant difference among the groups except PPT. PPT scores were significantly improved in TENS and IFC groups when compared with the sham groups at 2 weeks and 3 months. In addition, this improvement was even more pronounced in the TENS group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the patient's inclusion in the TENS group, an initial high PPT, and an initial low VAS score were independent risk factors for improvement in the PPT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study shows that TENS and IFC reduced pain sensitivity as compared to placebo groups in patients with knee OA. This effect was more pronounced in the TENS group.</p>","PeriodicalId":56252,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Pain","volume":"36 3","pages":"392-403"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0f/00/kjp-36-3-392.PMC10322660.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current therapies in central sensitization in patients with knee osteoarthritis.\",\"authors\":\"Şahide Eda Artuç, Aslı Çalışkan Uçkun, Filiz Acar Sivas, Fatma Gül Yurdakul, Hatice Bodur\",\"doi\":\"10.3344/kjp.23118\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study is primarily aimed to determine whether transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current (IFC) treatments have any effect on central sensitization (CS) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to investigate which treatment is more effective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized controlled trial, 80 patients were randomized into four treatment groups: TENS, Plasebo-TENS, IFC, and Plasebo-IFC. All interventions were applied 5 times a week for 2 weeks. Primary outcome was pressure pain threshold (PPT), which is accepted as the objective indicator of CS, at the painful knee and at the shoulder as a painless distant point. Other outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Timed Up and Go Test, pain catastrophizing scale, Beck Depression Inventory, and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All assessment parameters were improved, without a significant difference among the groups except PPT. PPT scores were significantly improved in TENS and IFC groups when compared with the sham groups at 2 weeks and 3 months. In addition, this improvement was even more pronounced in the TENS group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the patient's inclusion in the TENS group, an initial high PPT, and an initial low VAS score were independent risk factors for improvement in the PPT.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study shows that TENS and IFC reduced pain sensitivity as compared to placebo groups in patients with knee OA. This effect was more pronounced in the TENS group.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\"36 3\",\"pages\":\"392-403\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/0f/00/kjp-36-3-392.PMC10322660.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.23118\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.23118","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:本研究的主要目的是确定经皮神经电刺激(TENS)和干扰电流(IFC)治疗是否对膝骨关节炎(OA)患者的中枢致敏(CS)有任何影响,并研究哪种治疗更有效。方法:将80例患者随机分为TENS、Plasebo-TENS、IFC、Plasebo-IFC 4个治疗组。所有干预措施每周应用5次,持续2周。主要观察指标为压力疼痛阈值(PPT),这是公认的CS的客观指标,在疼痛的膝关节和肩部作为无痛的远处点。其他结果测量包括视觉模拟量表(VAS)、西安大略大学和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数、Timed Up and Go测试、疼痛灾难化量表、贝克抑郁量表和坦帕运动恐惧症量表。结果:除PPT外,各组间各项评价指标均有改善,差异无统计学意义。与sham组相比,TENS组和IFC组在2周和3个月时PPT评分明显提高。此外,这种改善在TENS组中更为明显。多变量logistic回归分析显示,患者纳入TENS组、初始高PPT、初始低VAS评分是影响PPT改善的独立危险因素。结论:本研究表明,与安慰剂组相比,TENS和IFC降低了膝关节OA患者的疼痛敏感性。这种效果在TENS组中更为明显。
Comparison of the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current therapies in central sensitization in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
Background: This study is primarily aimed to determine whether transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential current (IFC) treatments have any effect on central sensitization (CS) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to investigate which treatment is more effective.
Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 80 patients were randomized into four treatment groups: TENS, Plasebo-TENS, IFC, and Plasebo-IFC. All interventions were applied 5 times a week for 2 weeks. Primary outcome was pressure pain threshold (PPT), which is accepted as the objective indicator of CS, at the painful knee and at the shoulder as a painless distant point. Other outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Timed Up and Go Test, pain catastrophizing scale, Beck Depression Inventory, and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia.
Results: All assessment parameters were improved, without a significant difference among the groups except PPT. PPT scores were significantly improved in TENS and IFC groups when compared with the sham groups at 2 weeks and 3 months. In addition, this improvement was even more pronounced in the TENS group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the patient's inclusion in the TENS group, an initial high PPT, and an initial low VAS score were independent risk factors for improvement in the PPT.
Conclusions: This study shows that TENS and IFC reduced pain sensitivity as compared to placebo groups in patients with knee OA. This effect was more pronounced in the TENS group.
期刊介绍:
Korean Journal of Pain (Korean J Pain, KJP) is the official journal of the Korean Pain Society, founded in 1986. It has been published since 1988. It publishes peer reviewed original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. It has been published quarterly in English since 2009 (on the first day of January, April, July, and October). In addition, it has also become the official journal of the International Spinal Pain Society since 2016. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals. The circulation number per issue is 50.