Chronic Refractory Myofascial Pain: Characteristics of Patients who Self-select Long-term Management with Electrical Twitch-Obtaining Intramuscular Stimulation
- *Corresponding Author:
- Jennifer Chu
Inventor and Founder CEO of eToims Medical Technology, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Received Date: April 06, 2013; Accepted Date: May 19, 2013; Published Date: May 21, 2013
Citation: Chu J, Schwartz I, Schwartz S (2013) Chronic Refractory Myofascial Pain: Characteristics of Patients who Self-select Long-term Management with Electrical Twitch-Obtaining Intramuscular Stimulation. Int J Phys Med Rehabil 1:134. doi: 10.4172/2329-9096.1000134
Copyright: © 2013 Chu J, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Introduction: Noninvasive Electrical Twitch-Obtaining Intramuscular Stimulation (eToims) is safe and efficacious in long-term management of chronic refractory myofascial pain (CRMP).
Objective: To evaluate factors influencing patient self-selection for long-term eToims management of CRMP.
Methods and materials: Included were 133 consecutive CRMP patients (65 males, 68 females) who opted to pay for eToims treatments between 12/1/09 and 12/31/11. Each session involved treatment to large muscles of C3-C7 and L3-S1 myotomes. Outcome measures include immediate pre&post-treatment session visual analogue scale (VAS), symptomatic (S) and asymptomatic (A) side range-of-motion (ROM) : for neck rotation (NR), shoulder external rotation (ER), shoulder internal rotation (IR), straight leg raising (SLR) and FABERE (FAB). Analysis performed by grouping results as follow: Group0: <=10 treatments and immediate reduction of VAS<2; Group1: ≤ 10 treatments and immediate reduction of VAS ≥ 2; Group2: >10 treatments and immediate reduction of VAS<2; and Group3: >10 treatments and immediate reduction of VAS ≥ 2. Safety precautions include interval history and vital signs before and after treatment.
Results: Groups 0 & 1 comparison showed no measured ROM difference. Group 3 & Group 2 comparison demonstrated shorter interval between treatments (15+47 vs. 138+167 days respectively, p<0.001), longer treatment duration/session (52.0+26.0 vs. 49.0+22.0 minutes, respectively), and immediate improvement in all ROM measured. Group pain relief appears influenced by age, symptom duration, treatment duration/session, pulse reduction and improvement in ROM. No eToims-associated safety issues noted.
Conclusions: Safe and efficacious pain relief with concomitant immediate improvement in ROM and pulse rate reduction correlates with patient satisfaction and self-selection to return for multiple eToims treatments over time.