Comparison of diadynamic current, interferential current and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation therapies in patients with chronic low back pain

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 39 Sayı: 4, 1078 - 1082, 29.10.2022

Alper Uysal , Murat Güntel

Öz

The aim of this study is to compare the effects of diadynamic current (DDT), interferential current (IFT) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) therapies on pain and disability levels in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Patients with chronic low back pain between the ages of 18-65 were included in the study. The patients were divided into 3 groups. The first group received DDT, the second group IFT, and the third group TENS. The patients were evaluated in terms of pain and disability levels before the treatment, at the 0th day after the treatment, and at the 1st month after the treatment. Thus, these three treatment modalities were compared in terms of their effectiveness. A total of 83 patients were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age, gender, BMI, disease duration, pain, and disability levels of the patients before treatment. A statistically significant difference was found between the 0th day before and after the treatment and the 1st month before and after the treatment in terms of pain and disability levels in all three groups. The VAS scores of the individuals in the IFT group were significantly lower on the 0th day and 1st month after the treatment than in the DDT and TENS groups. Although there was no statistically significant difference, when looked clinically, the RMDQ scores of the individuals in the IFT group tended to decrease more than those in the DDT and TENS groups. All three treatment modalities are effective in patients with CLBP. However, IFC seems to be superior.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Chronic low back pain, diadynamic current, interferential current, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation

Destekleyen Kurum

None

Kaynakça

• 1. Aydin E, Nazlikul FGU. Bel ağrisi olan hastalarda TENS’in ağri ve yaşam kalitesi üzerine etkinliği: ön çalişma. Bilimsel Tamamlayıcı Tıp Regülasyon ve Nöral Terapi Dergisi.15(1):5-8.
• 2. Andersson GB. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. The lancet. 1999;354(9178):581-5.
• 3. Urits I, Burshtein A, Sharma M, Testa L, Gold PA, Orhurhu V, et al. Low back pain, a comprehensive review: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Current pain and headache reports. 2019;23(3):1-10.
• 4. Pengel LH, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Refshauge KM. Acute low back pain: systematic review of its prognosis. Bmj. 2003;327(7410):323.
• 5. Koes BW, Van Tulder M, Thomas S. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. Bmj. 2006;332(7555):1430-4.
• 6. Khadilkar A, Odebiyi DO, Brosseau L, Wells GA. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus placebo for chronic low‐back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2008(4).
• 7. Kibar S, Konak HE, Ay S, Erdoğan BD, Evcik D. Transkutanöz elektrik sinir stimülasyonu ve interferansiyel akımın kombine tedavisinin kronik bel ağrısına etkisi: Randomize, çift kör, sham kontrollü çalışma [The Effectiveness of combined transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and ınterferential current therapy on chronic low back pain: a randomized, double-blind, shamcontrolled study]. Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020;23:32-40.
• 8. Sayilir S, Yildizgoren MT. The medium-term effects of diadynamic currents in chronic low back pain; TENS versus diadynamic currents: A randomised, follow-up study. Complementary therapies in clinical practice. 2017;29:16-9.
• 9. Facci LM, Nowotny JP, Tormem F, Trevisani VFM. Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and interferential currents (IFC) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: randomized clinical trial. Sao Paulo Medical Journal. 2011;129:206-16.
• 10. Rajfur J, Pasternok M, Rajfur K, Walewicz K, Fras B, Bolach B, et al. Efficacy of selected electrical therapies on chronic low back pain: a comparative clinical pilot study. Medical science monitor: international medical journal of experimental and clinical research. 2017;23:85.
• 11. Ratajczak B, Hawrylak A, Demidaś A, Kuciel-Lewandowska J, Boerner E. Effectiveness of diadynamic currents and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in disc disease lumbar part of spine. Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation. 2011;24(3):155-9.
• 12. Tella BA, Oghumu SN, Gbiri CAO. Efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current on tactile acuity of individuals with nonspecific chronic low back pain. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface. 2022.
• 13. de Almeida CC, da Silva VZM, Júnior GC, Liebano RE, Durigan JLQ. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential current demonstrate similar effects in relieving acute and chronic pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Brazilian journal of physical therapy. 2018;22(5):347-54.
• 14. Zeng C, Yang T, Deng Z-h, Yang Y, Zhang Y, Lei G-h. Electrical stimulation for pain relief in knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis and cartilage. 2015;23(2):189-202.
• 15. Acedo AA, Antunes ACL, dos Santos AB, de Olveira CB, dos Santos CT, Colonezi GLT, et al. Upper trapezius relaxation induced by TENS and interferential current in computer users with chronic nonspecific neck discomfort: an electromyographic analysis. Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation. 2015;28(1):19-24.
• 16. Koca I, Boyaci A, Tutoglu A, Ucar M, Kocaturk O. Assessment of the effectiveness of interferential current therapy and TENS in the management of carpal tunnel syndrome: a randomized controlled study. Rheumatology international. 2014;34(12):1639-45.