M.M. Eid, N.S. Hamed, W.K. Abdelbasset, S.M. Elkholi, H.M. Eladl, H.A. Bahey El-Deen
Medicine, 101(44), e31433. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000031433, 2022
Objectives: To compare the efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT) versus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in the treatment of post-herpetic neuralgia of the sciatic nerve.
Methods: A double-blinded randomized clinical study has included 56 patients (18 males and 38 females). Participants were randomly and equally assigned into 2 groups. Both groups received conventional physical therapy treatment. Moreover, group (A) has an additional TENS, and group (B) had PEMFT. Both modalities were applied once daily, 3 times a week for 20 minutes for 8 successive weeks. Visual analog scale (VAS) and carbamazepine intake (CMI) dose have been assessed before and after interventions.
Results: There was a significant decrease in VAS and CMI post-treatment in group A and B compared with that pretreatment (P > .001). The percent decrease in VAS and CMI in group A were 72.44% and 69.47% respectively and that for group B was 68.95% and 67.94% respectively. The findings revealed a non-significant difference in VAS and CMI (P > .05) between groups. The Means of VAS and CMI were (2.4 ± 0.78, 204.5 ± 16.76 and 2.67 ± 0.9, 210.57 ± 16.5) in group A and group B respectively. The mean difference for VAS and CMI was (-0.27 and -6.07) between groups post-treatment respectively.
Conclusion: Both TENS and PEMFT were effective and nearly equivalent in improving the post-herpetic neuralgia of the sciatic nerve as measured by in VAS and CMI. Clinical recommendations should be highlighted to instigate the using of TENS and PEMFT in the management of post-herpetic neuralgia of the sciatic nerve.
L'accesso alla visualizzazione dei prodotti e al materiale informativo è riservato agli operatori del settore in ottemperanza alla legislazione vigente. ASA richiede di qualificarsi come operatore del settore per procedere con la navigazione.
Decreto Legislativo 24 febbraio 1997, n°46 Articolo 21
1. E' vietata la pubblicità verso il pubblico dei dispositivi che, secondo disposizioni adottate con decreto del Ministro della Sanità, possono essere venduti soltanto su prescrizione medica o essere impiegati eventualmente con l'assistenza di un medico o di altro professionista sanitario.
2. La pubblicità presso il pubblico dei dispositivi diversi da quelli di cui al comma 1 è soggetta ad autorizzazione del Ministero della Sanità. Sulle domande di autorizzazione esprime parere la Commissione di esperti prevista dall'articolo 6, comma 3, del decreto legislativo
30 dicembre 1992, n. 541, che a tal fine è integrata da un rappresentante del Dipartimento del Ministero della Sanità competente in materia di dispositivi medici e da uno del Ministero dell'Industria, del commercio e dell'artigianato.
Some of the contents of this website cannot be disclosed in the USA and its territories and possesions, for regulatory reasons. If you are a US resident, please click on the button here below and access ASA's distributor website for North America.