Using TENS to Enhance Therapeutic Exercise in Individuals with Knee Osteoarthritis

Efficacy of diadynamic currents as an adjunct to exercise to manage symptoms of knee osteoarthritis in adults: A randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of diadynamic currents administered prior to exercises on pain and disability in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.

DESIGN

A randomized-controlled trial.

SETTING

Special Rehabilitation Services in Taboão da Serra.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomly allocated to Group I (diadynamic currents and exercises; n = 30, 60 knees) or Group II (exercises alone; n = 30, 60 knees) and were treated three times a week for 8 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were change in knee pain evaluated by visual analog scale and disability Index Score (Lequesne). Secondary outcomes included change in mobility (Timed Up and Go test), range of motion (goniometer), muscle strength (dynamometer), a composite score for pain and disability (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis questionnaire), and a drug diary to measure consumption of rescue pain medication (paracetamol). All measurements were collected at baseline, 8 weeks, and 6 months from baseline (follow-up).

RESULTS

There were 60 participants with a mean (SD) age of 63.40 (8.20) years. Between-group differences in the follow-up (8 weeks and 6 months) were observed for pain at rest, pain during activities of daily living and disability. There was improvement in Group I that was maintained for the three variables 6 months after treatment. Mean difference for pain at rest was -3.08 points (95% confidence interval -4.13; -2.02), p < 0.01 with an effect size of 1.4; mean difference for pain during activities of daily living was -2.40 points (95% confidence interval -3.34; -1.45), p < 0.01 with an effect size of 1.24; and mean difference for disability was -4.08 points (95% confidence interval -5.89; -2.26), p < 0.01 with an effect size of 1.04.

CONCLUSION

Patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis receiving 8 weeks of treatment with diadynamic currents as an adjunct to a program of exercises had significantly greater improvements in pain and disability than those receiving exercises alone. Beneficial effects were sustained for 6 months.

Adjunctive electrophysical therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

To review evidence for effectiveness of electrophysical therapies (EPTs), used adjunctively with land-based exercise therapy, for hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA), compared with 1) placebo EPTs delivered with land-based exercise therapy or 2) land-based exercise therapy only.

Methods

Six databases were searched up to October 2023 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs)/quasi-RCTs comparing adjunctive EPTs alongside land-based exercise therapy versus 1) placebo EPTs alongside land-based exercise, or 2) land-based exercise in hip or knee OA. Outcomes included pain, function, quality of life, global assessment and adverse events. Risk of bias and overall certainty of evidence were assessed. We back-translated significant Standardised Mean Differences (SMDs) to common scales: 2 points/15% on a 0-10 Numerical Pain Rating Scale and 6 points/15% on the WOMAC physical function subscale.

Results

Forty studies (2831 patients) evaluated nine different EPTs for knee OA. Medium-term effects (up to 6 months) were evaluated in seven trials, and one evaluated long-term effects (>6 months). Adverse events were reported in one trial. Adjunctive laser therapy may confer short-term effects on pain (SMD -0.68, 95%CI -1.03 to -0.34; mean difference (MD) 1.18 points (95% CI -1.78 to -0.59) and physical function (SMD -0.60, 95%CI -0.88 to -0.34; MD 12.95 (95%CI -20.05 to -5.86)) compared to placebo EPTs, based on very low-certainty evidence. No other EPTs (TENS, interferential, heat, shockwave, shortwave, ultrasound, EMG biofeedback, NMES) showed clinically significant effects compared to placebo/exercise, or exercise only.

Conclusions

Very low-certainty evidence supports laser therapy used adjunctively with exercise for short-term improvement in pain and function. No other EPTs demonstrated clinically meaningful effects.

