Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation
Moderate evidence supports no significant difference in functional outcomes, pain or opioid use between transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and standard treatment or sham.
Pharmacologic, Physical, and Cognitive Pain Alleviation for Musculoskeletal Extremity/Pelvis Surgery (2021)
This guideline was produced in collaboration with METRC, with funding provided by the US Department of Defense. Endorsed by: SOMOS, OTA

Rationale

The Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation recommendation has been downgraded one level because of inconsistent evidence.

Eight high quality (Kadi 2019, Gorodestskyi 2017, Ramanathan 2017, Feil 2011, Avramidis 2011, Izumi 2015, Forogh 2019, Rakel 2014) and three moderate quality (Goyal 2012, Lan 2012, Gorodetskyi 2010) studies were reviewed. Only one of these eleven studies reported improvements in function (over standard treatment), and two additional studies reported improvement in ROM. Only one moderate quality study reported reductions in opioid use. Three of nine studies reporting on pain outcomes showed improvement.

Benefits/Harms of Implementation

No studies reported adverse events and this technology is in widespread use. Risks appear to be low.

Cost Effectiveness/Resource Utilization

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) units are economical and may have low resource utilization in the hospital setting.

Future Research

Inconsistent results highlight the need for larger studies with an emphasis on heterogenous treatment effects, particularly around pain outcomes and cost effectiveness studies.