Transcutaneous neurostimulation parameters for neuropathic radicular pain: Results from a two period crossover randomized trial - 05/03/25
, Hassane Challi b, Pavlos Petit c, Bernard Leroy d, Adeline Versavel c, Hélène Luraschi a, Romain Chiquet c, Kheira Zenati b, Jean-François Budzik e, Jean-François Desrousseaux f, Hichem Khenioui g, Anne Bera-Louville h, Eric Houvenagel a, Laurène Norberciak i, Tristan Pascart aHighlights |
• | Transcutaneous neurostimulation is commonly used to treat chronic neuropathic radicular pain. |
• | Two types of current are usually used: the c-TENS and the m-TENS. |
• | There is no consensus on the mode of stimulation to be used and in fact practices are quiet variable. |
• | Our study did not identify any argument to favor one or the other. |
Abstract |
Objectives |
Transcutaneous neurostimulation (TENS) is commonly used in the treatment of chronic radicular pain, but without any consensus on the type of current to be delivered. The aim of this study was to compare the conventional high-frequency, low-intensity current called c-TENS with a mixed current called m-TENS, combining c-TENS with a low-frequency, high-intensity current.
Methods |
This was a single-blind, two-period crossover randomized trial. Included patients had chronic (≥3months), neuropathic (dn4≥4) radicular pain of at least moderate intensity (Visual Analogic Scale [VAS]≥40mm [0–100mm]). Patients were randomized to receive either c-TENS or m-TENS first, then the other, and both during one month. The primary outcome was the level of radicular pain, measured by VAS at the end of each of the two period.
Results |
Seventy-four patients were included (mean age: 51.9±13.5years, female proportion: 65.6%). The mean duration of radicular pain was 45.2±51months and the mean radicular intensity was 67±12.5/100mm. After one month of treatment, VAS decreased to 53.9±20.1mm under c-TENS and to 53.9±21.3 under m-TENS (NS). Thirteen patients (20.3%) had a VAS<40/100 with either c-TENS or m-TENS (NS). Tolerance was the same for the two modes. Twenty-nine patients (46%) designated c-TENS as the most effective mode, and 34 patients (54%) designated m-TENS.
Conclusion |
This study shows no difference in terms of efficacy or tolerance between c-TENS and m-TENS. There is no justification for preferring one of these two modes over the other for the treatment of chronic neuropathic radicular pain.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Keywords : Neurostimulation, TENS, Chronic pain, Neuropathic pain, Radicular pain
Plan
Vol 92 - N° 2
Article 105797- mars 2025 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Factors associated with severity and mortality of COVID-19 in patients with connective tissue diseases and rheumatoid arthritis: A nation-wide, population-based analysis of the French national medico-administrative SNDS database
- Lou Kawka, Thibaut Fabacher, Erik Sauleau, Fabienne Coury, Laurent Arnaud, Société Française de Rhumatologie (SFR)
- Bone sarcoidosis: Extensive hand lesions
- Lilia Nacef, Johanna Sigaux, Elodie Rivière, Luca Semerano, Hilario Nunes, Nathalie Saidenberg-Kermanac’h
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?