Abstract
Purpose of Review
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is widely used as a non-pharmacological approach for pain relief in a variety of clinical conditions. This manuscript aimed to review the basic mechanisms and clinical applications regarding the use of TENS for alleviating the peripheral (PNP) and central neuropathic pain (CNP).
Recent Findings
Basic studies on animal models showed that TENS could alleviate pain by modulating neurotransmitters and receptors in the stimulation site and its upper levels, including the spinal cord, brainstem, and brain. Besides, many clinical studies have investigated the efficacy of TENS in patients with CNP (caused by spinal cord injury, stroke, or multiple sclerosis) and PNP (induced by diabetes, cancer, or herpes zoster). Most clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of TENS in attenuating neuropathic pain and suggested that appropriate stimulation parameters (e.g., stimulation frequency and intensity) were critical to improving the analgesic effects of TENS. However, there are some conflicting findings related to the efficacy of TENS in relieving neuropathic pain.
Summary
With optimized stimulation parameters, TENS would be effective in attenuating neuropathic pain. To obtain sufficient evidence to support the use of TENS in the clinic, researchers recommended performing multicenter clinical trials with optimized TENS protocols for the treatment of various CNP and PNP.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Although neuropathic pain disorders are known to develop following a disease or lesion of the somatosensory nervous system [1], the underlying pathogeneses and etiologies of these disorders are not completely understood. Wide range patterns of sensory signs and symptoms could be observed in neuropathies of different etiologies and patients with neuropathies of the same etiology [2]. The expression of these sensory signs includes allodynia (excessive pain to a normally non-painful stimulus), hyperalgesia (increased pain to a painful stimulus), and sensory loss [2]. The sensory signs reflect the pathophysiological mechanisms in injured and survived afferent nerve fibers, including ectopic impulse generation, conduction block, and peripheral and central sensitization [3]. Even pathophysiological mechanisms of neuropathic pain cannot be readily examined in patients, the expression of some sensory signs is related to pathogenesis. For example, heat hyperalgesia is mainly related to peripheral sensitization [4, 5], and pinprick hyperalgesia is associated with central sensitization [6, 7]. Thus, the individual somatosensory profile could reveal some clues to the pathophysiological dysfunctions of afferent processing [2, 8].
Neuropathic pain is typically classified into peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) and central neuropathic pain (CNP) based on the site of the disease or lesion [9]. PNP, resulted from the damage or diseases of peripheral nerves, is widely observed in different conditions, such as painful diabetic neuropathy (or diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain [DPNP]), cancer-related neuropathic pain, and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) [10]. CNP, caused by the damage or diseases affecting different levels of the central nervous system, is popularly reported in various conditions, including stroke, spinal cord injury (SCI), and multiple sclerosis (MS) [11]. Regardless of the site of the disease or lesion, different kinds of neuropathic pain have some common characteristics, such as positive features (e.g., spontaneous pain, hyperalgesia, and allodynia) and negative features (e.g., weakness, sensory loss, and hypoesthesia) [8, 12]. Nevertheless, neuropathic pain is recently suggested to be classified using a different scheme, in which pain is more appropriately differentiated based on the underlying mechanisms [13, 14]. This scheme emphasized the rationale for choosing an optimized treatment strategy based on mechanisms rather than the type of diseases [15,16,17].
Despite the complexity of pain neurobiology has been well recognized, the pharmacological control of pain-related disorders remains inadequate. Different medications have been introduced to relieve neuropathic pain, whereas almost all have potential side effects [18] and several promising agents have failed in the late phase of the clinical trials [10, 19]. Thus, it is highly important to develop new analgesia strategies that can effectively relieve neuropathic pain with fewer adverse effects. As a noninvasive and non-pharmacological treatment, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) has been used to treat a variety of neuropathic pains [20••]. The analgesic effects of TENS have been demonstrated to be achieved through different neurobiological mechanisms affecting peripheral and central nervous systems [21]. Specifically, applying electrical pulses to the surface of the skin could activate nerve fibers, and then induce the release of the endogenous opioid, the modification of electrical transmission, and the dilation of blood vessels, ultimately leading to the relief of neuropathic pain [21,22,23].
Although some clinical studies have demonstrated the efficiency of TENS for alleviating neuropathic pain, there is still much controversy on how to optimize the analgesic effects of TENS. It should be noted that controlled clinical trials investigating the analgesic effects of TENS in PNP and CNP patients are still insufficient. In addition, existing clinical trials investigating the analgesic effects of TENS mainly focused on discussing different TENS parameters rather than the underlying mechanisms, e.g., TENS-induced physiological and histopathological alterations. These situations hindered the popularization of TENS to eliminate neuropathic pain in clinical applications.
In the present investigation, we first describe the characteristics of different types of TENS. After that, we discuss the neurobiological mechanisms of TENS in relieving neuropathic pain. Then, we summarize the efficiency of TENS in treating patients with PNP or CNP caused by different types of diseases or lesions. Finally, we propose the possible directions in future studies for optimizing the TENS-induced analgesic effects in clinical practice.
TENS: Types and Characteristics
As a noninvasive analgesic technique, TENS activates peripheral nerves by delivering electrical pulses to the intact surface of the skin [24], which could modulate the transmission of nerve impulses by inhibiting presynaptic transmission of nociceptive information [25]. In practice, TENS can be implemented using different stimulus parameters in frequency, intensity, and electrode placement [26, 27]. Since TENS with different stimulus parameters could activate different populations of nerve fibers, this technique can be divided into different types, including conventional TENS (low intensity and high frequency), acupuncture-like TENS (high intensity and low frequency), and intense TENS (high intensity and high frequency). The characteristics of these TENS types are detailed below.
