Comparison of interferential current accommodation and comfort using three different base frequencies

sensation of paresthesia, which naturally decreases with the therapy time course due to accommodation (7). The accommodation phenomenon occurs after a decrease in the number of nerve depolarization and is related to the repetitive and prolonged stimulation. Therefore, to maintain a constant stimulation, usually an increase in current intensity is required always when the patient reports a reduction related to the current perception (8). The addition of other frequencies ( Δ f) with different slopes has been used as a strategy to avoid the IC accommodation. However, some studies reported that when a 4 kHz base frequency is used, the Δ f strategy is not effective to reduce the accommodation phenomenon (9,10). Indeed, we found only few studies, with contradictory results, establishing which IC base frequencies could avoid current accommodation and which parameters are supposed to be more comfortable during treatment with IC. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the required time for the first and the total number of accommodations throughout a 20-minute IC stimulation session and investigate which base frequency (2, 4 or 8 khz) has the best comfort perception during electrical stimulation. Abstract Introduction: The Interferential Current (IC) is widely used by physiotherapists to promote analgesia; however, the stimulus decrease during treatment due to accommodation. It is not clear which current parameters are better to induce less accommodations, therefore, aim of the study was to evaluate the time (seconds) of the first and the total number of current accommodations over a 20- minute treatment with currents of 2kHz, 4kHz and 8kHz and which of the base frequencies are more comfortable during the electrical stimulation. Materials and Methods: 22 subjects were divided into 3 subgroups, which underwent a 20-minute stimulation protocol with all three base currents at different moments. The stimulation was above the sensory threshold and the subjects indicated the time of the first accommodation, how often it occurred, and on the last day reported which frequency was the most comfortable. Results: No differences regarding the accommodation time and base frequency (p>0.05) could be found, however, the 8 kHz current was preferred for almost 82% of the sample (p<0.05). Conclusion: There was no difference in time and number of accommodations among the currents, but the 8 KHz base frequency was the most comfortable used in this protocol.

[1]  E. Nakano,et al.  Effects of carrier frequency of interferential current on pressure pain threshold and sensory comfort in humans. , 2013, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[2]  G. Bertolini,et al.  Efeitos do ΔF sobre a acomodação da corrente interferencial em sujeitos saudáveis , 2012 .

[3]  G. Bertolini,et al.  Efeitos da variação da rampa de entrega do ΔF sobre a acomodação da corrente interferencial em mulheres saudáveis , 2012 .

[4]  P. Nohama,et al.  Potencial de ação: do estímulo à adaptação neural , 2011 .

[5]  D. Walsh,et al.  An investigation of the development of analgesic tolerance to TENS in humans , 2011, PAIN®.

[6]  Douglas P. Gross,et al.  Effectiveness of Interferential Current Therapy in the Management of Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2010, Physical Therapy.

[7]  D. Magee,et al.  Does amplitude-modulated frequency have a role in the hypoalgesic response of interferential current on pressure pain sensitivity in healthy subjects? A randomised crossover study. , 2010, Physiotherapy.

[8]  B. Southwell,et al.  Daily transabdominal electrical stimulation at home increased defecation in children with slow-transit constipation: a pilot study. , 2009, Journal of pediatric surgery.

[9]  Alex R Ward,et al.  Electrical Stimulation Using Kilohertz-Frequency Alternating Current , 2009, Physical Therapy.

[10]  L. Brosseau,et al.  Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, interferential current, electrical muscle stimulation, ultrasound, and thermotherapy. , 2008, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[11]  Mark I. Johnson,et al.  Is mechanical pain threshold after transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) increased locally and unilaterally? A randomized placebo-controlled trial in healthy subjects. , 2007, Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy.

[12]  V. J. Bolfe,et al.  Comportamento da impedância elétrica dos tecidos biológicos durante estimulação elétrica transcutânea , 2007 .

[13]  V. Robertson,et al.  The analgesic effects of interferential therapy on two experimental pain models: cold and mechanically induced pain , 2006 .

[14]  C. Parada,et al.  Interferential therapy produces antinociception during application in various models of inflammatory pain. , 2006, Physical therapy.

[15]  A. Beatti,et al.  The effect of prone position and interferential therapy on lumbosacral radiculopathy , 2006 .

[16]  G. C. Goats Physiotherapy treatment modalities Interferential current therapy , 2006 .

[17]  V. Robertson,et al.  A comparison of true and premodulated interferential currents. , 2004, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[18]  V. Robertson,et al.  Optimal frequencies for electric stimulation using medium-frequency alternating current. , 2002, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[19]  D. J. Martin,et al.  Alteration of interferential current and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation frequency: effects on nerve excitation. , 1999, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.