The impact of Yoga on patients with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to conduct a comprehensive and systematic assessment of the efficacy of Yoga as an intervention for knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and PEDro as of January 3, 2024. Retrieved a total of 200 articles. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

The study included a total of 8 trials and involved 756 KOA patients. The results indicated that compared to the control group, Yoga exercise showed significant improvements in alleviating pain (SMD = -0.92; 95% CI = -1.64 ~ - 0.20; P = 0.01, I2 = 94%), stiffness (SMD = -0.51; 95% CI = -0.91 ~ -0.12; P = 0.01; I2 = 66%) and physical function (SMD = -0.53; 95% CI = -0.89 ~ -0.17; P = 0.004; I2 = 59%) among KOA patients. However, there was no significant improvement observed in terms of activities of activity of daily living (ADL) (SMD = 1.03; 95% CI = -0.01 ~ 2.07; P = 0.05; I2 = 84%), and quality of life (QOL) (SMD = 0.21; 95% CI = -0.33 ~ 0.74; P = 0.44; I2 = 83%) with the practice of Yoga.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, Yoga has been found to be effective in reducing pain and stiffness in KOA patients, it can also improve the physical function of patients. However, there is limited evidence to suggest significant improvements in terms of ADL and QOL.

Current Non-surgical Management of Knee Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common chronic degenerative disease. The prevalence tends to increase with age and is influenced by underlying risk factors such as gender, obesity, joint injuries (work/sports activities), and geographic region. OA has a distinctive picture, namely, damage to the joint cartilage and the formation of new bone at the edges of the bones, also called osteophytes, due to biochemical, metabolic, physiological, and pathological changes in the joint cartilage and subchondral bone. Symptoms that can be caused include joint pain, inhibition of joint movement, crepitus, deformity, asymmetrical swelling of the joints, signs of inflammation, and changes in gait. Currently, there are various methods of managing OA in terms of reducing pain, including regeneration and non-regeneration therapy. Non-regeneration treatments include physiotherapy (exercise, biomechanical intervention, electrotherapy, diathermy), pharmacology, intra-articular injections (corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid, geniculate nerve blocks), extra-articular injections, and radiofrequency. In comparison, regeneration management includes laser and intra-articular injection (prolotherapy and PRP).

Changes in biomechanics, strength, physical function, and daily steps after extended-release corticosteroid injections in knee osteoarthritis: a responder analysis

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE

To determine changes in gait biomechanics, quadricep strength, physical function, and daily steps after an extended-release corticosteroid knee injection at 4 and 8 weeks post-injection in individuals with knee osteoarthritis as well as between responders and non-responders based on changes in self-reported knee function.

METHOD

The single-arm, clinical trial included three study visits (baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks post-injection), where participants received an extended-release corticosteroid injection following the baseline visit. Time-normalized vertical ground reaction force (vGRF), knee flexion angle (KFA), knee abduction moment (KAM), and knee extension moment (KEM) waveforms throughout stance were collected during gait biomechanical assessments. Participants also completed quadricep strength, physical function (chair-stand, stair-climb, 20-m fast-paced walk) testing, and free-living daily step assessment for 7 days following each visit.

RESULTS

All participants demonstrated increased KFA excursion (i.e., greater knee extension angle at heel strike and KFA at toe-off), increased KEM during early stance, improved physical function (all p < 0.001), and increased quadricep strength at 4 and 8 weeks. KAM increased throughout most of stance at 4 and 8 weeks post-injection (p < 0.001) but appears to be driven by gait changes in non-responders. Non-responders demonstrated lesser vGRF during late stance and lesser KEM and KFA throughout stance compared to responders at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended-release corticosteroid injections demonstrated short-term improvements in gait biomechanics, quadricep strength, and physical function for up to 4 weeks. However, non-responders demonstrated gait biomechanics associated with osteoarthritis progression prior to the corticosteroid injection, suggesting that non-responders demonstrate more deleterious gait biomechanics prior to corticosteroid injection. Key Points • Individuals with knee osteoarthritis who were treated with extended-release corticosteroid injections demonstrated improvements in gait biomechanics and physical function for 8 weeks. • Individuals with knee osteoarthritis, who walked with aberrant walking biomechanics before treatment, failed to respond to extended-release corticosteroid treatment. • Future research should determine the mechanisms contributing to the short-term changes in gait biomechanics and physical function such as reduced inflammation.

