Cargando…

Randomized study of the impact of a therapeutic education program on patients suffering from chronic low-back pain who are treated with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation

BACKGROUND: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is often used for the treatment of low-back pain (LBP). However, its effectiveness is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of TENS in the treatment LBP when associated to a therapeutic education program (TEP). DESIGN: Open...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Garaud, Thomas, Gervais, Christine, Szekely, Barbara, Michel-Cherqui, Mireille, Dreyfus, Jean-François, Fischler, Marc
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6314771/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30593158
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013782
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is often used for the treatment of low-back pain (LBP). However, its effectiveness is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of TENS in the treatment LBP when associated to a therapeutic education program (TEP). DESIGN: Open randomized monocentric study. SETTING: University hospital between 2010 and 2014. PATIENTS: A total of 97 patients suffering from LBP. INTERVENTIONS: Routine care (TENS group) or routine care plus a therapeutic education program (TENS-TEP group) based on consultation support by a pain resource nurse. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: EIFEL and Dallas Pain Questionnaire scores. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (44%) were still assessable at the end-of-study visit, whereas 33 (70%) were assessable at the same time point in the TENS-TEP group (P = .013). The EIFEL score and the Dallas score had a similar evolution over time between groups (P = .18 and P = .50 respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to resting pain scores (P = .94 for back pain and P = .16 for leg pain) and movement pain scores (P = .52 for back pain and P = .56 for leg pain). At Month 6, there was no significant difference between the groups (P = .85) with regard to analgesics and social impact. Two patients presented a serious adverse event during the study (one in each group) but non-attributable to the treatment studied. CONCLUSION: This study does not support the use of TENS in the treatment of patients with chronic LBP even though patients benefited from a therapeutic education program by a pain resource nurse. However, the higher number of premature withdrawals in the TENS group may be due to early withdrawal of patients who did not experience improvement of their symptoms.