No abstract available.
Chronic Pain* ; Electrodes*

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is one of the common musculoskeletal conditions of the shoulder which may develop sensory-motor and autonomic dysfunctions at the various level of the neuromuscular system. The pain and dysfunction caused by MPS were primarily treated with physical therapy and pharmacological agents in order to achieve painfree movements. However, in recent years intramuscular electrical stimulation (IMES) with conventional electrode placement was used by researchers to maximise therapeutic values. But, in this study an inverse electrode placement was used to deliver electrical impulses intramuscularly to achieve neuro-modulation at the various level of the nervous system. Nine patients with MPS were treated with intramuscular electrode stimulation using inversely placed electrodes for a period of three weeks. All nine subjects recovered from their shoulder pain and disability within the few weeks of intervention. So, this inverse electrode placement may be more appropriate for chronic pain management.
Chronic Pain ; Electric Stimulation* ; Electrodes* ; Humans ; Myofascial Pain Syndromes* ; Nervous System ; Shoulder Pain ; Shoulder*

Background: This study investigates whether intramuscular electrical stimulation (IMES) with inverse electrode placement (IEP) or conventional electrode placement (CEP) more effectively modulates pain. The current study’s aim was to compare the effects of IMES using IEP and CEP, and sham-IMES on the pressure pain threshold (PPT), EMG activity, upper trapezius (UT) muscle length and pain severity among adults with UT myofascial trigger points (MTrPs). Methods: Thirty-six male adults with UT-MTrPs were allocated into three groups. IEP, CEP and sham groups were respectively treated with a single IMES session using IEP, CEP, and sham-IMES. Pain intensity, PPT, EMG activity (root mean square, RMS) and UT muscle length were measured on day one before the treatment, day one post treatment and at a day three follow-up to determine the immediate and short-term effectiveness of IMES. Results: IMES using both IEP and CEP methods produced significant higher changes in UT-PPT (median, interquartile-interval, IEP group: 3.25, 2.56–3.50 and CEP group: 2.75, 1.75–3.00, vs. sham group: 1.07, 0.89–1.71 kg/cm 2 ), RMS (IEP: 0.31, 0.26–0.35 and CEP: 0.36, 0.23–0.38, vs. sham: 0.21, 0.16–0.25 mV), and UT muscle length (IEP: 9.50, 8–12.75 and CEP: 8, 7–10, vs. 1.5. 1–2.75 degrees) and UT-pain severity (IEP: 3.00, 2.25–4 and CEP: 3, 3–3, vs. sham: 2, 2–2.75 points on VAS) compared to the score change in sham-IMES at day three follow up. Conclusions Pain modulation can be effectively achieved using IMES regardless of electrode placement method, with different electrode configurations.

Background: This study investigates whether intramuscular electrical stimulation (IMES) with inverse electrode placement (IEP) or conventional electrode placement (CEP) more effectively modulates pain. The current study’s aim was to compare the effects of IMES using IEP and CEP, and sham-IMES on the pressure pain threshold (PPT), EMG activity, upper trapezius (UT) muscle length and pain severity among adults with UT myofascial trigger points (MTrPs). Methods: Thirty-six male adults with UT-MTrPs were allocated into three groups. IEP, CEP and sham groups were respectively treated with a single IMES session using IEP, CEP, and sham-IMES. Pain intensity, PPT, EMG activity (root mean square, RMS) and UT muscle length were measured on day one before the treatment, day one post treatment and at a day three follow-up to determine the immediate and short-term effectiveness of IMES. Results: IMES using both IEP and CEP methods produced significant higher changes in UT-PPT (median, interquartile-interval, IEP group: 3.25, 2.56–3.50 and CEP group: 2.75, 1.75–3.00, vs. sham group: 1.07, 0.89–1.71 kg/cm 2 ), RMS (IEP: 0.31, 0.26–0.35 and CEP: 0.36, 0.23–0.38, vs. sham: 0.21, 0.16–0.25 mV), and UT muscle length (IEP: 9.50, 8–12.75 and CEP: 8, 7–10, vs. 1.5. 1–2.75 degrees) and UT-pain severity (IEP: 3.00, 2.25–4 and CEP: 3, 3–3, vs. sham: 2, 2–2.75 points on VAS) compared to the score change in sham-IMES at day three follow up. Conclusions Pain modulation can be effectively achieved using IMES regardless of electrode placement method, with different electrode configurations.

