MEDICAL POLICY
ELECTRICAL STIMULATION FOR THE
TREATMENT OF PAIN AND MUSCLE
REHABILITATION
Policy Number: 2016T0126T
Effective Date: January 1, 2016
Table of Contents
Page
BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS…………………………
COVERAGE RATIONALE………………………………
APPLICABLE CODES…………………………………..
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES.................................
CLINICAL EVIDENCE…………………………………..
U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION…………
CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
SERVICES (CMS)……………………………………….
REFERENCES…………………………………………..
POLICY HISTORY/REVISION INFORMATION……..
1
2
3
4
5
14
Related Policies:
Transcutaneous Electrical
Nerve Stimulation (TENS)
for the Treatment of Nausea
and Vomiting
16
16
19
INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
This Medical Policy provides assistance in interpreting UnitedHealthcare benefit plans. When
deciding coverage, the enrollee specific document must be referenced. The terms of an
enrollee's document (e.g., Certificate of Coverage (COC) or Summary Plan Description (SPD))
may differ greatly. In the event of a conflict, the enrollee's specific benefit document supersedes
this Medical Policy. All reviewers must first identify enrollee eligibility, any federal or state
regulatory requirements and the plan benefit coverage prior to use of this Medical Policy. Other
Policies and Coverage Determination Guidelines may apply. UnitedHealthcare reserves the right,
in its sole discretion, to modify its Policies and Guidelines as necessary. This Medical Policy is
provided for informational purposes. It does not constitute medical advice.
UnitedHealthcare may also use tools developed by third parties, such as the MCG™ Care
Guidelines, to assist us in administering health benefits. The MCG™ Care Guidelines are
intended to be used in connection with the independent professional medical judgment of a
qualified health care provider and do not constitute the practice of medicine or medical advice.
BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS
Essential Health Benefits for Individual and Small Group:
For plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA)
requires fully insured non-grandfathered individual and small group plans (inside and outside of
Exchanges) to provide coverage for ten categories of Essential Health Benefits (“EHBs”). Large
group plans (both self-funded and fully insured), and small group ASO plans, are not subject to
the requirement to offer coverage for EHBs. However, if such plans choose to provide coverage
for benefits which are deemed EHBs (such as maternity benefits), the ACA requires all dollar
limits on those benefits to be removed on all Grandfathered and Non-Grandfathered plans. The
determination of which benefits constitute EHBs is made on a state by state basis. As such,
when using this guideline, it is important to refer to the enrollee specific benefit document to
determine benefit coverage.
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
1
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
COVERAGE RATIONALE
Functional electrical stimulation (FES), a form of neuromuscular electrical stimulation is
proven and medically necessary when used as one component of a comprehensive
rehabilitation program in persons with paralyzed lower limbs due to spinal cord injury
(SCI) with all of the following characteristics:
• Intact lower motor units (L1 and below) (both muscle and peripheral nerves)
• Muscle and joint stability for weight bearing at upper and lower extremities that can
demonstrate balance and control to maintain an upright support posture independently;
• Demonstrate brisk muscle contraction to NMES and have sensory perception of electrical
stimulation sufficient for muscle contraction;
• Possess high motivation, commitment and cognitive ability to use such devices for
walking;
• Able to transfer independently and demonstrate independent standing tolerance for at
least 3 minutes;
• Demonstrate hand and finger function to manipulate controls;
• Post recovery from spinal cord injury and restorative surgery of at least 6-months;
• No hip and knee degenerative disease and no history of long bone fracture secondary to
osteoporosis
Functional electrical stimulation is unproven and not medically necessary for the
treatment of disuse muscle atrophy in persons with spinal cord injury (who do not meet
the requirements above) or multiple sclerosis.
Further studies are needed to confirm that functional electrical stimulation promotes bone
remineralization and prevents or reverses muscle atrophy. Only a few studies have looked at FES
as a modality of treatment of multiple sclerosis, and the results are limited and conflicting
regarding whether FES improves treatment outcomes in multiple sclerosis when offered in
addition to other rehabilitative treatment modalities.
Functional electrical stimulation is unproven and not medically necessary for the
treatment of gait disorders (e.g., foot drop) of central neurologic origin including but not
limited to stroke or multiple sclerosis.
There is insufficient evidence in the peer reviewed literature that use of functional electrical
stimulation will improve health outcomes in patients with gait disorders. Published studies have
included small heterogeneous patient populations, short-term follow-ups, and various treatment
protocols, outcome measures, and FES devices. Only a few studies have looked at FES as a
modality of treatment of multiple sclerosis, and the results are limited and conflicting regarding
whether FES improves treatment outcomes in multiple sclerosis when offered in addition to other
rehabilitative treatment modalities.
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is proven and medically necessary for:
A. Treatment of disuse muscle atrophy if:
• The nerve supply to the muscle is intact; and
• The disuse muscle atrophy is not of neurological origin but originates from conditions
such as casting, splinting or contractures.