Conventional TENS (Low Intensity, High Frequency)
As one of the most commonly used TENS techniques [28], conventional TENS is capable of selectively exciting large diameter, low-threshold non-noxious afferent nerve fibers (Aβ fibers) in pain-related dermatomes [29], which inhibits the activity of the second-order nociceptive transmission neurons. The stimulus parameters of conventional TENS are usually set at a comfortable intensity (below the pain threshold) and a high frequency (> 10 Hz) [30, 31], which can generate a non-painful tingling sensation (strong but comfortable) underneath the TENS electrodes. However, further increased stimulus intensity would undesirably activate small diameter, high-threshold noxious afferent nerves (Aδ fibers) and induce an undesired painful sensation beneath the TENS electrodes [28].
Acupuncture-Like TENS (High Intensity, Low Frequency)
Acupuncture-like TENS can stimulate small diameter, myelinated (Aδ fibers) and unmyelinated (C fibers) afferent nerves, which subsequently activate extrasegmental descending pain inhibitory pathways to produce a spatially diffuse analgesic effect [32, 33]. The stimulus parameters of acupuncture-like TENS are usually set at a high intensity (i.e., reaching pain tolerance threshold) and a low frequency (2–4 Hz) [34], which can produce a painful but tolerable sensation underneath the TENS electrodes. Acupuncture-like TENS can be used in patients who do not respond to conventional TENS, while it is advised to be applied less frequently than conventional TENS (e.g., 20 min per time and 3 times per day) [28].
Intense TENS (High Intensity, High Frequency)
Similar to acupuncture-like TENS, intense TENS is designed to activate Aδ fibers, which can block the transmission of nociceptive information through extrasegmental analgesic mechanisms [35]. Theoretically, this technique could also produce a spatially diffuse analgesic effect. For the sake of safety, intense TENS is suggested to be applied for a short period (few minutes) on the premise that the stimulus parameters (high intensity, reaching pain tolerance threshold; high frequency, < 200 Hz) are tolerable for the patients.
Placements of TENS Electrodes
The TENS electrodes are normally placed in the proximity of the painful area [36], while the possible influence of electrode placement on TENS-induced analgesic effects is largely ignored previously [37]. In one of our recent studies [38•], we comprehensively investigated the possible interaction between the electrode placement and the type of TENS (i.e., conventional TENS and acupuncture-like TENS). We observed that the analgesic effect of conventional TENS was maximal when the electrodes were placed around the painful area. In contrast, acupuncture-like TENS produced a spatially diffuse analgesic effect, i.e., equally strong analgesic effect regardless of whether the electrodes were placed in the hand ipsilateral or contralateral to the painful area [38•]. Similarly, Cho et al. (2014) evaluated the effectiveness of different electrode placements with conventional TENS (100 Hz, sub-motor threshold, 20 min) in relieving the chronic neuropathic pain in the upper limb based on the rat model of median nerve injury [39]. When the electrodes were placed at the ipsilateral side of the injured site, the neuropathic pain was greatly alleviated. However, when the electrodes were placed at the contralateral side of the injured site, TENS only decreased the mechanical allodynia in the injured site. These results suggested that the analgesic effect of conventional TENS was maximal when it was delivered on the skin near the painful area. Besides, Sabino et al. (2008) compared the analgesic effect of conventional TENS (130 Hz) and acupuncture-like TENS (10 Hz) in an inflammation model produced by the injection of carrageenan in rat paws [40]. They observed that, while both types of TENS could inhibit the carrageenan-induced hyperalgesia, pretreatment of animals with intraplantar naltrexone reversed the analgesic effect of the acupuncture-like TENS but not that of the conventional TENS. Also, acupuncture-like TENS produced a longer-lasting analgesic effect than conventional TENS, suggesting that the analgesic effect of acupuncture-like TENS is partially due to the release of endogenous opioids. In short, these findings indicated that conventional TENS and acupuncture-like TENS act through different neurobiological mechanisms, which implied that the optimal placement of the TENS electrodes should be determined based on the type of TENS. Specifically, in clinical practice, TENS electrodes are suggested to be placed near the painful area when conventional TENS is adopted, and such requirement is not necessary when acupuncture-like TENS is used (i.e., TENS electrodes could be placed far from the painful area, since its analgesic effect is much less influenced by where TENS electrodes are located).
Peripheral and Central Mechanisms
Different types of TENS have different analgesic mechanisms [41], including peripheral mechanisms, segmental mechanisms, and extrasegmental mechanisms. Conventional TENS is regarded to mainly associate with segmental mechanisms since it can result in a segmental inhibition of the spinal transmission of nociceptive information at the dorsal horn. Acupuncture-like TENS and intense TENS are deemed to largely relate to extrasegmental mechanisms since they can produce analgesia through recruiting descending pain inhibition system. Besides, conventional TENS and intense TENS (both of them are delivered at a high frequency) are demonstrated to relate to peripheral mechanisms since they can generate peripheral blockade of afferent impulses [21, 42].
Peripheral Mechanisms
Both conventional TENS and intense TENS can elicit antidromic activation in peripheral afferent nerves, i.e., the delivery of TENS could elicit nerve impulses traveling away from the central nervous system along the nerve axon [28]. The antidromic activation could result in the peripheral blockade of nociceptive impulses since antidromic nerve impulses would collide with and inhibit afferent impulses arising from the injured tissue [28, 37]. Peripheral blockade induced by conventional TENS is likely to occur in large diameter fibers (e.g., Aβ fibers), which could produce a “busy line effect” and thus generate an analgesic effect for some patients with allodynia. Peripheral blockade of nociceptive impulses is more evident during the intense TENS treatment. The nerve impulses traveling in Aδ fibers induced by intense TENS would collide with nociceptive impulses originated from the injured tissue [35]. Please note that the TENS-induced peripheral blockade is well documented by previous evidence showing that TENS can reduce the conduction velocity and amplitude of action potentials of Aβ and Aδ fibers in isolated nerves [28, 43].
