Two Transcutaneous Stimulation Techniques in Shoulder Pain: Transcutaneous Pulsed Radiofrequency (TPRF) versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): A Comparative Pilot Study
Objective. To compare the safety and efficacy of 2 transcutaneous stimulation techniques, transcutaneous pulsed radiofrequency (TPRF) versus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), in chronic shoulder tendonitis. Design. A prospective, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial. Setting...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2019-01-01
|
| Series: | Pain Research and Management |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/2823401 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832549228452249600 |
|---|---|
| author | Mu-Lien Lin Hung-Wei Chiu Zao-Ming Shih Po-Ying Lee Pei-Zhi Li Chin-Hong Guo Yuan-Jie Luo Shen-Chieh Lin Kwan-Yu Lin Yu-Ming Hsu Angela Pang Weiwu Pang |
| author_facet | Mu-Lien Lin Hung-Wei Chiu Zao-Ming Shih Po-Ying Lee Pei-Zhi Li Chin-Hong Guo Yuan-Jie Luo Shen-Chieh Lin Kwan-Yu Lin Yu-Ming Hsu Angela Pang Weiwu Pang |
| author_sort | Mu-Lien Lin |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective. To compare the safety and efficacy of 2 transcutaneous stimulation techniques, transcutaneous pulsed radiofrequency (TPRF) versus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), in chronic shoulder tendonitis. Design. A prospective, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial. Setting. Academic pain service of a city hospital. Subjects. Fifty patients with sonography-confirmed shoulder tendonitis. Methods. Fifty patients were randomly allocated into two groups for electrical stimulation treatment with 3-month follow-ups: Group 1 n=25, TENS and Group 2 n=25, TPRF. Both groups underwent either treatment for 15 minutes every other day, three times total. Our primary goals were to find any treatment comfort level, adverse event, and changes in Constant–Murley shoulder (CMS) scores. The secondary goals were finding the changes in pain, enjoyment of life, and general activity (PEG) scores. Results. For primary goals, no adverse events were noted throughout this study. No differences were found between groups for treatment tolerability (3.20 + 0.87 vs. 2.16 + 0.75). Statistically significant lower PEG scores were noticeable with the TPRF group after the course (12.73 + 5.79 vs. 24.53 + 10.21, p=0.013). Their statistical significance lasted for 3 months although the difference gap diminished after 1 month. CMS scores were significantly higher in the TPRF group (70.84 + 6.74 vs. 59.56 + 9.49, p=0.007) right after treatment course but the significance did not last. Conclusions. In treating chronic shoulder tendinitis using two transcutaneous stimulation techniques, both TPRF and TENS are safe and effective. TPRF is superior to TENS. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-4ef7371b1500482dbcc944662301ef8b |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1203-6765 1918-1523 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Pain Research and Management |
| spelling | doaj-art-4ef7371b1500482dbcc944662301ef8b2025-02-03T06:11:46ZengWileyPain Research and Management1203-67651918-15232019-01-01201910.1155/2019/28234012823401Two Transcutaneous Stimulation Techniques in Shoulder Pain: Transcutaneous Pulsed Radiofrequency (TPRF) versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): A Comparative Pilot StudyMu-Lien Lin0Hung-Wei Chiu1Zao-Ming Shih2Po-Ying Lee3Pei-Zhi Li4Chin-Hong Guo5Yuan-Jie Luo6Shen-Chieh Lin7Kwan-Yu Lin8Yu-Ming Hsu9Angela Pang10Weiwu Pang11Department of Anesthesiology, Assistant Professor, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, TaiwanDepartment of Electronic Engineering, Associate Professor, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, TaiwanFeng Chia University, Taichung, TaiwanDepartment of Electronic Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, TaiwanDepartment of Electronic Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, TaiwanDepartment of Electronic Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, TaiwanDepartment of Electronic Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, TaiwanDepartment of Surgery, Staff Physician, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, TaiwanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Taipei City Hospital, Zhongxing Branch, Taipei, TaiwanDepartment of Electronic Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, TaiwanIndependent Scholar, Bachelor Degree of University of Florida in Psychology and English, 8257 Via Vivaldi, Orlando, FL, USAAnesthesiologist, Kuang Tien General Hospital, No. 117, Shatian Road, Shalu District, Taichung City 433, TaiwanObjective. To compare the safety and efficacy of 2 transcutaneous stimulation techniques, transcutaneous pulsed radiofrequency (TPRF) versus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), in chronic shoulder tendonitis. Design. A prospective, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial. Setting. Academic pain service of a city hospital. Subjects. Fifty patients with sonography-confirmed shoulder tendonitis. Methods. Fifty patients were randomly allocated into two groups for electrical stimulation treatment with 