The Use of Microcurrent Electrical Therapy and Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation in Pain Control [Abstract]
Kulkarni, Arun D. and Smith,
Ray B. Clinical Practice of Alternative Medicine. 2(2):99-102, 2001.
This open clinical study,
conducted by Dr. Kulkarni, an anesthesiologist working with orthopedic surgeons
at a pain clinic at Nav-Durga hospital near Bombay, India,
was designed to assess the effectiveness of Alpha-Stim microcurrent electrical
therapy (MET), cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) or a combination of
both therapies. 20 patients who had been refractory to previous treatments
completed informed consent and joined the study in the order that they
presented at the first author’s hospital pain clinic. Ages ranged from 30 to 75
years (mean=44). 15 were females. Treatments were provided for one hour daily,
Monday through Friday, for 3 weeks. No pain medications were taken during the
study period. MET was given via probes or self-adhesive electrodes at 600
microamperes, while the current for CES was regulated by each patient, ranging
from 100 to 300 microamperes. Pain was scored on an 11 point self rating VAS
scale, with 0 being no pain and 10 being the most intense pain they had
experienced to date.
Nine patients (45%) left the
study early following reduction of their pain to a level between 0 and 1.5 on
the 11 point scale. One had complete remission of her pain after only 2
treatments. Of 3 patients who received no relief, none returned for the final
week of treatment. 7 patients (35%) who were treated with CES plus
self-adhesive electrodes began at an average pain level of 7.7 (range 5-10) and
ended with an average of 3.7 (range 0-10), or a 52% reduction in pain from an
average of 12 days of treatment. 7 patients who were treated with CES plus
probes fared even better beginning with a pain level of 7.1 (range 4-8) and
ending at an average of 1.1 (range 1-6), or an 85% reduction of pain from an
average of 8.1 days of treatment. 5 patients (25%) were treated with CES only.
They experienced an average of 50% drop in their pain level from 4.4 (range
3-7) to 2.2 (range 0.5-5) with an average of 10.6 days of treatment. No
negative side effects were reported. The authors concluded that MET and CES are
effective treatments for chronic pain patients.
|
|
Table 1. Subject Characteristics, Treatment
Parameters and Treatment Outcome
|
|
Pt
|
Sex
|
Age
|
Type of Pain and Duration
|
Nr.
Rxs
|
Rx
Given*
|
Pre-
Score**
|
Post
Score
|
%
Gain
|
|
1
|
F
|
30
|
Bilateral scapular, 5 yrs
|
15
|
C,A
|
7
|
0
|
100%
|
|
2
|
F
|
30
|
Radiating, neck to hand,
10 yrs
|
15
|
C,A
|
8
|
1
|
88%
|
|
3
|
F
|
62
|
Rheum. arth., bilateral,
knees, 4 months
|
5
|
C,P
|
8
|
0
|
100%
|
|
4
|
F
|
40
|
Low back pain, 7 yrs
|
15
|
C
|
3
|
2
|
35%
|
|
5
|
F
|
35
|
Radiating pain, C7 to
right arm, 6 yrs
|
12
|
C,P
|
8
|
0
|
100%
|
|
6
|
M
|
41
|
Back pain, T8, 1 year
|
10
|
C,A
|
5
|
1
|
80%
|
|
7
|
F
|
30
|
L3 & L4 pain, 6 yrs
|
12
|
C,A
|
8
|
0
|
100%
|
|
8
|
F
|
46
|
Low back, 2 yrs, both
knees, 1 yr
|
10
|
C
|
6
|
3
|
50%
|
|
9
|
M
|
52
|
Ankilosing spondilosis,
10 yrs, rheum. arth.
|
10
|
C,A
|
8
|
7
|
13%
|
|
10
|
M
|
40
|
Back pain, 4 yrs
|
15
|
C,P
|
7
|
0
|
100%
|
|
11
|
F
|
48
|
Fibromyalgia, 1 yr
|
10
|
C
|
5
|
0.5
|
90%
|
|
12
|
F
|
41
|
Fibromyalgia, 3 yrs
|
8
|
C
|
5
|
0.5
|
90%
|
|
13
|
F
|
31
|
Rheumatoid arth., rt leg
to toe, 5 months
|
10
|
C,P
|
4
|
1.5
|
63%
|
|
14
|
M
|
75
|
Low back, knee, 7 yrs
|
10
|
C
|
5
|
5
|
0%
|
|
15
|
F
|
40
|
Pain, left heel, 1 yr
|
10
|
P
|
6
|
6
|
0%
|
|
16
|
F
|
65
|
Sciatica, 3 yrs
|
8
|
C,P
|
7
|
6
|
14%
|
|
17
|
F
|
42
|
Rt knee pain, stiffness,
7 months
|
2
|
C,P
|
8
|
0
|
100%
|
|
18
|
F
|
42
|
Cervical spondilosis, 2
yrs
|
15
|
C,A
|
8
|
7
|
13%
|
|
19
|
M
|
44
|
Cervical spondilosis, 2
months
|
5
|
C,P
|
8
|
0.5
|
94%
|
|
20
|
F
|
44
|
Bilateral knee,
osteo-arthritis, 4 yrs
|
7
|
C,A
|
10
|
10
|
0%
|
|
*P = Probes; C = CES; A =
Self Adhesive Pads
** 10 Point VAS Scale
|
|
 Use of MET & CES in Pain Control 490.44 Kb
|
For Practitioners 