Segmental Mechanisms
Conventional TENS mainly involves in the segmental mechanisms, in which the activation of large-diameter Aβ fibers induced by electrical stimulation could activate the inhibitory interneurons in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, thus reducing the firing rate of the projection neurons [44]. The segmental mechanisms are in line with the gate control theory of pain proposed by Melzack and Wall [45]. Non-nociceptive inputs close the nerve “gates” to nociceptive inputs, which prevents nociceptive impulses from traveling to the central nervous system. To support the segmental mechanisms, it has been demonstrated that by stimulating large-diameter afferents (i.e., Aβ fibers), conventional TENS suppressed the activation of dorsal horn neurons for up to 2 h after spinal cord transection in cats [46]. In addition, it has been proved that the latency of tail flick responding to heat stimulation enhanced after conventional TENS treatment [47, 48], and this inhibition effect on tail flick was also observed in spinalized animals whose descending pain inhibitory pathways were ruined [48, 49].
Extrasegmental Mechanisms
Acupuncture-like TENS and intense TENS can produce analgesic effects through the recruitment of the descending pain inhibition system [32, 50]. Their analgesic effects are more related to the diffuse noxious inhibitory control (DNIC) phenomenon [51]: a strong noxious input causes the release of endogenous opioids in the periaqueductal gray (PAG) and rostral ventral medulla (RVM), which in turn results in a diffuse descending inhibition of nociception [52, 53]. In addition to the recruitment of the PAG-RVM network, analgesic effects could also be produced through the activation of neurons in the medullary subnucleus reticularis dorsalis which is part of the DNIC system [54, 55]. The analgesic effect of conventional TENS could be partly explained by extrasegmental mechanisms as well [32, 48]. It has been found that conventional TENS could reduce the neuropathic pain in rats with complete spinal transection at the level of the 10th and 11th thoracic vertebrae [48]. Besides, the analgesic effect of conventional TENS would be blocked by naltrindole (a δ-opioid receptor antagonist) microinjected in the spinal cord [56, 57] or RVM [48].
Neurotransmitters and Receptors
Different classes of neurotransmitters (e.g., serotonin, opioid, and norepinephrine) and different types of receptors they bind to (e.g., serotonin receptors, opioid receptors, and adrenergic receptors) in peripheral and central nervous systems have been found to contribute to the analgesic effects of TENS [58]. At the peripheral level, adrenergic receptors play an important role in TENS-induced analgesia. Neither conventional TENS nor acupuncture-like TENS could produce analgesic effects in mutant mice, for which the functional α2A-adrenergic receptors are absent in the periphery [59]. Besides, the analgesic effect induced by acupuncture-like TENS would be reversed when α-adrenergic receptors were blocked by systemic administration of phentolamine [60].
At the central level, TENS-induced analgesia is associated with several classes of neurotransmitters and their receptors. In patients with neurological disorders, conventional TENS and acupuncture-like TENS could respectively increase the concentration of dynorphin and encephalin in lumbar cerebrospinal fluid [61]. In animal studies, the analgesic effects of conventional TENS and acupuncture-like TENS were prevented by the blockade of opioid receptors in the RVM or spinal cord or synaptic transmission in the ventrolateral PAG [48, 57, 62]. Furthermore, the blockade of muscarinic receptors and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors in the spinal cord would prevent the analgesic effects of conventional TENS and acupuncture-like TENS [63, 64]. Besides, acupuncture-like TENS is associated with the increased release of serotonin [65], and its analgesic effect will be inhibited by the blockade of serotonin receptors in the spinal cord [41, 65]. It should be noted that whether the physiological mechanisms of TENS discovered in animal models are the same as those in humans is still on debate.
Clinical Applications: Alleviating Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
Resulted from lesions or diseases of the peripheral nervous system, PNP is normally characterized by spontaneous pain, allodynia, and/or hyperalgesia [66]. There are various etiologies of PNP, including toxin, trauma, metabolic dysfunction, infection/inflammation, tumor invasion/compression, hereditary, etc. [67•]. With the aging of the global population, PNP becomes more common due to the increased incidence of many relevant diseases, e.g., diabetes, cancer, and postherpetic neuralgia [68]. The analgesic effects of TENS on several commonly observed PNP (e.g., DPNP, cancer-related neuropathic pain, and PHN) have been widely investigated, and the relevant findings were summarized in the following sections (Table 1).
Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
Diabetes is one of the major causes of peripheral neuropathy. DPNP is defined as a pain directly originated from the abnormalities of the peripheral somatosensory system in people with diabetes [69]. Approximately 10% to 26% of diabetic patients have neuropathic pain [70], which exerts a substantial impact on their quality of life by interfering with sleep and enjoyment of life [71]. The efficiency of TENS in relieving DPNP has been proven in many published human studies. In an early case study, conventional TENS (80 Hz) applied to the lumbar skin of a DPNP patient (a 73-year-old woman) reduced pain intensity by 38% after the first 20-min treatment and even eliminated pain after the 17-day treatment (1~2 h during the day and the entire night) [72]. Besides, it has been demonstrated that 12-week TENS (pulse width 4 ms, 25~35 V, ≥ 2 Hz) combined with amitriptyline was effective in reducing neuropathic pain in patients with type 2 diabetes [73], suggesting TENS could augment the analgesic effect of pharmacological agents. Besides, compared with the sham condition, TENS (15~30 Hz) (3 weeks, 3 times per week, 30 min per time) was able to significantly decrease pain intensity and improve physical activity, sense of well-being, and quality of sleep in DPNP patients [74]. Similarly, compared with placebo, 12-week acupuncture-like TENS (4 Hz) treatment could reduce pain and pain-related symptoms in DPNP patients [75]. Another study indicated that conventional TENS (80 Hz; intensity, 2~3 times as much as the sensory threshold, every other day for 20 min) also could reduce pain in both type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients with DPNP [76]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses concluded that the positive effects of TENS in treating DPNP are consistent and sufficient [23, 77]. In line with the above findings, the American Academy of Neurology regarded TENS as a “probably effective” treatment for reducing DPNP and recommended to apply TENS as a non-pharmacological technique for pain relief in DPNP patients [78].
