Percutaneous neuromodulation therapy; does the location of electrical stimulation effect the acute analgesic response? (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX) Anesth Analg 2000;91:949–954.
Authors: White Paul F. , Craig William F. , Vakharia Akshay S. , Ghoname El‐sayed A. , Ahmed Hesham E. , Hamza: Mohammed A. 
Published: March 2003

This article studied the effect of the location of electrical stimulation on the acute analgesic response to percutaneous neuromodulation therapy in patients with nonradiating neck pain. Sixty‐eight patients received 3 different nonpharmacologic modalities, namely “needles only (neck), local (neck) dermatomal stimulation, and remote (lower back) dermatomal stimulation in a random sequence over the course of an 11‐week study period. All treatments were given for 30 min, 3 times per week for 3 weeks with 1 week “off” between each modality. The assessment tools included the health status survey short form (SF‐36) questionnaire as well as 10‐cm visual analog scales for assessing pain, physical activity, and quality of sleep. The pain visual analog scale was repeated 5‐10 min after each treatment session. The daily oral nonopioid analgesic requirements were recorded in the patient diary during the entire study period. At the end of each 3‐week treatment block, the SF‐36 questionnaire was repeated. Compared with needles only and remote dermatomal stimulation, local dermatomal stimulation produced a significantly greater decrease in pain, increase in physical activity, and improvement in the quality of sleep compared with baseline values (P < 0.05). The posttreatment SF‐36 test results revealed that all 3 modalities produced improvements compared with the prestudy scores for both the physical component summary and mental component summary. However, the magnitude of the changes in the physical component summary and mental component summary with local dermatomal stimulation was significantly greater than needle only or remote dermatomal stimulation. No side effects were reported at the needle insertion sites. Conclude that electrical stimulation at the specific dermatomal levels corresponding to the local pathology produces greater short‐term improvements in pain control, physical activity, and quality of sleep in patients with chronic neck pain.

Comment by Alan Kaye, M.D. Percutaneous neuromodulation is a therapy in which percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation is applied for short‐term relief of various pain syndromes. In this study involving 68 patients by White et al, the effects of neuromodulation therapy were studied with nonradiating neck pain. Local dermatomal stimulation consisted of placement of 10 32‐gauge stainless steel acupuncture needle probes to a depth of 2‐4 cm into the soft tissue and paraspinous muscles in the cervical region. For electrical therapy, 10 probes were connected to 5 bipolar leads from a low‐output electrical generator and stimulated for 30 min at 15 and 30 cycles/s. Finally, remote dermatomal electrical therapy consisted of placement of 10 32‐gauge stainless steel acupuncture‐like needle probes to a depth of 2‐4 cm into the soft tissue and/or paraspinous muscle in the lower back region. Each modality was administered to all patients 3 times per week for 3 consecutive weeks with 1 week off between each modality. Most parameters compared after demonstrated improvement locally and a reduction in daily usage of oral nonopioid analgesic medications. Future studies are warranted, in particular those in which long‐term benefits are assessed. The authors should be commended for studying this alternative treatment strategy and its role in mediating or modulating complex pain syndromes.