A Systematic Review of Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine in Sport and Companion Animals: Electrotherapy

Abstract

Electrotherapy modalities are currently used in the treatment of animals, but the evidence base supporting their use has not yet been systematically reviewed. Cochrane guidelines, as adapted by the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services, were followed for this systematic review. A literature search regarding all currently known electrotherapy modalities applied to horses, dogs, and cats was conducted for the years 1980–2020 using three databases: CABI, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection. Of the 5385 references found, 41 articles were included in the review: 13 papers on pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMFT), 7 on neural electrical muscle stimulation (NEMS), 5 on transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), 4 on static magnets, 3 on interference, 2 each on percutaneous electrical neural stimulation (PENS), bioelectricity, and diathermy, and 1 each on micro-pulsed stimulation, capacitive coupled electrical stimulation, and microwave therapy. The literature per modality was limited in quantity (mean 3.7 papers). Half of the articles were assessed to have a high risk of bias (20 high, 7 moderate, and 14 low). The existing literature used a spectrum of indications and treatment parameters, which makes comparisons and drawing conclusions to support the use of these modalities in clinical practice challenging. The current scientific evidence is not sufficient to support the clinical effects of electrotherapies for any clinical indication in horses, dogs or cats. The selected suggestive results warrant further high-quality research on PEMFT, NEMS, TENS, and PENS.

Effect of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation on Gait Parameters in Dogs with Osteoarthritis

“…In our study, a frequency of 80 Hz was used, a setting in between the frequency used in the studies by Krstić et al (2010) (85 Hz) and Johnston et al (2002) (70 Hz) [ 40 , 42 ]. A low degree of consistency in treatment settings was highlighted as one major limitation of TENS-related studies in a systematic review by Gibson et al (2019) and Hyytiäinen et al (2023) [ 37 , 43 ]. Therefore, our study aimed to have similar settings for frequency as the previous studies in dogs, and 80 Hz was used [ 37 , 40 , 42 ].…”

“…In both veterinary and human medicine, the evidence of the effect of TENS on chronic pain is inconclusive, reported in systematic reviews [ 35 , 37 , 43 , 119 , 120 , 121 ]. The major deficits in the scientific material are small studies of low quality and a large variety of settings used for the TENS treatment.…”

“…The scientific documentation on the effect of TENS in dogs is even sparser than in humans and laboratory animals. Thus, several authors report that there is a need for more canine studies [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. The results from the few existing studies indicate that treatment with TENS may increase weight bearing on the affected limb in dogs with OA for up to 180 min, with the greatest significant difference immediately after treatment [ 42 ].…”

Equine Musculoskeletal Pathologies: Clinical Approaches and Therapeutical Perspectives—A Review

“…The main indications are pain control in acute and chronic musculoskeletal disorders, edema, and wound healing control [80]. In equines, it is mostly described for superficial flexor tendon injuries in order to decrease pain and edema and epaxial muscle pain [82].…”

“…The main indications are muscle stimulation through α-motor nerve activation and stimulation of de-enervated muscles [80]. Effects such as changes in fiber types and physiological factors of equine muscles, muscle strength and hypertrophy, muscle spasm, and hypertonicity have been described [82].…”