Cancer-Related Neuropathic Pain
Up to 40% of cancer patients suffer from neuropathic pain that would result in increased analgesic consumption and decreased quality of life [79]. While the majority of neuropathic pain in cancer patients directly resulted from tissue destruction by the tumor, a growing proportion is caused by cancer treatments, such as surgery and/or chemotherapy [80]. Many clinical trials have been performed to investigate the analgesic effects of TENS on cancer-related neuropathic pain [81]. In a systematic review including only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with cancer-related neuropathic pain, the authors concluded that TENS was not more effective than the placebo according to the contradictory results from three RCTs. Notably, the conflicting findings could be caused by the fact that there are no suitable and sufficient RCTs to evaluate the analgesic effects of TENS [82]. In contrast, in a case report, TENS (80 Hz) successfully relieved pain in a 63-year-old woman with cancer bone pain [83]. Moreover, in a research conducted in a major cancer center, researchers found that TENS had positive effects on 69.7% of patients after 2 months follow-up, manifesting as a significant reduction of pain intensity [84]. Researchers also investigated the effects of TENS on relieving the neuropathic pain caused by chemotherapy. In an open-label feasibility study, a home-based wireless TENS device was used to treat chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain, and it was proved to significantly reduce self-report pain [85]. In summary, findings about the analgesic effects of TENS on cancer-related neuropathic pain are not conclusive and should be further examined in large multicenter RCTs.
Postherpetic Neuralgia
PHN is a kind of neuropathic pain that occurs due to the damage of peripheral nerves caused by the reactivation of the herpes zoster (HZ) [86]. The lifetime incidence of HZ is about 30%, and about 12.5% of elderly patients (≥ 50 years) with HZ develop PHN [87]. PHN patients are clinically characterized by spontaneous or evoked pain syndromes (e.g., sharp, stabbing, and burning) and by various abnormal sensory symptoms (e.g., hyperalgesia, allodynia, and sensory loss) [8], which profoundly affect patients’ quality of life [88]. The analgesic effects of TENS, especially conventional TENS, in relieving PHN and acute pain caused by HZ has been demonstrated in some clinical studies. In an early study, TENS (70 Hz, 10 sessions every day, 20 min per time) was recommended to treat PHN [89]. Also, TENS (20~40 Hz, 5 times/week for 2 or 3 weeks, 30 min per time) was suggested as a safe adjunct or even alternative treatment of acute HZ and could prevent the development of PHN [90]. Combined with pregabalin, conventional TENS (100 Hz) was more effective in reducing PHN in patients (aged 50~80 years) than placebo [91]. Similarly, it has been found that long-term (10~15 days) TENS (20~40 Hz, 3~30 mA, 30 min per time, once per time) could not only serve as an effective treatment strategy for relieving acute pain caused by HZ but could also be capable of reducing the incidence of PHN in patients with HZ [92].
Clinical Applications: Alleviating Central Neuropathic Pain
CNP is induced by lesions or diseases of the spinal cord and/or the brain. In clinic, demyelinating diseases (e.g., MS), injuries (e.g., SCI), and cerebrovascular diseases (e.g., stroke) affecting the central nervous system are the most common CNP-related diseases [11, 93]. It has been widely accepted that TENS can relieve chronic pain in CNP patients as a non-pharmacological therapy [94]. In the following sections, we reviewed the literature investigating the efficiency of TENS in alleviating CNP caused by MS, SCI, and stroke (Table 1).
Multiple Sclerosis
MS is an autoimmune disorder, and there are more than 2.3 million MS patients worldwide [95]. The disease is characterized by inflammation, demyelination, and scar formation, and demyelinating plaques will lead to regional dysfunctions in the brain or spinal cord [96]. Apart from the pain-unrelated dysfunctions (e.g., balance impairment and cognitive impairment), up to 57.5% of MS patients reported pain during the course of their disease [97]. Conventional TENS (100 Hz, delivered for 2 weeks and 8 h per day) significantly reduced muscle spasm and pain in MS patients, while insufficient TENS treatment (2 weeks and 1 h per day) did not produce analgesic effects [98]. In a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial, after 6-week (twice a day and 45 min each time) treatment, both acupuncture-like TENS (4 Hz) and conventional TENS (110 Hz) have a positive influence on clinical outcomes (including pain) in MS patients with chronic low back pain [99].
Spinal Cord Injury
About 77.7% of patients with SCI experienced moderate to severe pain [100], and neuropathic pain caused by SCI can be roughly separated into two classes: at-level and below-level neuropathic pain. The below-level neuropathic pain located in dermatomes below the SCI is considered as a CNP, and the at-level neuropathic pain located in dermatomes of SCI is a PNP (nerve injury in the root) and/or CNP (nerve injury in the dorsal horn) [11]. After receiving 2-week treatment (three times per day, 30~40 min per time), conventional TENS (80 Hz) and acupuncture-like TENS (burst of 2 Hz) achieved analgesic effects in 29% and 38% of SCI patients, respectively [101]. The efficiency of acupuncture-like TENS for relieving neuropathic pain in SCI patients was also confirmed using different treatment strategies, e.g., 10 days, 30 min per day [102], and 12 weeks, 3 times per week, 20 min per time [76]. Combination of TENS (80 Hz for 2 weeks, 5 times a week and 30 min a day) and visual illusion (2 weeks) was suggested in clinical practice as an alternative or supportive treatment for pain in SCI patients [103].
