TY - JOUR
T1 - Difference in pain and discomfort of comparable wrist movements induced by magnetic or electrical stimulation for peripheral nerves in the dorsal forearm
AU - Abe, Genji
AU - Oyama, Hideki
AU - Liao, Zhenyi
AU - Honda, Keita
AU - Yashima, Kenji
AU - Asao, Akihiko
AU - Izumi, Shin Ichi
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was partially supported by the JSPS KAKENHI, Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas “Understanding brain plasticity on body representations to promote their adaptive functions” (Grant Number C01-1: 26120007). This study was also supported in part by a research grant from The General Insurance Association of Japan, and by Regional Innovation Strategy Support Program Initiated by MEXT (Support for Recovery and Reconstruction from the Great East Japan Earthquake).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Abe et al.
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - Purpose: Both repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) and transcutaneous electrical current stimulation (TES) could elicit the limb movements; it is still unclear how subjective sensation is changed according to the amount of limb movements. We investigated the pain and discomfort induced by newly developed rPMS and TES of peripheral nerves in the dorsal forearm. Methods: The subjects were 12 healthy adults. The stimulus site was the right dorsal forearm; thus, when stimulated, wrist dorsiflexion was induced. The rPMS was delivered by the new stimulator, Pathleader at 10 stimulus intensity levels, and TES intensity was in 1-mA increments. The duration of each stimulation was 2 s. The analysis parameters were subjective pain and discomfort, measured by a numerical rating scale. The rating scale at corresponding levels of integrated range of movement (iROM) induced by rPMS or TES was compared. The subjective values were analyzed by two-way repeated measures ANOVA with the stimulus conditions (rPMS, TES) and the seven levels of iROM (20–140 ºs). Results: In the rPMS experiments, stimuli were administered to all subjects at all stimulus intensities. In the TES experiments, none of the subjects dropped out between 1 and 16 mA, but there were dropouts at each of the intensities as follows: 1 subject at 17 mA, 20 mA, 22 mA, 23 mA, 27 mA, 29 mA and 2 subjects at 21 mA, 24 mA, 26 mA. The main effects of the stimulus conditions and iROM were significant for pain and discomfort. Post hoc analysis demonstrated that pain and discomfort in rPMS were significantly lower compared to TES when the iROM was above 60 ºs and 80 ºs, respectively. Conclusion: New rPMS stimulator, Pathleader, caused less pain and discomfort than TES, but this was only evident when comparatively large joint movements occurred.
AB - Purpose: Both repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) and transcutaneous electrical current stimulation (TES) could elicit the limb movements; it is still unclear how subjective sensation is changed according to the amount of limb movements. We investigated the pain and discomfort induced by newly developed rPMS and TES of peripheral nerves in the dorsal forearm. Methods: The subjects were 12 healthy adults. The stimulus site was the right dorsal forearm; thus, when stimulated, wrist dorsiflexion was induced. The rPMS was delivered by the new stimulator, Pathleader at 10 stimulus intensity levels, and TES intensity was in 1-mA increments. The duration of each stimulation was 2 s. The analysis parameters were subjective pain and discomfort, measured by a numerical rating scale. The rating scale at corresponding levels of integrated range of movement (iROM) induced by rPMS or TES was compared. The subjective values were analyzed by two-way repeated measures ANOVA with the stimulus conditions (rPMS, TES) and the seven levels of iROM (20–140 ºs). Results: In the rPMS experiments, stimuli were administered to all subjects at all stimulus intensities. In the TES experiments, none of the subjects dropped out between 1 and 16 mA, but there were dropouts at each of the intensities as follows: 1 subject at 17 mA, 20 mA, 22 mA, 23 mA, 27 mA, 29 mA and 2 subjects at 21 mA, 24 mA, 26 mA. The main effects of the stimulus conditions and iROM were significant for pain and discomfort. Post hoc analysis demonstrated that pain and discomfort in rPMS were significantly lower compared to TES when the iROM was above 60 ºs and 80 ºs, respectively. Conclusion: New rPMS stimulator, Pathleader, caused less pain and discomfort than TES, but this was only evident when comparatively large joint movements occurred.
KW - Discomfort
KW - Integrated range of wrist movement
KW - Pain
KW - Peripheral electrical stimulation
KW - Peripheral magnetic stimulation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85097945086&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85097945086&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2147/MDER.S271258
DO - 10.2147/MDER.S271258
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85097945086
SN - 1179-1470
VL - 13
SP - 438
EP - 447
JO - Medical Devices: Evidence and Research
JF - Medical Devices: Evidence and Research
ER -