Return to Front Page

PHYSICAL DISORDERS

CLOSED HEAD INJURY

63. Smith, Ray B., Tiberi, Arleine, Marshall, John. The use of cranial electrotherapy stimulation in the treatment of closed-head-injured patients. Brain Injury, 8(4):357-361, 1994.

Device: CES Labs, 100 Hz, 20% duty cycle, <1.5 mA

21 closed head injured pts with an average age of 30, and time since injury ranging from 6 months to 32 years (mean = 11) completed informed consent. The statistician was also blinded, being given the data in 3 unidentified groups, making this a triple-blind study. They were randomly assigned to CES treatment (N = 10), sham treatment (N = 5) or control "wait-in-line" (N = 6) groups. The CES and sham groups had 12 treatments, daily over a period of 3 weeks. They were pre- and post-tested on the Profile of Mood States which contains subscales for anxiety, depression, hostility, fatigue and mental confusion. The CES treated subjects, but not the sham treated subjects or controls, improved significantly on every POMS subscale. Tension/anxiety was reduced from a mean of 12.33 7.36 to 8.78 5.09 in the CES treated group, while it rose from 13.00 6.21 pretest to 14.36 8.25 post test in the sham group, and barely changed from 12.33 8.07 to 12.50 5.87 in the control group. Depression/dejection changed from 17.11 12.35 to 12.06 8.71 in the CES treated group, and from 20.91 17.79 pretest to 18.18 12.47 post test in the sham group, and from 20.00 14.45 to 16.17 9.48 in the control group. Anger/hostility changed from 13.67 11.20 to 10.39 7.49 in the CES treated group, and from 16.73 8.27 pretest to 17.55 12.22 post test in the sham group, and from 14.83 11.50 to 14.83 6.18 in the control group. Fatigue/inertia changed from 7.44 6.75 to 5.33 3.96 in the CES treated group, and from 9.46 7.83 pretest to 8.09 6.63 post test in the sham group, and from 8.17 7.41 to 6.50 5.82 in the control group. Confusion/bewilderment changed from 8.50 6.75 to 6.22 3.96 in the CES treated group, and from 10.55 5.87 pretest to 10.27 5.10 post test in the sham group, and from 9.67 6.15 to 10.50 5.01 in the control group. Total Mood Disturbance was reduced from a mean of 45.11 41.95 to 31.89 23.84 in the CES treated group, and from 52.73 41.95 pretest to 52.33 36.64 post test in the sham group, and from 47.83 43.25 to 45.67 24.16 in the control group. 1 pt on sham CES was seen to have a seizure. No negative effects from CES treatments was seen. The authors concluded that therapists of CHI pts may well try adding CES therapy, a prescription, but non-medication treatment, to the treatment of this currently heavily medicated pt population.

77. Wilson, L.F. and Childs, A. Cranial electrotherapy stimulation for attentiontotask deficit: A case study. American Journal of Electromedicine. 5(6):9399, 1988.

Device: RelaxPak, 100 Hz, 2 mS, 1 mA, sine wave, bilateral electrodes

4 pts with measurable attentiontotask deficit were studied. 2 had severe pain problems (27 year old female and 30 year old male) but no brain injury, while 2 had suffered from post brain trauma (29 year old male, 25 year old female). One of the pain pts served as placebo control (the 30 year old male) for the other 3, each of whom served as his or her own control. CES was given for 50 minutes per day, 5 days a week for 3 weeks. Pts were pre- and post-tested on standardized cognitive measures (Trail Making Test, Digit Symbol Test, Porteus Mazes, Consonant Trigrams Test, Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test, Paced Serial Arithmetic Test) before and following CES, and again 3 weeks later. Pts were also tested on the Profile of Mood States Inventory. The results among the CES treated pts showed striking and significant improvement in the post treatment scores and in the associated extent of the neurological deficit. It was concluded that CES is an effective nondrug alternative in a cognitive rehabilitation model for treating attentiontotask deficit. No side effects were reported.

Return to Front Page