Central Post-Stroke Pain (CPSP)
CPSP is one of the most common forms of CNP [104], and the overall incidence of CPSP ranges from 2% to 8%. The risk of CPSP is mostly associated with the location of the stroke, and patients with lateral medullary (Wallenberg syndrome) and thalamic strokes have the highest incidence of CPSP [105, 106]. In an early study, researchers found that conventional TENS and acupuncture-like TENS applied on the contralateral and/or ipsilateral sides of the site of the stroke could relieve pain in a large proportion of patients [107]. However, TENS could also temporarily enhance pain in 1/3 of the patients [107]. In a systematical review, it was found that TENS could increase the painless range of passive humeral lateral rotation and reduce the severity of glenohumeral subluxation, although it could not relieve the upper limb spasticity and the post-stroke shoulder pain [108]. In a recent review, researchers pointed out that existing evidence to support the effectiveness of TENS for relieving CPSP is still not enough [20••]. On the contrary, some researchers found that TENS had positive effects on reducing pain and increasing mobility in patients with post-stroke shoulder pain [109, 110], thus suggesting to use TENS as a supportive or alternative treatment for CPSP.
Conclusions
The effects of TENS on relieving neuropathic pain have been proved in most studies, thus, it is recommended as a useful non-pharmacological treatment for CNP and PNP in clinical practice. TENS could be delivered using different parameters, which involves different analgesic mechanisms. Even the analgesic effects of TENS have been widely proven in many basic studies, some conflicting results were reported in clinical practice. This inconsistency could be due to unoptimized stimulus parameters, insufficient and inadequate RCTs, and vague treatment selection strategies (e.g., choose treatments based on the type of disease rather than its mechanism). Therefore, future human studies should be performed to optimize the stimulus parameters of TENS for different clinical conditions. Besides, more multicenter clinical trials should be performed to systematically and conclusively evaluate the analgesic effects of TENS in treating different types of neuropathic pain in clinical practice. Furthermore, advanced neuroimaging techniques, such as electroencephalography, magnetoencephalography, and magnetic resonance imaging, should be adopted to investigate the pathological mechanisms of neuropathic pain and the analgesic mechanisms of TENS. These mechanisms would be important for clinicians to determine the optimized TENS strategy.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Finnerup NB, Haroutounian S, Kamerman P, Baron R, Bennett DL, Bouhassira D, et al. Neuropathic pain: an updated grading system for research and clinical practice. Pain. 2016;157(8):1599–606.
Baron R, Binder A, Wasner G. Neuropathic pain: diagnosis, pathophysiological mechanisms, and treatment. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9(8):807–19.
Campbell JN, Meyer RA. Mechanisms of neuropathic pain. Neuron. 2006;52(1):77–92.
LaMotte RH, Thalhammer JG, Torebjork H, Robinson CJ. Peripheral neural mechanisms of cutaneous hyperalgesia following mild injury by heat. J Neurosci. 1982;2(6):765–81.
Peng WW, Guo XL, Jin QQ, Wei H, Xia XL, Zhang Y, et al. Biological mechanism of post-herpetic neuralgia: evidence from multiple patho-psychophysiological measures. Eur J Pain. 2017;21(5):827–42.
Baumann TK, Simone DA, Shain CN, LaMotte RH. Neurogenic hyperalgesia: the search for the primary cutaneous afferent fibers that contribute to capsaicin-induced pain and hyperalgesia. J Neurophysiol. 1991;66(1):212–27.
Simone DA, Sorkin L, Oh U, Chung J, Owens C, LaMotte R, et al. Neurogenic hyperalgesia: central neural correlates in responses of spinothalamic tract neurons. J Neurophysiol. 1991;66(1):228–46.
Maier C, Baron R, Tölle T, Binder A, Birbaumer N, Birklein F, et al. Quantitative sensory testing in the German research network on neuropathic pain (DFNS): somatosensory abnormalities in 1236 patients with different neuropathic pain syndromes. Pain. 2010;150(3):439–50.
Khedr EM, Kotb H, Kamel N, Ahmed M, Sadek R, Rothwell J. Longlasting antalgic effects of daily sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in central and peripheral neuropathic pain. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2005;76(6):833–8.
Baron R, Maier C, Attal N, Binder A, Bouhassira D, Cruccu G, et al. Peripheral neuropathic pain: a mechanism-related organizing principle based on sensory profiles. Pain. 2017;158(2):261–72.
Watson JC, Sandroni P. Central neuropathic pain syndromes. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91(3):372–85.
Vranken JH. Elucidation of pathophysiology and treatment of neuropathic pain. Cent Nerv Syst Agents Med Chem. 2012;12(4):304–14.
von Hehn CA, Baron R, Woolf CJ. Deconstructing the neuropathic pain phenotype to reveal neural mechanisms. Neuron. 2012;73(4):638–52.
Attal N, Fermanian C, Fermanian J, Lantéri-Minet M, Alchaar H, Bouhassira D. Neuropathic pain: are there distinct subtypes depending on the aetiology or anatomical lesion? Pain. 2008;138(2):343–53.
Woolf CJ, Bennett GJ, Doherty M, Dubner R, Kidd B, Koltzenburg M, et al. Towards a mechanism-based classification of pain? Pain. 1998;77(3):227–9.
Max MB. Towards physiologically based treatment of patients with neuropathic pain. Pain. 1990;42(2):131–3.
Hansson P. Difficulties in stratifying neuropathic pain by mechanisms. Eur J Pain. 2003;7(4):353–7.
Hama A, Sagen J. Combination drug therapy for pain following chronic spinal cord injury. Pain Res Treat. 2012;2012:840486.
Katz J, Finnerup NB, Dworkin RH. Clinical trial outcome in neuropathic pain relationship to study characteristics. Neurology. 2008;70(4):263–72.
•• Gibson W, Wand BM, O'Connell NE. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for neuropathic pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9:CD011976 A highly relevant review article on assessing the analgesic effectiveness of TENS in the management of neuropathic pain.