B. Treatment to improve wrist and finger function and prevent or correct shoulder
subluxation in persons with partial paralysis following stroke
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is unproven and not medically necessary for
ANY other indication not listed above as proven and medically necessary.
There is insufficient evidence in the peer reviewed literature that use of electrical stimulation will
improve health outcomes for the treatment of multiple conditions other than those identified above
as proven. Overall, studies in the form of randomized controlled trials and case series included
small, heterogeneous patient populations and short-term follow-ups. Some systematic reviews
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
2
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
have reported that no improvement was seen with NMES, outcomes were conflicting and/or in
some cases, when improvement was noted, the effects did not last. Heterogeneity of treatment
regimens and outcome measures make it difficult to establish that NMES resulted in meaningful
clinical outcomes (e.g., decrease pain, functional improvement, improvement in quality of life and
ability to carry out activities of daily living) for these other conditions and indications.
Interferential therapy (IFT) is unproven and not medically necessary for the following
indications:
•
•
•
For the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders or injuries
For stimulating healing of nonsurgical soft tissue injuries
To facilitate the healing of bone fractures.
There is limited evidence from the available studies to conclude that interferential therapy
reduces the pain or promotes healing of bone fractures, musculoskeletal or nonsurgical soft
tissue injuries. Although a few studies reported some improvement in pain or disability following
interferential therapy for these conditions, none of the double-blind, randomized, placebocontrolled studies reported a positive treatment effect of interferential therapy for nonsurgical soft
tissue injuries or bone fractures.
Pulsed electrical stimulation (PES) is unproven and not medically necessary for the
treatment of osteoarthritis.
There is insufficient evidence to conclude that PES provides health benefits to patients with
osteoarthritis. Randomized, controlled trials are necessary to assess the durability of this
procedure in comparison to other types of treatment.
Peripheral subcutaneous field stimulation (PSFS) or peripheral nerve field stimulation
(PNFS) is unproven and not medically necessary for the treatment of pain.
Evidence for the effectiveness of PSFS or PNFS based on controlled studies is lacking.
Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of this treatment.
APPLICABLE CODES
®
The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT ) codes and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding
System (HCPCS) codes listed in this policy are for reference purposes only. Listing of a service
code in this policy does not imply that the service described by this code is a covered or noncovered health service. Coverage is determined by the enrollee specific benefit document and
applicable laws that may require coverage for a specific service. The inclusion of a code does not
imply any right to reimbursement or guarantee claims payment. Other policies and coverage
determination guidelines may apply. This list of codes may not be all inclusive.
®
CPT Code
63650
63655
63685
0282T
0283T
0284T
Description
Percutaneous implantation of neurostimulator electrode array, epidural Laminectomy for implantation of neurostimulator electrodes, plate/paddle,
epidural
Insertion or replacement of spinal neurostimulator pulse generator or
receiver, direct or inductive coupling
Percutaneous or open implantation of neurostimulator electrode array(s),
subcutaneous (peripheral subcutaneous field stimulation), including
imaging guidance, when performed, cervical, thoracic or lumbar; for trial,
including removal at the conclusion of trial period
permanent, with implantation of a pulse generator
Revision or removal of pulse generator or electrodes, including imaging
guidance, when performed, including addition of new electrodes, when
performed
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
3
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
®
CPT Code
0285T
Description
Electronic analysis of implanted peripheral subcutaneous field stimulation
pulse generator, with reprogramming when performed
CPT® is a registered trademark of the American Medical Association.
HCPCS Code
E0744
E0745
E0762
E0764
E0770
L8679
L8680
L8682
L8683
L8685
L8686
L8687
L8688
S8130
S8131
Description
Neuromuscular stimulator for scoliosis
Neuromuscular stimulator, electronic shock unit
Transcutaneous electrical joint stimulation device system, includes all
accessories
Functional neuromuscular stimulation, transcutaneous stimulation of
sequential muscle groups of ambulation with computer control, used for
walking by spinal cord injured, entire system, after completion of training
program
Functional electrical stimulator, transcutaneous stimulation of nerve and/or
muscle groups, any type, complete system, not otherwise specified
Implantable neurostimulator, pulse generator, any type
Implantable neurostimulator electrode, each
Implantable neurostimulator radiofrequency receiver
Radiofrequency transmitter (external) for use with implantable
neurostimulator radiofrequency receiver
Implantable neurostimulator pulse generator, single array, rechargeable,
includes extension
Implantable neurostimulator pulse generator, single array, nonrechargeable, includes extension
Implantable neurostimulator pulse generator, dual array, rechargeable,
includes extension
Implantable neurostimulator pulse generator, dual array, nonrechargeable, includes extension
Interferential current stimulator, 2 channel
Interferential current stimulator, 4 channel
Coding Clarification
Transcutaneous electrical joint stimulation devices (E0762) are noninvasive devices that deliver
low-amplitude pulsed electrical stimulation.
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
Electrical stimulators provide direct, alternating, pulsating and/or pulsed waveform forms of
energy. The devices are used to exercise muscles, demonstrate a muscular response to
stimulation of a nerve, relieve pain, relieve incontinence, and provide test measurements.
