 The
Use of Microcurrent Electrical Therapy and Cranial
Electrotherapy Stimulation in Pain ControlArun D.
Kulkarni, MD, Ray B. Smith, PhD
Clinical Practice of Alternative Medicine. Volume 2, Number 2, Summer
2001
|
earlobes and as close to the cheek as possible. Figure 2 shows a
typical use of the probe electrodes, which are placed so that the
microcurrent will trace a direct path through the area of pain,
between the electrodes. The probes are repositioned each 10 seconds
following a beep from the device, but are always placed so that the
current traces a direct path through the area of complaint or trauma.
Pain was scored by the patients on an 11-point self-rating VAS scale,
with 0 being no pain and 10 being the most intense pain the patient
had experienced to date. Pain evaluations were scheduled to be
obtained every Friday following treatment.
Findings and Analysis
In practice, many patients found it difficult to come to the hospital
daily for the entire 3-week period. Nine patients (45%) left the study
early following the reduc-
FIGURE 1
Showing how the CES electrodes are
attached to the ear with ear clip electrodes
tion of their pain to 0 or no higher than 1.5 on the self-rating
scale. One such patient had complete remission of her pain after only
2 treatment sessions with the probe electrodes and CES. Of the 3
patients who received no relief, none returned for the final week of
treatment.
The 7 patients (35%) who were treated with CES plus the self-adhesive
electrodes began at an average pain level of 7.7 (range 5-10) and
ended at an average of 3.7 (range 0-10), or 52% reduction in pain
level from an average of 12 days of treatment (range 7-I5). |
|
The 7 patients (35%) who were treated with CES plus the probe
electrodes fared even better, beginning with an average pain score of
7.1 (range 4-8) and ending at an aver-age of 1.1 (range 1-6), or an
85% reduction in pain level from an average of 8.1 days of treatment
(range 2-15).
Five patients (25%) were treated with CES only. They experienced an
average 50% drop in pain level from 4.4 (range 3-7) to 2.2 (range
0.5-5), following an average of 10.6 days of treatment (range 8-15).
While we had originally planned a double-blind, placebo-controlled
study, with all patients receiving the identical treatment or sham
treatment, we found that our patient group could not be depended on
for that kind of cooperation. In running an open clinical trial
instead, we let the therapist decide what specific treatment regimen
might be indicated, based on the presenting symptoms. Upon later data
analysis, we found that there was a significant tendency (P<.001,
t=4.98, df=26) for the staff to assign those with higher pain scores
(average=7.4) to treatment with both CES and MET, while those assigned
to receive only 1 treatment modality began with lower pain ratings
(average=5.0). Nonetheless, patients did not differ significantly in
final pain scores (2.4 and 2.8, ns, respectively), suggesting that
what was basically clinical intuition at work in the treatment
selection in fact functioned quite well in practice. Of course, we
have no data on what the outcome would have been if the procedure had
been reversed.
A closer inspection of Table 1 does show that among those staying for
at least 2 weeks of treatment, those patients who received 2
modalities of treatment experienced an average 73% improvement, while
those receiving only 1 modality improved an average of only 35%. Of
course, the latter group, having started with significantly less pain,
had less distance to go in showing treatment response.
When we looked at the patients' treatment response by the length of
time they had h id the pain, we found that patients who had been in
pain for 2 months and 4 months improved 94% and 100%, respectively.
Among the others who experienced 100% pain reduction were patients
whose pain had lasted 4 years, 5 years, and 6 years. The overall
correlation between duration of pain and improvement following
treatment was -0.19, not
|