Sluka KA, Walsh D. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: basic science mechanisms and clinical effectiveness. J Pain. 2003;4(3):109–21.
Gossrau G, Wähner M, Kuschke M, Konrad B, Reichmann H, Wiedemann B, et al. Microcurrent transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation in painful diabetic neuropathy: a randomized placebo-controlled study. Pain Med. 2011;12(6):953–60.
Jin D, Xu Y, Geng D, Yan T. Effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on symptomatic diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2010;89(1):10–5.
Johnson MI, Paley CA, Howe TE, Sluka KA. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for acute pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;6:CD006142.
Johnson MI, Bjordal JM. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the management of painful conditions: focus on neuropathic pain. Expert Rev Neurother. 2011;11(5):735–53.
DeSantana JM, Walsh DM, Vance C, Rakel BA, Sluka KA. Effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for treatment of hyperalgesia and pain. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2008;10(6):492–9.
Cruccu G, Sommer C, Anand P, Attal N, Baron R, Garcia-Larrea L, et al. EFNS guidelines on neuropathic pain assessment: revised 2009. Eur J Neurol. 2010;17(8):1010–8.
Johnson MI. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: mechanisms, clinical application and evidence. Rev Pain. 2007;1(1):7–11.
Ersek RA. Transcutaneous electrical neurostimulation: a new therapeutic modality for controlling pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1977;128:314–24.
Levin MF, Hui-Chan C. Relief of hemiparetic spasticity by TENS is associated with improvement in reflex and voluntary motor functions. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol Evoked Potentials Section. 1992;85(2):131–42.
Ng SS, Hui-Chan CW. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation combined with task-related training improves lower limb functions in subjects with chronic stroke. Stroke. 2007;38(11):2953–9.
Kalra A, Urban MO, Sluka KA. Blockade of opioid receptors in rostral ventral medulla prevents antihyperalgesia produced by transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2001;298(1):257–63.
Facchinetti F, Sandrini G, Petraglia F, Alfonsi E, Nappi G, Genazzani AR. Concomitant increase in nociceptive flexion reflex threshold and plasma opioids following transcutaneous nerve stimulation. Pain. 1984;19(3):295–303.
Edmond CJ. Core curriculum for professional education in pain. Pain Med. 2005;8(4):392–3.
Tashani O, Johnson MI. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) a possible aid for pain relief in developing countries? Libyan J Med. 2009;4(2):62–5.
Lai H-C, Lin Y-W, Hsieh C-L. Acupuncture-analgesia-mediated alleviation of central sensitization. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2019;2019:6173412.
Chesterton LS, Foster NE, Wright CC, Baxter GD, Barlas P. Effects of TENS frequency, intensity and stimulation site parameter manipulation on pressure pain thresholds in healthy human subjects. Pain. 2003;106(1–2):73–80.
• Peng WW, Tang ZY, Zhang FR, Li H, Kong YZ, Iannetti GD, et al. Neurobiological mechanisms of TENS-induced analgesia. NeuroImage. 2019;195:396–408 An excellent research article investigating the neural mechanisms of the analgesic effects of both conventional TENS and acupuncture-like TENS, and highlighting the influence of electrode placement on TENS-induced analgesic effects.
H-y C, Suh HR, Han HC. A single trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation reduces chronic neuropathic pain following median nerve injury in rats. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2014;232(3):207–14.
Sabino GS, Santos CM, Francischi JN, de Resende MA. Release of endogenous opioids following transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation in an experimental model of acute inflammatory pain. J Pain. 2008;9(2):157–63.
Radhakrishnan R, King EW, Dickman JK, Herold CA, Johnston NF, Spurgin ML, et al. Spinal 5-HT2 and 5-HT3 receptors mediate low, but not high, frequency TENS-induced antihyperalgesia in rats. Pain. 2003;105(1–2):205–13.
Jones I, Johnson MI. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Continuing Education in Anaesthesia. Crit Care Pain. 2009;9(4):130–5.
Askary Ashtiani AR, Ghiasi F, Noraie KM, Khodadadi Bohloli B. Effectiveness of action potential simulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on pain and function of patients with chronic mechanical shoulder impairment. Phys Treat. 2016;6(2):79–84.
Kasat V, Gupta A, Ladda R, Kathariya M, Saluja H, Farooqui A-A. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) in dentistry-a review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2014;6(5):e562–e8.
Melzack R, Wall PD. Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science. 1965;150(3699):971–9.
Garrison DW, Foreman RD. Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on spontaneous and noxiously evoked dorsal horn cell activity in cats with transected spinal cords. Neurosci Lett. 1996;216(2):125–8.
Woolf CJ, Barrett GD, Mitchell D, Myers RA. Naloxone-reversible peripheral electroanalgesia in intact and spinal rats. Eur J Pharmacol. 1977;45(3):311–4.
Woolf CJ, Mitchell D, Barrett GD. Antinociceptive effect of peripheral segmental electrical stimulation in the rat. Pain. 1980;8(2):237–52.
Sjölund BH. Peripheral nerve stimulation suppression of C-fiber-evoked flexion reflex in rats: part 1: parameters of continuous stimulation. J Neurosurg. 1985;63(4):612–6.
Liebano RE, Rakel B, Vance CGT, Walsh DM, Sluka KA. An investigation of the development of analgesic tolerance to TENS in humans. PAIN. 2011;152(2):335–42.
Le Bars D, Willer JC, De Broucker T. Morphine blocks descending pain inhibitory controls in humans. Pain. 1992;48(1):13–20.
Wutz A, Melcher D, Samaha J. Frequency modulation of neural oscillations according to visual task demands. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115(6):1346–51.
Ploner M, Sorg C, Gross J. Brain rhythms of pain. Trends Cogn Sci. 2017;21(2):100–10.
