Electrical stimulation for preventing and treating post-stroke shoulder pain

Shoulder pain after stroke is common and disabling. The optimal management is uncertain, but electrical stimulation (ES) is often used to treat and prevent pain. The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy of any form of surface ES in the prevention and / or treatment of pain around t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2000-10, Vol.2000 (4), p.CD001698-CD001698
Main Authors: Price, C I, Pandyan, A D
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Complementary & alternative medicine
Electric Stimulation Therapy - methods
Heart & circulation
Humans
Neurology
PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF COMPLICATIONS FOLLOWING STROKE
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Range of Motion, Articular
Shoulder Pain - etiology
Shoulder Pain - prevention & control
Shoulder Pain - therapy
Stroke - complications
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Shoulder pain after stroke is common and disabling. The optimal management is uncertain, but electrical stimulation (ES) is often used to treat and prevent pain. The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy of any form of surface ES in the prevention and / or treatment of pain around the shoulder at any time after stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Review Group trials register and undertook further searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Contact was established with equipment manufacturers and centres that have published on the topic of ES. We considered all randomised trials that assessed any surface ES technique (functional electrical stimulation (FES), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) or other), applied at any time since stroke for the purpose of prevention or treatment of shoulder pain. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Four trials (a total of 170 subjects) fitted the inclusion criteria. Study design and ES technique varied considerably, often precluding the combination of studies. Population numbers were small. There was no significant change in pain incidence (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.64; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.14) or change in pain intensity (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) 0.13; 95% CI -1.0 to 1.25) after ES treatment compared to control. There was a significant treatment effect in favour of ES for improvement in pain-free range of passive humeral lateral rotation (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) 9.17; 95% CI 1.43 to 16.91). In these studies ES reduced the severity of glenohumeral subluxation (SMD -1.13; 95% CI -1.66 to -0.60), but there was no significant effect on upper limb motor recovery (SMD 0.24; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.62) or upper limb spasticity (WMD 0.05; 95% CI -0.28 to 0.37). There did not appear to be any negative effects of electrical stimulation at the shoulder. The evidence from randomised controlled trials so far does not confirm or refute that ES around the shoulder after stroke influences reports of pain, but there do appear to be benefits for passive humeral lateral rotation. A possible mechanism is through the reduction of glenohumeral subluxation. Further studies are required.
ISSN:1469-493X
DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD001698