3-month follow-ups: Group 1 n=25, TENS and Group 2 n=25, TPRF. Both groups underwent either treatment for 15 minutes every other day, three times total. Our primary goals were to find any treatment comfort level, adverse event, and changes in Constant–Murley shoulder (CMS) scores. The secondary goals were finding the changes in pain, enjoyment of life, and general activity (PEG) scores. Results. For primary goals, no adverse events were noted throughout this study. No differences were found between groups for treatment tolerability (3.20 + 0.87 vs. 2.16 + 0.75). Statistically significant lower PEG scores were noticeable with the TPRF group after the course (12.73 + 5.79 vs. 24.53 + 10.21, p=0.013). Their statistical significance lasted for 3 months although the difference gap diminished after 1 month. CMS scores were significantly higher in the TPRF group (70.84 + 6.74 vs. 59.56 + 9.49, p=0.007) right after treatment course but the significance did not last. Conclusions. In treating chronic shoulder tendinitis using two transcutaneous stimulation techniques, both TPRF and TENS are safe and effective. TPRF is superior to TENS.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/2823401 |
| spellingShingle | Mu-Lien Lin Hung-Wei Chiu Zao-Ming Shih Po-Ying Lee Pei-Zhi Li Chin-Hong Guo Yuan-Jie Luo Shen-Chieh Lin Kwan-Yu Lin Yu-Ming Hsu Angela Pang Weiwu Pang Two Transcutaneous Stimulation Techniques in Shoulder Pain: Transcutaneous Pulsed Radiofrequency (TPRF) versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): A Comparative Pilot Study Pain Research and Management |
| title | Two Transcutaneous Stimulation Techniques in Shoulder Pain: Transcutaneous Pulsed Radiofrequency (TPRF) versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): A Comparative Pilot Study |
| title_full | Two Transcutaneous Stimulation Techniques in Shoulder Pain: Transcutaneous Pulsed Radiofrequency (TPRF) versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): A Comparative Pilot Study |
| title_fullStr | Two Transcutaneous Stimulation Techniques in Shoulder Pain: Transcutaneous Pulsed Radiofrequency (TPRF) versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): A Comparative Pilot Study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Two Transcutaneous Stimulation Techniques in Shoulder Pain: Transcutaneous Pulsed Radiofrequency (TPRF) versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): A Comparative Pilot Study |
| title_short | Two Transcutaneous Stimulation Techniques in Shoulder Pain: Transcutaneous Pulsed Radiofrequency (TPRF) versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): A Comparative Pilot Study |
| title_sort | two transcutaneous stimulation techniques in shoulder pain transcutaneous pulsed radiofrequency tprf versus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation tens a comparative pilot study |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/2823401 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mulienlin twotranscutaneousstimulationtechniquesinshoulderpaintranscutaneouspulsedradiofrequencytprfversustranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensacomparativepilotstudy AT hungweichiu twotranscutaneousstimulationtechniquesinshoulderpaintranscutaneouspulsedradiofrequencytprfversustranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensacomparativepilotstudy AT zaomingshih twotranscutaneousstimulationtechniquesinshoulderpaintranscutaneouspulsedradiofrequencytprfversustranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensacomparativepilotstudy AT poyinglee twotranscutaneousstimulationtechniquesinshoulderpaintranscutaneouspulsedradiofrequencytprfversustranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensacomparativepilotstudy AT peizhili twotranscutaneousstimulationtechniquesinshoulderpaintranscutaneouspulsedradiofrequencytprfversustranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensacomparativepilotstudy AT chinhongguo twotranscutaneousstimulationtechniquesinshoulderpaintranscutaneouspulsedradiofrequencytprfversustranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensacomparativepilotstudy AT yuanjieluo twotranscutaneousstimulationtechniquesinshoulderpaintranscutaneouspulsedradiofrequencytprfversustranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensacomparativepilotstudy AT shenchiehlin twotranscutaneousstimulationtechniquesinshoulderpaintranscutaneouspulsedradiofrequencytprfversustranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensacomparativepilotstudy AT kwanyulin twotranscutaneousstimulationtechniquesinshoulderpaintranscutaneouspulsedradiofrequencytprfversustranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensacomparativepilotstudy AT yuminghsu twotranscutaneousstimulationtechniquesinshoulderpaintranscutaneouspulsedradiofrequencytprfversustranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensacomparativepilotstudy AT angelapang twotranscutaneousstimulationtechniquesinshoulderpaintranscutaneouspulsedradiofrequencytprfversustranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensacomparativepilotstudy AT weiwupang twotranscutaneousstimulationtechniquesinshoulderpaintranscutaneouspulsedradiofrequencytprfversustranscutaneouselectricalnervestimulationtensacomparativepilotstudy |