Villanueva L, Bouhassira D, Le Bars D. The medullary subnucleus reticularis dorsalis (SRD) as a key link in both the transmission and modulation of pain signals. Pain. 1996;67(2–3):231–40.
Youssef AM, Macefield VG, Henderson LA. Pain inhibits pain; human brainstem mechanisms. Neuroimage. 2016;124:54–62.
Sluka KA, Vance CG, Lisi TL. High-frequency, but not low-frequency, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation reduces aspartate and glutamate release in the spinal cord dorsal horn. J Neurochem. 2005;95(6):1794–801.
Sluka KA, Deacon M, Stibal A, Strissel S, Terpstra A. Spinal blockade of opioid receptors prevents the analgesia produced by TENS in arthritic rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999;289(2):840–6.
Vance CG, Dailey DL, Rakel BA, Sluka KA. Using TENS for pain control: the state of the evidence. Pain Manag. 2014;4(3):197–209.
King EW, Audette K, Athman GA, Nguyen HO, Sluka KA, Fairbanks CA. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation activates peripherally located alpha-2A adrenergic receptors. Pain. 2005;115(3):364–73.
Nam TS, Choi Y, Yeon DS, Leem JW, Paik KS. Differential antinociceptive effect of transcutaneous electrical stimulation on pain behavior sensitive or insensitive to phentolamine in neuropathic rats. Neurosci Lett. 2001;301(1):17–20.
Han J, Chen X, Sun S, Xu X, Yuan Y, Yan S, et al. Effect of low-and high-frequency TENS on Met-enkephalin-Arg-Phe and dynorphin A immunoreactivity in human lumbar CSF. Pain. 1991;47(3):295–8.
DeSantana JM, Silva LD, Resende MD, Sluka KA. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation at both high and low frequencies activates ventrolateral periaqueductal grey to decrease mechanical hyperalgesia in arthritic rats. Neuroscience. 2009;163(4):1233–41.
Maeda Y, Lisi T, Vance C, Sluka KA. Release of GABA and activation of GABAA in the spinal cord mediates the effects of TENS in rats. Brain Res. 2007;1136:43–50.
Radhakrishnan R, Sluka KA. Spinal muscarinic receptors are activated during low or high frequency TENS-induced antihyperalgesia in rats. Neuropharmacology. 2003;45(8):1111–9.
Sluka KA, Lisi TL, Westlund KN. Increased release of serotonin in the spinal cord during low, but not high, frequency transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation in rats with joint inflammation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006;87(8):1137–40.
Dubin AE, Patapoutian A. Nociceptors: the sensors of the pain pathway. J Clin Invest. 2010;120(11):3760–72.
• Meacham K, Shepherd A, Mohapatra DP, Haroutounian S. Neuropathic pain: central vs. peripheral mechanisms. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2017;21(6):28 A good review article summarizing the general etiologies and mechanisms of neuropathic pain.
Tulder MV, Koes B, Bombardier C. Low back pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2002;16(5):761–75.
Treede RD, Jensen TS, Campbell JN, Cruccu G, Dostrovsky JO, Griffin JW, et al. Neuropathic pain: redefinition and a grading system for clinical and research purposes. Neurology. 2008;70(18):1630–5.
Tesfaye S, Boulton AJ, Dickenson AH. Mechanisms and management of diabetic painful distal symmetrical polyneuropathy. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(9):2456–65.
Galer BS, Gianas A, Jensen MP. Painful diabetic polyneuropathy: epidemiology, pain description, and quality of life. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2000;47(2):123–8.
Somers DL, Somers MF. Treatment of neuropathic pain in a patient with diabetic neuropathy using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation applied to the skin of the lumbar region. Phys Ther. 1999;79(8):767–75.
Kumar D, Alvaro MS, Julka IS, Marshall HJ. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Effectiveness of electrotherapy and amitriptyline for symptomatic relief. Diabetes Care. 1998;21(8):1322–5.
Hamza MA, White PF, Craig WF, Ghoname ES, Ahmed HE, Proctor TJ, et al. Percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: a novel analgesic therapy for diabetic neuropathic pain. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(3):365–70.
Forst T, Nguyen M, Forst S, Disselhoff B, Pohlmann T, Pfützner A. Impact of low frequency transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on symptomatic diabetic neuropathy using the new Salutaris device. Diabetes Nutr Metab. 2004;17(3):163–8.
Naderi Nabi B, Sedighinejad A, Haghighi M, Biazar G, Hashemi M, Haddadi S, et al. Comparison of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and pulsed radiofrequency sympathectomy for treating painful diabetic neuropathy. Anesth Pain Med. 2015;5(5):e29280.
Pieber K, Herceg M, Paternostro-Sluga T. Electrotherapy for the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a review. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42(4):289–95.
Dubinsky RM, Miyasaki J. Assessment: efficacy of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation in the treatment of pain in neurologic disorders (an evidence-based review) report of the therapeutics and technology assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of neurology. Neurology. 2010;74(2):173–6.
Bennett MI, Clare R, Marianne H, Nina A, Augusto C, Stein K. Prevalence and aetiology of neuropathic pain in cancer patients: a systematic review. Pain. 2012;153(2):359–65.
Staff NP, Grisold A, Grisold W, Windebank AJ. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a current review. Ann Neurol. 2017;81(6):772–81.
Robb KA, Bennett MI, Johnson MI, Simpson KJ, Oxberry SG. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) for cancer pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;3:CD006276.
Hurlow A, Bennett MI, Robb KA, Johnson MI, Simpson KH, Oxberry SG. Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) for cancer pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3:CD006276.
Searle RD, Bennett MI, Johnson MI, Callin S, Radford H. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for cancer bone pain. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2009;37(3):424–8.