Addition of tDCS and TENS to an education and exercise program in subjects with knee osteoarthritis: A study protocol

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis often leads to chronic pain that frequently becomes disabling.Osteoarthritis has been linked to maladaptive plasticity in the brain, which can contribute to chronic pain. Therapies including neuromodulation and peripheral electrical stimulation are used to counteract the maladaptive plasticity of the brain.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of the addition of tDCS and TENS to an education and exercise program in reducing pain.

METHODS

Over a 2-week study period, 60 participants will complete an exercise and educational intervention. Eligible participants accepting to participate will be subsequently randomized into one of the three treatment groups: 1) Active Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) and active Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS); 2) Active tDCS and sham TENS; 3) Sham tDCS and sham TENS.

RESULTS

The primary outcome will be subjective pain intensity.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

quality of life, physical function, central sensitization, and pain adjuvants (uncertainty, catastrophizing kinesiophobia, adverse events).

CONCLUSION

This clinical trial will provide data on the effect that the addition of tDCS and/or TENS to an education and exercise program may have to counteract maladaptive plastic changes and improve the benefits of exercises, and whether the combination of both neuromodulator techniques may have a higher magnitude of effect.

Adjunctive therapies in addition to land-based exercise therapy for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee

BACKGROUND

Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside exercise in hip or knee osteoarthritis management, but cumulative evidence for adjuncts to land-based exercise therapy is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of adjunctive therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy compared with placebo adjunctive therapy added to land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy only for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and clinical trials registries up to 10 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis comparing adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy (experimental group) versus placebo adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy (control groups). Exercise had to be identical in both groups. Major outcomes were pain, physical function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life (QOL), radiographic joint structural changes, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We evaluated short-term (6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (12 months onwards) effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 62 trials (60 RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs) totalling 6508 participants. One trial included people with hip osteoarthritis, one hip or knee osteoarthritis and 59 included people with knee osteoarthritis only. Thirty-six trials evaluated electrophysical agents, seven manual therapies, four acupuncture or dry needling, or taping, three psychological therapies, dietary interventions or whole body vibration, two spa or peloid therapy and one foot insoles. Twenty-one trials included a placebo adjunctive therapy. We presented the effects stratified by different adjunctive therapies along with the overall results. We judged most trials to be at risk of bias, including 55% at risk of selection bias, 74% at risk of performance bias and 79% at risk of detection bias. Adverse events were reported in eight (13%) trials. Comparing adjunctive therapies plus land-based exercise therapy against placebo therapies plus exercise up to six months (short-term), we found low-certainty evidence for reduced pain and function, which did not meet our prespecified threshold for a clinically important difference. Mean pain intensity was 5.4 in the placebo group on a 0 to 10 numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (lower scores represent less pain), and 0.77 points lower (0.48 points better to 1.16 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 10% (6% to 15% better) (22 studies; 1428 participants). Mean physical function on the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) 0 to 68 physical function (lower scores represent better function) subscale was 32.5 points in the placebo group and reduced by 5.03 points (2.57 points better to 7.61 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 12% (6% better to 18% better) (20 studies; 1361 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies did not improve QOL (SF-36 0 to 100 scale, higher scores represent better QOL). Placebo group mean QOL was 81.8 points, and 0.75 points worse (4.80 points worse to 3.39 points better) in the placebo adjunctive therapy group; relative improvement 1% (7% worse to 5% better) (two trials; 82 participants). Low-certainty evidence (two trials; 340 participants) indicates adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared to placebo therapies plus exercise (31% versus 13%; risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 21.90). Participant-reported global assessment was not measured in any studies. Compared with land-based exercise therapy, low-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive electrophysical agents alongside exercise produced short-term (0 to 6 months) pain reduction of 0.41 points (0.17 points better to 0.63 points better); mean pain in the exercise-only group was 3.8 points and 0.41 points better in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group (0 to 10 NPRS); relative improvement 7% (3% better to 11% better) (45 studies; 3322 participants). Mean physical function (0 to 68 WOMAC subscale) was 18.2 points in the exercise group and 2.83 points better (1.62 points better to 4.04 points better) in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group; relative improvement 9% (5% better to 13% better) (45 studies; 3323 participants). These results are not clinically important. Mean QOL in the exercise group was 56.1 points and 1.04 points worse in the adjunctive therapies plus exercise therapy group (1.04 points worse to 3.12 points better); relative improvement 2% (2% worse to 5% better) (11 studies; 1483 participants), indicating no benefit (low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise probably result in a slight increase in participant-reported global assessment (short-term), with success reported by 45% in the exercise therapy group and 17% more individuals receiving adjunctive therapies and exercise (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) (5 studies; 840 participants). One study (156 participants) showed little difference in radiographic joint structural changes (0.25 mm less, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.18 mm); 12% relative improvement (6% better to 18% better). Low-certainty evidence (8 trials; 1542 participants) indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared with exercise only (8.6% versus 6.5%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.27).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed no difference in pain, physical function or QOL between adjunctive therapies and placebo adjunctive therapies, or in pain, physical function, QOL or joint structural changes, compared to exercise only. Participant-reported global assessment was not reported for placebo comparisons, but there is probably a slight clinical benefit for adjunctive therapies plus exercise compared with exercise, based on a small number of studies. This may be explained by additional constructs captured in global measures compared with specific measures. Although results indicate no increased adverse events for adjunctive therapies used with exercise, these were poorly reported. Most studies evaluated short-term effects, with limited medium- or long-term evaluation. Due to a preponderance of knee osteoarthritis trials, we urge caution in extrapolating the findings to populations with hip osteoarthritis.

