Alternating vs. Direct Current: Comparing TENS/STIM/EMS Units and Neuromuscular Re-education Units
M. Montoya BA BSc
NeuroReformer Publishing
Abstract
The present article aims to provide a detailed comparison between Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS), Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS), and Neuromuscular Re-education units. While TENS and EMS devices use alternating current to stimulate muscles, Neuromuscular Re-education units employ direct current to induce a net biochemical reaction in the body's nerves and muscles. The article outlines the advantages of using direct current-based Neuromuscular Re-education units over alternating current-based TENS/STIM/EMS units.
Introduction
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) and Electrical Muscle Stimulation (EMS) devices are popular therapeutic options for pain management, rehabilitation, and muscle training (Johnson & Martinson, 2007). These units use alternating current to stimulate the muscles and nerves of the body. Neuromuscular Re-education units, on the other hand, utilize direct current to create a net biochemical reaction within the nerves and muscles. This article discusses the differences between alternating current-based TENS/STIM/EMS units and direct current-based Neuromuscular Re-education units and highlights the advantages of the latter.
Differences between Alternating and Direct Current Stimulation
Mechanism of Action
TENS/STIM/EMS units use alternating current to stimulate the muscles and nerves of the body (Melzack & Wall, 1965). This type of current repeatedly changes direction, stimulating the nerves and muscles in a non-specific manner. The primary goal of TENS/STIM/EMS units is to provide temporary pain relief or muscle contractions (Watson, 2008).
Neuromuscular Re-education units use direct current, which flows in a single, constant direction. This type of current generates a net biochemical reaction in the nerves and muscles, causing them to contract and relax in a more controlled and specific manner (Bhadra & Kilgore, 2005). This targeted approach allows for more effective muscle retraining and rehabilitation.
Efficacy
While TENS/STIM/EMS units may provide temporary pain relief or muscle stimulation, the benefits are generally short-lived and inconsistent (Vance et al., 2014). In contrast, Neuromuscular Re-education units have demonstrated greater effectiveness in muscle retraining and rehabilitation due to the direct current's ability to elicit a more controlled and targeted muscle response (Daly et al., 2011).
Side Effects
TENS/STIM/EMS units may cause discomfort, skin irritation, and burns due to the alternating current's non-specific nature (Gossrau et al., 2011). Neuromuscular Re-education units, on the other hand, tend to have fewer side effects because the direct current is more focused and controlled (Kilgore & Bhadra, 2004).
Conclusion
Neuromuscular Re-education units employing direct current offer several advantages over alternating current-based TENS/STIM/EMS units. The direct current stimulation creates a net biochemical reaction in the body's nerves and muscles, leading to a more targeted, controlled, and effective muscle response. This can result in improved muscle retraining and rehabilitation. Additionally, direct current-based Neuromuscular Re-education units tend to have fewer side effects compared to alternating current-based TENS/STIM/EMS units.
References
Bhadra, N., & Kilgore, K. L. (2005). Direct current electrical conduction block of peripheral nerve. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 13(2),180-187. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2005.847353
Daly, J. J., Ruff, R. L., Haycook, K., Roenigk, K., Marsolais, E. B., & Dobos, L. (2011). Feasibility of gait training with a multi-segment foot stimulator after stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 25(6), 486-496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968311400093
Gossrau, G., Waßerka, B., Kohl, M., Goldammer, A., & Straube, A. (2011). Skin irritations and burns due to transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation: a case report and review of the literature. Pain Practice, 11(3), 289-293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-2500.2010.00427.x
Johnson, M. I., & Martinson, M. (2007). Efficacy of electrical nerve stimulation for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pain, 130(1-2), 157-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2007.02.007
Kilgore, K. L., & Bhadra, N. (2004). Nerve conduction block utilizing high-frequency alternating current. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing, 42(3), 394-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02344717
Melzack, R., & Wall, P. D. (1965). Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science, 150(3699), 971-979. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.150.3699.971
Vance, C. G., Dailey, D. L., Rakel, B. A., & Sluka, K. A. (2014). Using TENS for pain control: the state of the evidence. Pain Management, 4(3), 197-209. https://doi.org/10.2217/pmt.14.13
Watson, T. (2008). Electrical stimulation for pain relief. In Electrotherapy: Evidence-Based Practice, 12th ed. (pp. 221-246). Elsevier.