Loh J, Gulati A. The use of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (tens) in a major cancer center for the treatment of severe cancer-related pain and associated disability. Pain Med. 2015;16(6):1204–10.
Gewandter JS, Chaudari J, Ibegbu C, Kitt R, Serventi J, Burke J, et al. Wireless transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation device for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: an open-label feasibility study. Support Care Cancer. 2018;27(5):1765–74.
Dworkin RH, Schmader KE, Goldstein EJC. Treatment and prevention of postherpetic neuralgia. Clin Infect Dis. 2003;36(7):877–82.
Thomas SL, Hall AJ. What does epidemiology tell us about risk factors for herpes zoster? Lancet Infect Dis. 2004;4(1):26–33.
Mélanie D, Marc B, Schmader KE, Levin MJ, Robert J, Oxman MN, et al. The impact of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia on health-related quality of life: a prospective study. Can Med Assoc J. 2010;182(16):1731–6.
Mittal A, Masuria B, Bajaj P. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in treatment of post herpetic neuralgia. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 1998;64(1):45.
Kolsek M. TENS-an alternative to antiviral drugs for acute herpes zoster treatment and postherpetic neuralgia prevention. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;141:w13229.
Barbarisi M, Pace MC, Passavanti MB, Maisto M, Mazzariello L, Pota V, et al. Pregabalin and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for postherpetic neuralgia treatment. Clin J Pain. 2010;26(7):567–72.
Stepanović A, Kolšek M, Kersnik J, Erčulj V. Prevention of post-herpetic neuralgia using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2015;127(9-10):369–74.
Borsook D. Neurological diseases and pain. Brain. 2011;135(part 2):320–44.
Boldt I, Eriks-Hoogland I, Brinkhof MW, de Bie R, Joggi D, von Elm E. Non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in people with spinal cord injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;11:CD009177.
Ochsner KN, Zaki J, Hanelin J, Ludlow DH, Knierim K, Ramachandran T, et al. Your pain or mine? Common and distinct neural systems supporting the perception of pain in self and other. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2008;3(2):144–60.
Casey B, Uszynski M, Hayes S, Motl R, Gallagher S, Coote S. Do multiple sclerosis symptoms moderate the relationship between self-efficacy and physical activity in people with multiple sclerosis? Rehabil Psychol. 2018;63(1):104–10.
Osterberg A, Boivie J, Thuomas KA. Central pain in multiple sclerosis--prevalence and clinical characteristics. Eur J Pain. 2005;9(5):531–42.
Miller L, Mattison P, Paul L, Wood L. The effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2007;13(4):527–33.
Warke K, Al-Smadi J, Baxter D, Walsh DM, Lowe-Strong AS. Efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (tens) for chronic low-back pain in a multiple sclerosis population: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Clin J Pain. 2006;22(9):812–9.
Mann R, Schaefer C, Sadosky A, Bergstrom F, Baik R, Parsons B, et al. Burden of spinal cord injury-related neuropathic pain in the United States: retrospective chart review and cross-sectional survey. Spinal Cord. 2013;51(7):564–70.
Norrbrink C. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for treatment of spinal cord injury neuropathic pain. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2009;46(1):85–94.
Celik EC, Erhan B, Gunduz B, Lakse E. The effect of low-frequency TENS in the treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 2013;51(4):334–7.
Ozkul C, Kilinc M, Yildirim SA, Topcuoglu EY, Akyuz M. Effects of visual illusion and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on neuropathic pain in patients with spinal cord injury: a randomised controlled cross-over trial. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2015;28(4):709–19.
Bowsher D. Central pain: clinical and physiological characteristics. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996;61(1):62–9.
Andersen G, Vestergaard K, Ingeman-Nielsen M, Jensen TS. Incidence of central post-stroke pain. Pain. 1995;61(2):187–93.
Bowsher D, Vantrappen G, Mabey DD, Treasure T, Woods DK, Arend WP. Cerebrovascular disease: Sensory consequences of stroke. Lancet. 1993;341(8838):156.
Leijon G, Boivie J. Central post-stroke pain-the effect of high and low frequency TENS. Pain. 1989;38(2):187–91.
Price CI, Pandyan A. Electrical stimulation for preventing and treating post-stroke shoulder pain: a systematic Cochrane review. Clin Rehabil. 2001;15(1):5–19.
Vuagnat H, Chantraine A. Shoulder pain in hemiplegia revisited: contribution of functional electrical stimulation and other therapies. J Rehabil Med. 2003;35(2):49–56.
Kilinc M, Livanelioglu A, Yildirim SA, Tan E. Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in patients with peripheral and central neuropathic pain. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46(5):454–60.
Lee JE, Anderson CM, Perkhounkova Y, Sleeuwenhoek BM, Louison RR. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation reduces resting pain in head and neck cancer patients: a randomized and placebo-controlled double-blind pilot study. Cancer Nurs. 2019;42(3):218–28.
Cuypers K, Levin O, Thijs H, Swinnen SP, Meesen RL. Long-term TENS treatment improves tactile sensitivity in MS patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(5):420–7.
Bi X, Lv H, Chen BL, Li X, Wang XQ. Effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation on pain in patients with spinal cord injury: a randomized controlled trial. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27(1):23–5.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31671141, 31822025, 31800926), the 13th Five-year Informatization Plan of Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. XXH13506), the Project funded by China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2018M640191), the Scientific Foundation of Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (No. Y6CX021008, Y8CX351005), and CAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology (No. KLMH2018ZG01).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Tahmineh Mokhtari, Qiaoyue Ren, Nuo Li, Faguang Wang, Yanzhi Bi, and Li Hu declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Other Pain
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mokhtari, T., Ren, Q., Li, N. et al. Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation in Relieving Neuropathic Pain: Basic Mechanisms and Clinical Applications. Curr Pain Headache Rep 24, 14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-020-0846-1
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-020-0846-1