NEW YORK, Mar 02 (Reuters Health) -- Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS) -- in which acupuncture-like needles are used to stimulate nerves -- appears to be a highly effective non-pharmacologic method of relieving low back pain, according to Texas researchers.
PENS provided short-term relief of pain and improved function in patients who had had low back pain for at least 3 months, report Dr. El-sayed Ghoname and others at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. Their study findings are published in the March 3rd issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association.
Patients suffering from chronic low back pain unresponsive to drug therapy are "increasingly turning to unconventional alternative medical practices," note the investigators.
In their study, the researchers compared the effectiveness of three of these practices: PENS; transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), in which shocks are transmitted through electrodes lying on the surface of the skin; and exercise therapy. In the study, 60 patients suffering from chronic low back pain were treated with all three therapies for 3 weeks.
Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation was significantly more effective than the other interventions for overall reductions in reported pain and the daily use of pain relievers. The authors write that "91% of the patients reported that PENS was the most effective in decreasing their low back pain."
"More importantly," they say, "the patients began to report more sustained beneficial effects on their level of pain and physical activity, as well as their quality of sleep, after three to four PENS treatments." PENS was also more effective than the other treatments in improving physical and mental health and well-being, according to the report.
Ghoname and colleagues stress that further studies are required to better determine the optimal frequency and duration of PENS, as well as to examine the intervention's effects in combination with exercise.
SOURCE: The Journal of the American Medical Association 1999;281:818-823.