Characterising the Features of 381 Clinical Studies Evaluating Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Pain Relief: A Secondary Analysis of the Meta-TENS Study to Improve Future Research

Background and Objectives: Characterising the features of methodologies, clinical attributes and intervention protocols, of studies is valuable to advise directions for research and practice. This article reports the findings of a secondary analysis of the features from studies screened as part of a large systematic review of TENS (the meta-TENS study). Materials and Methods: A descriptive analysis was performed on information associated with methodology, sample populations and intervention protocols from 381 randomised controlled trials (24,532 participants) evaluating TENS delivered at a strong comfortable intensity at the painful site in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis. Results: Studies were conducted in 43 countries commonly using parallel group design (n = 334) and one comparator group (n = 231). Mean ± standard deviation (SD) study sample size (64.05 ± 58.29 participants) and TENS group size (27.67 ± 21.90 participants) were small, with only 13 of 381 studies having 100 participants or more in the TENS group. Most TENS interventions were ‘high frequency’ (>10 pps, n = 276) and using 100 Hz (109/353 reports that stated a pulse frequency value). Of 476 comparator groups, 54.2% were active treatments (i.e., analgesic medication(s), exercise, manual therapies and electrophysical agents). Of 202 placebo comparator groups, 155 used a TENS device that did not deliver currents. At least 216 of 383 study groups were able to access other treatments whilst receiving TENS. Only 136 out of 381 reports included a statement about adverse events. Conclusions: Clinical studies on TENS are dominated by small parallel group evaluations of high frequency TENS that are often contaminated by concurrent treatment(s). Study reports tended focus on physiological and clinical implications rather than the veracity of methodology and findings. Previously published criteria for designing and reporting TENS studies were neglected and this should be corrected in future research using insights gleaned from this analysis.

Knee Pain from Osteoarthritis: Pathogenesis, Risk Factors, and Recent Evidence on Physical Therapy Interventions

For patients presenting knee pain coming from osteoarthritis (OA), non-pharmacological conservative treatments (e.g., physical therapy interventions) are among the first methods in orthopedics and rehabilitation to prevent OA progression and avoid knee surgery. However, the best strategy for each patient is difficult to establish, because knee OA's exact causes of progression are not entirely understood. This narrative review presents (i) the most recent update on the pathogenesis of knee OA with the risk factors for developing OA and (ii) the most recent evidence for reducing knee pain with physical therapy intervention such as Diathermy, Exercise therapy, Ultrasounds, Knee Brace, and Electrical stimulation. In addition, we calculated the relative risk reduction in pain perception for each intervention. Our results show that only Brace interventions always reached the minimum for clinical efficiency, making the intervention significant and valuable for the patients regarding their Quality of Life. In addition, more than half of the Exercise and Diathermy interventions reached the minimum for clinical efficiency regarding pain level. This literature review helps clinicians to make evidence-based decisions for reducing knee pain and treating people living with knee OA to prevent knee replacement.

Effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on knee pain and physical function in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: the ETRELKA randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of TENS at relieving pain and improving physical function as compared to placebo TENS, and to determine its safety, in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Multi-centre, parallel, 1:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in six outpatient clinics in Switzerland. We included 220 participants with knee osteoarthritis recruited between October 15, 2012, and October 15, 2014. Patients were randomized to 3 weeks of treatment with TENS (n = 108) or placebo TENS (n = 112). Our pre-specified primary endpoint was knee pain at the end of 3-weeks treatment assessed with the WOMAC pain subscale. Secondary outcome measures included WOMAC physical function subscale and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

There was no difference between TENS and placebo TENS in WOMAC pain at the end of treatment (mean difference -0.06; 95%CI -0.41 to 0.29; P = 0.74), nor throughout the trial duration (P = 0.98). Subgroup analyses did not indicate an interaction between patient/treatment characteristics and treatment effect on WOMAC pain at the end of treatment (P-interaction ≥0.22). The occurrence of adverse events was similar across groups, with 10.4% and 10.6% of patients reporting events in the TENS and placebo TENS groups, respectively (P = 0.95). No relevant differences were observed in secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

TENS does not improve knee osteoarthritis pain when compared to placebo TENS. Therapists should consider other potentially more effective treatment modalities to decrease knee osteoarthritis pain and facilitate strengthening and aerobic exercise. Our findings are conclusive and further trials comparing TENS and placebo TENS in this patient population are not necessary.

Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in people with knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation (TENS) on pain, function, walking ability and stiffness in people with Knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), clinicaltrials.gov and Web of Science (last search November 2021) for randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used for the included studies, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to interpret the certainty of results. Standardized Mean Differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies were found (1398 people, age range 54-85, 74% are female) and fourteen were included in this review. Intervention duration was divided as short term (immediately after intervention), medium term (<four weeks) and long term (≥ four weeks). Active TENS showed greater improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) than sham TENS.Combining TENS with other interventions produced superior outcomes compared with other interventions for VAS in all the terms. In the meanwhile, TENS combined with other interventions was superior to other interventions for the pain subgroup of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index in the medium term and long term. TENS combined with other interventions was superior to other interventions for function in the medium term and long term.

CONCLUSION

TENS could significantly relieve pain, decrease dysfunction and improve walking ability in people with KOA, but it is not effective for stiffness.

Arthrogenic Muscle Inhibition: Best Evidence, Mechanisms, and Theory for Treating the Unseen in Clinical Rehabilitation

CONTEXT

Arthrogenic muscle inhibition (AMI) impedes the recovery of muscle function following joint injury, and in a broader sense, acts as a limiting factor in rehabilitation if left untreated. Despite a call to treat the underlying pathophysiology of muscle dysfunction more than three decades ago, the continued widespread observations of post-traumatic muscular impairments are concerning, and suggest that interventions for AMI are not being successfully integrated into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

To highlight the clinical relevance of AMI, provide updated evidence for the use of clinically accessible therapeutic adjuncts to treat AMI, and discuss the known or theoretical mechanisms for these interventions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for articles that investigated the effectiveness or efficacy of interventions to treat outcomes relevant to AMI.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

122 articles that investigated an intervention used to treat AMI among individuals with pathology or simulated pathology were retrieved from 1986 to 2021. Additional articles among uninjured individuals were considered when discussing mechanisms of effect.

CONCLUSION

AMI contributes to the characteristic muscular impairments observed in patients recovering from joint injuries. If left unresolved, AMI impedes short-term recovery and threatens patients' long-term joint health and well-being. Growing evidence supports the use of neuromodulatory strategies to facilitate muscle recovery over the course of rehabilitation. Interventions should be individualized to meet the needs of the patient through shared clinician-patient decision-making. At a minimum, we propose to keep the treatment approach simple by attempting to resolve inflammation, pain, and effusion early following injury.