Alpha-Stim® Microcurrent Electrical Therapy (MET) for Pain Management

Microcurrent Electrical Therapy (MET)

MET is an electromedical intervention indicated for the treatment of pain¹. By definition, microcurrent devices stimulate the affected tissue with less than 1mA of electrical current, most commonly delivered with hand-held probes or self-adhesive electrodes that bracket the treated area. MET is a highly effective modality in the treatment of a variety of pain problems^2-5, including:

Any nerve, muscle or articular pain
Cancer pain
Decubital ulcers and fractures
Periodontal, orthodontic and post surgical pain
Sprains, strains, and spasms
Paresis
Post-operative pain and scars

"MET has a different mechanism than TENS. It works on a cellular level and has its effects much closer to the cause of the injury."

Patrick De Bock, PT
European Perspective: A comparison between TENS and MET.
Physical Therapy Products Sep 2000

MET vs. transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)

In comparison with TENS therapy, MET uses 1,000 less current (10-600µA), delivered at an extremely low frequency of 0.5Hz and a 2,500 times longer pulse width (<2s) ^1,3,6. MET can produce rapid and significant treatment effects, often within 2-5 minutes of stimulation and can treat even intense pain problems ^3,5.

Furthermore, MET can produce a relatively long-lasting reduction or elimination of pain lasting several hours or days, often after a single or several treatments^1,4,5. Repeated stimulation with MET can produce greater benefits over time (5-7 applications) as the effects of this modality are residual and cumulative in many patients^2,3,7,8. Residual effects of TENS therapy are minimal in most patients.

Postulated Mechanisms of MET

Microcurrent stimulation appears to affect cellular physiology and produce its effects by reducing the electrical resistance of the injured tissue and restoring its cellular capacitance^1,3. A study by Chen et al.⁹ further indicates that applications of microcurrent stimulation (< 500mA) can dramatically increase the production of ATP in the tissue by as much as 500% and increase amino acid transport and protein synthesis in the treated area by 30-40%.

The classic works by Björn E. W. Nordenström¹⁰ and Robert Becker¹¹ have shown that endogenous bioelectricity, and changes in the polarity of the tissue triggered by illness or injury, may represent the primary catalyst of the healing process. More recently, Zhao et al.¹² have shown that minute electrical fields, similar to those detected endogenously, serve as a prime directional cue to direct cell migration during wound healing and manipulation of these endogenous currents may affect wound healing in vivo. It is then plausible to speculate that stimulation with mild electrical currents may not be limited to analgesis effects but may also help restore or enhance the endogenous current flow and consequently facilitate the healing process^11,12.

Microcurrent electrical stimulation, especially at low-frequencies, may also produce some analgesic effects via release of endogenous opioid peptides ^3,13.

References:

¹ Mercola, J. M. and D. L. Kirsch (1995). The basis for microcurrent electrical therapy in conventional medical practice. Journal of Advancement in Medicine, 8(2):107-120.
² Kirsch, D. L. (2002b). A practical protocol for electromedical treatment of pain. Chapter 61 in Pain Management: A Practical Guide for Clinicians (the textbook of the American Academy of Pain Management) edited by Richard S. Weiner, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 2002.
³De Bock, P. (2000). European perspective: a comparison between TENS and MET. Physical Therapy Products. September 2000.
⁴Boswell, Nathalie S. (1989). Neuroelectric therapy eliminates xerostomia during radiotherapy – a case history. American Journal of Electromedicine 115:105-107.
⁵Bauer, W. (1983b). Electrical treatment of severe head and neck cancer pain. Archives of Otolaryngology, 109(6):382-383.
⁶Kirsch, D. L. (2002a). Electromedicine: the other side of physiology. Chapter 60 in Pain Management: A Practical Guide for Clinicians (the textbook of the American Acadamy of Pain Management) edited by Richard S. Weiner, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, Pp 749-758, 2002.
⁷Zimmerman, S. I., and F. N. Lerner (1989). Biofeedback and electromedicine reduce the cycle of pain spasm pain in low back patients. Medical Electronics, 117:108-120.
⁸ Lerner, F. N., and D. L. Kirsch (1981). A double-blind comparative study of microstimulation and placebo effect in short term treatment of the chronic back pain patient. Journal of the American Chiropractic Association, 15(11):101-106.
⁹Cheng et al. (1982). The effects of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport of rat skin. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 171:264-272.
¹⁰Nordenström, B. E. (1983). Biologically Closed Electric Circuits. Clinical, experimental and theoretical evidence for an additional circulatory system. Nordic Medical Publications, Stockholm. 385 pp.
¹¹Becker, R. O., and G. Selden (1985). The Body Electric: electromagnetism and the foundation of life. William Morrow, New York. 364 pp.
¹²Zhao et al. (2006). Electrical signals control wound healing through phosphatidylinositol-3-OH kinase- and PTEN. Nature 442:457-460.
¹³Ulett, G. A., and S. Han (2002). The biology of acupuncture. Warren H. Green, Inc. St. Louis, Missouri. 160 pp.