Non-invasive interactive neurostimulation in the post-operative recovery of patients with a trochanteric fracture of the femur

Abstract

We undertook a trial on 60 patients with AO 31A2 fractures of the hip who were randomised after stabilisation of the fracture into two equal groups, one of which received post-operative treatment using a non-invasive interactive neurostimulation device and the other with a sham device. All other aspects of their rehabilitation were the same. The treatment was continued for ten days after operation. Outcome measurements included the use of a visual analogue scale for pain, the brief pain inventory and Ketorolac for post-operative control of pain, and an overall assessment of outcome by the surgeon. There were significantly better results for the patients receiving treatment by active electrical stimulation (repeated measures analysis of variance, p < 0.001). The findings of this pilot trial justify a larger study to determine if these results are more generally applicable.

Criteria-Based Management of an Acute Multistructure Knee Injury in a Professional Football Player: A Case Report

“…11 These areas are considered to be the optimal locations for the most effective application of electrical stimulation. 12,17,19,28 The low impedance of the skin over painful locations is produced by an increase in the galvanic or sympathetic skin response.…”

“…12,17,19,28 The low impedance of the skin over painful locations is produced by an increase in the galvanic or sympathetic skin response. 11,16,28,30 Several authors have reported that these locations correlate to myofascial trigger points, 16,17,19,28 acupuncture points, 17,19,28,30 and localized sympathetic tissue changes. 12, 13 Melzack 12 demonstrated that treating major nerve branches, trigger points, and secondary areas along an associated dermatome, in addition to the area of pain, with high-amplitude stimulation provided the most effective and sustained pain relief when compared to lower amplitude treatment delivered only at the point of pain.…”

“…The current utilized in this device produces an interactive and constantly changing waveform, which prevents adaptation to the stimulation being applied. 11 Treating painful areas at higher current intensities has been shown to cause greater nerve inhibition and, therefore, enhanced pain relief. 17,19,28 Implementing various frequencies in the treatment approach has also been shown to release endogenous opiates, which can further enhance the effectiveness of the treatment for pain relief.…”

Effects of Noninvasive Interactive Neurostimulation on Symptoms of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled Pilot Study

“…Although their mechanism of action is unclear, both NIN therapy and TENS are hypothesized to work through one or both of these mechanisms as well 15–18. The NIN device generates high amplitude nondamaging current impulses that stimulate C fibers and A-delta fibers thought to release neuropeptides into the bloodstream, promoting healing and inducing analgesia.…”

Effect of Interactive Neurostimulation Therapy on Inflammatory Response in Patients With Chronic and Recurrent Mechanical Neck Pain

“…3 The analgesic effects of InterX have been attributed to a distinctive electrode positioning as well as higher amplitude and density of the applied current, compared with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). 3,4 To date, 3 randomized controlled clinical trials using different models of InterX have shown advantage of this modality over placebo application in postoperative recovery from bone fractures, 4 knee replacement surgery, 5 and ankle fracture. 6 Interestingly, in a recent study, Schabrun et al 7 have shown that interactive neurostimulation therapy (NIN) may be also efficacious for managing musculoskeletal conditions, such as myofascial pain syndrome, and be of clinical significance in some patients with shoulder or NP.…”