This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (9) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Yokoyama, M. Articles by Morita, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Yokoyama, M. Articles by Morita, K. Related Collections Equipment Anesthetic Techniques Pain

---

PAIN MEDICINE

Comparison of Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation with Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Long-Term Pain Relief in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain

Department of Anesthesiology and Resuscitology, Okayama University Medical School, Okayama City, Japan

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Masataka Yokoyama, MD, Department of Anesthesiology and Resuscitology, Okayama University Medical School, 2-5-1 Shikata-cho, Okayama City, Okayama 700-8558, Japan. Address e-mail to masayoko{at}cc.okayama-u.ac.jp

The long-term effect of percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) on chronic low back pain (LBP) is unclear. We evaluated the number of sessions for which PENS should be performed to alleviate chronic LBP and how long analgesia is sustained. Patients underwent treatment on a twice-weekly schedule for 8 wk. Group A (n = 18) received PENS for 8 wk, group B (n = 17) received PENS for the first 4 wk and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for the second 4 wk, and group C (n = 18) received TENS for 8 wk. Pain level, degree of physical impairment, and the daily intake of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were assessed before the first treatment, 3 days after Week 2, Week 4, and Week 8 treatments, and at 1 and 2 mo after the sessions. During PENS therapy, the pain level decreased significantly from Week 2 in Groups A and B (P < 0.05 or 0.01), and physical impairment and required NSAIDs decreased significantly from Week 4 (P < 0.05 or 0.01) in Group A but only at Week 4 in Group B (P < 0.05 or 0.01). These effects were sustained until 1-mo follow-up (P < 0.01) in Group A but not in Group B; these effects were not observed at 2-mo follow-up even in Group A. In Group C, pain level decreased significantly only at Week 8 (P < 0.05). Our results indicate that repeated PENS is more effective than TENS for chronic LBP but must be continued to sustain the analgesic effect.

IMPLICATIONS: A cumulative analgesic effect was observed in patients with chronic low back pain (LBP) after repeated percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), but this effect gradually faded after the treatment was terminated. Results indicate that although PENS is effective for chronic LBP, treatments need to be continued to sustain analgesia.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S.-M. Wang, Z. N. Kain, and P. F. White Acupuncture Analgesia: II. Clinical Considerations Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2008; 106(2): 611 - 621. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Manheimer, A. White, B. Berman, K. Forys, and E. Ernst Meta-Analysis: Acupuncture for Low Back Pain Ann Intern Med, April 19, 2005; 142(8): 651 - 663. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]