Background: This study investigates whether intramuscular electrical stimulation (IMES) with inverse electrode placement (IEP) or conventional electrode placement (CEP) more effectively modulates pain. The current study’s aim was to compare the effects of IMES using IEP and CEP, and sham-IMES on the pressure pain threshold (PPT), EMG activity, upper trapezius (UT) muscle length and pain severity among adults with UT myofascial trigger points (MTrPs). Methods: Thirty-six male adults with UT-MTrPs were allocated into three groups. IEP, CEP and sham groups were respectively treated with a single IMES session using IEP, CEP, and sham-IMES. Pain intensity, PPT, EMG activity (root mean square, RMS) and UT muscle length were measured on day one before the treatment, day one post treatment and at a day three follow-up to determine the immediate and short-term effectiveness of IMES. Results: IMES using both IEP and CEP methods produced significant higher changes in UT-PPT (median, interquartile-interval, IEP group: 3.25, 2.56–3.50 and CEP group: 2.75, 1.75–3.00, vs. sham group: 1.07, 0.89–1.71 kg/cm 2 ), RMS (IEP: 0.31, 0.26–0.35 and CEP: 0.36, 0.23–0.38, vs. sham: 0.21, 0.16–0.25 mV), and UT muscle length (IEP: 9.50, 8–12.75 and CEP: 8, 7–10, vs. 1.5. 1–2.75 degrees) and UT-pain severity (IEP: 3.00, 2.25–4 and CEP: 3, 3–3, vs. sham: 2, 2–2.75 points on VAS) compared to the score change in sham-IMES at day three follow up. Conclusions Pain modulation can be effectively achieved using IMES regardless of electrode placement method, with different electrode configurations.

Background: This study investigates whether intramuscular electrical stimulation (IMES) with inverse electrode placement (IEP) or conventional electrode placement (CEP) more effectively modulates pain. The current study’s aim was to compare the effects of IMES using IEP and CEP, and sham-IMES on the pressure pain threshold (PPT), EMG activity, upper trapezius (UT) muscle length and pain severity among adults with UT myofascial trigger points (MTrPs). Methods: Thirty-six male adults with UT-MTrPs were allocated into three groups. IEP, CEP and sham groups were respectively treated with a single IMES session using IEP, CEP, and sham-IMES. Pain intensity, PPT, EMG activity (root mean square, RMS) and UT muscle length were measured on day one before the treatment, day one post treatment and at a day three follow-up to determine the immediate and short-term effectiveness of IMES. Results: IMES using both IEP and CEP methods produced significant higher changes in UT-PPT (median, interquartile-interval, IEP group: 3.25, 2.56–3.50 and CEP group: 2.75, 1.75–3.00, vs. sham group: 1.07, 0.89–1.71 kg/cm 2 ), RMS (IEP: 0.31, 0.26–0.35 and CEP: 0.36, 0.23–0.38, vs. sham: 0.21, 0.16–0.25 mV), and UT muscle length (IEP: 9.50, 8–12.75 and CEP: 8, 7–10, vs. 1.5. 1–2.75 degrees) and UT-pain severity (IEP: 3.00, 2.25–4 and CEP: 3, 3–3, vs. sham: 2, 2–2.75 points on VAS) compared to the score change in sham-IMES at day three follow up. Conclusions Pain modulation can be effectively achieved using IMES regardless of electrode placement method, with different electrode configurations.

Background: This study investigates whether intramuscular electrical stimulation (IMES) with inverse electrode placement (IEP) or conventional electrode placement (CEP) more effectively modulates pain. The current study’s aim was to compare the effects of IMES using IEP and CEP, and sham-IMES on the pressure pain threshold (PPT), EMG activity, upper trapezius (UT) muscle length and pain severity among adults with UT myofascial trigger points (MTrPs). Methods: Thirty-six male adults with UT-MTrPs were allocated into three groups. IEP, CEP and sham groups were respectively treated with a single IMES session using IEP, CEP, and sham-IMES. Pain intensity, PPT, EMG activity (root mean square, RMS) and UT muscle length were measured on day one before the treatment, day one post treatment and at a day three follow-up to determine the immediate and short-term effectiveness of IMES. Results: IMES using both IEP and CEP methods produced significant higher changes in UT-PPT (median, interquartile-interval, IEP group: 3.25, 2.56–3.50 and CEP group: 2.75, 1.75–3.00, vs. sham group: 1.07, 0.89–1.71 kg/cm 2 ), RMS (IEP: 0.31, 0.26–0.35 and CEP: 0.36, 0.23–0.38, vs. sham: 0.21, 0.16–0.25 mV), and UT muscle length (IEP: 9.50, 8–12.75 and CEP: 8, 7–10, vs. 1.5. 1–2.75 degrees) and UT-pain severity (IEP: 3.00, 2.25–4 and CEP: 3, 3–3, vs. sham: 2, 2–2.75 points on VAS) compared to the score change in sham-IMES at day three follow up. Conclusions Pain modulation can be effectively achieved using IMES regardless of electrode placement method, with different electrode configurations.