Efficacy of cranial electrotherapy stimulation for neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury: a multi-site randomize
-
Christopher
- Posts: 845
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:09 pm
- Injury Description, Date, extent, surgical intervention etc: Date of Injury: 12/15/02
Level of Injury:
-dominant side C5, C6, & C7 avulsed. C8 & T1 stretched & crushed
BPI Related Surgeries:
-2 Intercostal nerves grafted to Biceps muscle,
-Free-Gracilis muscle transfer to Biceps Region innervated with 2 Intercostal nerves grafts.
-2 Sural nerves harvested from both Calves for nerve grafting.
-Partial Ulnar nerve grafted to Long Triceps.
-Uninjured C7 Hemi-Contralateral cross-over to Deltoid muscle.
-Wrist flexor tendon transfer to middle, ring, & pinky finger extensors.
Surgical medical facility:
Brachial Plexus Clinic at The Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN
(all surgeries successful)
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."
~Theodore Roosevelt - Location: Los Angeles, California USA
Efficacy of cranial electrotherapy stimulation for neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury: a multi-site randomize
I'm currently researching Spinal Cord Stimulators (SCS) and Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulators (CES). SCS's are more invasive as they require an implanted electrodes into the spinal cord, and the device itself is implanted beneath the skin.
Here's one company's CES I'm looking into:
http://www.fisherwallace.com
Efficacy of cranial electrotherapy stimulation for neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury: a multi-site randomized controlled trial with a secondary 6-month open-label phase.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21756567
Here's one company's CES I'm looking into:
http://www.fisherwallace.com
Efficacy of cranial electrotherapy stimulation for neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury: a multi-site randomized controlled trial with a secondary 6-month open-label phase.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21756567
J Spinal Cord Med. 2011;34(3):285-96.
doi: 10.1179/2045772311Y.0000000008.
Efficacy of cranial electrotherapy stimulation for neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury: a multi-site randomized controlled trial with a secondary 6-month open-label phase.
Tan G1, Rintala DH, Jensen MP, Richards JS, Holmes SA, Parachuri R, Lashgari-Saegh S, Price LR.
Author information
1Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA. tan.gabriel@va.gov
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Chronic pain is a significant problem for many individuals following spinal cord injury (SCI). Unfortunately, SCI-related neuropathic pain has proven to be largely refractory to analgesic medications and other available treatments. Cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) has been effective in managing some types of pain. It involves the application of a small amount of current through the head via ear clip electrodes.
OBJECTIVE:
Explore the effectiveness of CES for neuropathic pain in persons with SCI and chronic pain.
STUDY DESIGN:
Multi-site, double-blind, sham-controlled study.
PARTICIPANTS:
Adults with SCI and chronic neuropathic pain at or below the level of injury were randomized to receive active or sham CES.
INTERVENTION:
Application of active CES or sham CES 1 hour daily for 21 days. Six-month open-label phase to assess 'as-needed' CES use.
OUTCOME MEASURES:
Change in pre- to post-session pain ratings as well as change in pain intensity, pain interference, pain quality, pain beliefs and coping strategies, general physical and mental health status, depressive symptomatology, perceived stress, and anxiety pre- to post-treatment.
RESULTS:
The active group reported a significantly greater average decrease in pain during daily treatments than the sham group (Kruskal-Wallis chi-square = 4.70, P < 0.05). During the 21-day trial, there was a significant group × time interaction for only one outcome variable; the active group showed larger pre- to post-treatment decreases in pain interference than the sham group did (F = 8.50, P < 0.01, d = 0.59).
CONCLUSIONS:
On average, CES appears to have provided a small but statistically significant improvement in pain intensity and pain interference with few troublesome side effects. Individual results varied from no pain relief to a great deal of relief.