Electrical stimulators may have controls for setting the pulse length, pulse repetition frequency,
pulse amplitude, and triggering modes. Electrodes for such devices may be indwelling,
transcutaneous implanted or surface.
Functional electrical stimulation (FES), or therapeutic electrical stimulation (TES), attempts
to prevent or reverse muscular atrophy and bone demineralization by stimulating paralyzed lower
limbs to perform stationary exercise or standing and walking. Functional electrical stimulation has
also been investigated as a way to improve gait disorders of hemiplegic patients. Although some
paraplegics can walk extended distances using a functional electrical stimulator, this technology
is not intended as a replacement for a wheelchair. (Hayes, 2008)
It is designed to be used as part of a self-administered home-based rehabilitation program for the
treatment of upper limb paralysis from hemiplegic stroke, traumatic brain injury or C5 to C6 spinal
cord injury. The system contains a custom-fitted orthosis and a control unit. The control unit
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
4
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
allows the user to adjust the stimulation intensity and training mode. Exercise sessions can be
gradually increased to avoid muscle over-fatigue.
Interferential therapy (IFT) is a type of transcutaneous electrotherapy. It is a treatment modality
that is proposed to relieve musculoskeletal pain and increase healing in soft tissue injuries and
bone fractures. Two slightly different, medium frequency alternating currents are simultaneously
applied to the affected area through electrodes. Superposition or interference between the two
currents causes the combined electrical current to rise and fall. It is theorized that IFT prompts
the body to secrete endorphins and other natural painkillers and stimulates parasympathetic
nerve fibers to increase blood flow and reduce edema.
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) involves the use of transcutaneous application
of electrical currents to cause muscle contractions. The goal of NMES is to promote
reinnervation, to prevent or retard disuse atrophy, to relax muscle spasms, and to promote
voluntary control of muscles in patients who have lost muscle function due to surgery,
neurological injury, or disabling condition. (Hayes, 2008)
Neuromuscular electrical stimulators (NMES) are divided into two broad categories:
Therapeutic and Functional.
Therapeutic electrical stimulation strengthens muscles weakened by disuse while functional
electrical stimulation attempts to replace destroyed nerve pathways by electrical stimulation to the
muscle in order to assist a functional movement.
Functional NMES is a method being developed to restore function to patients with
damaged or destroyed nerve pathways through use of an orthotic device with
microprocessor controlled electrical neuromuscular stimulation.
Pulsed electrical stimulation (PES) is hypothesized to facilitate bone formation, cartilage repair,
and alter inflammatory cell function. Some chondrocyte and osteoblast functions are mediated by
electrical fields induced in the extracellular matrix by mechanical stresses. Electrostatic and
electrodynamic fields may also alter cyclic adenosine monophosphate or DNA synthesis in
cartilage and bone cells.
Peripheral subcutaneous field stimulation (PSFS), also known as peripheral nerve field
stimulation (PNFS), is a technique used when the field to be stimulated is not well defined by any
one or two peripheral nerves. PSFS is not the same as spinal cord stimulation (SCS) or
peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). During PSFS, a stimulator device (i.e., electrode arrays) is
implanted within the subcutaneous tissue over the painful area, not on or around identified neural
structures (Abejon and Krames 2009).
CLINICAL EVIDENCE
Functional electrical stimulation (FES)
FES has been proposed for improving ambulation in patients with gait disorders such as drop
foot, hemiplegia due to stroke, cerebral injury, or incomplete spinal cord injury. Randomized
controlled trials and case series have primarily included small patient populations with short-term
follow-ups.
Hayes (2011) performed evidence review from six studies that evaluated FES for treatment of
patients with multiple sclerosis. Some evidence from six clinical studies that were evaluated
suggests that use of the WalkAide System or the ODFS Pace may improve walking speed;
however, the results were conflicting. Some studies reported significant increases in walking
speed with FES ranging from 7% to 14% compared with baseline, while others reported no
significant clinical effect or increases in walking speeds. There was no evidence suggesting that
the use of the FES device helped MS patient’s approximate normal walking speed. Overall, there
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
5
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
was very limited evidence on the effect of FES on other patient-relevant, functional measures. For
example, none of the studies evaluated whether FES enabled patients to walk up and down
stairs, walk on uneven ground, perform side steps, or whether its use improved confidence while
performing these various activities. The bulk of the evidence evaluated surrogate outcome
measures, including gait and walking parameters, measured in highly controlled experimental
settings, to predict functional status in everyday environments. Such results may not be of
immediate clinical relevance to the patient, or may not translate directly to functional improvement
in ADL or improvement in QOL. There was no available evidence regarding implantable FES
devices. Since the studies were case series and poor-quality RCTs, the validity of the evidence is
unclear. It was difficult to compare the study findings due to various limitations, such as
considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity across the available studies, the
insufficient power of these small clinical trials to detect statistical differences between treatment
groups, and the lack of blinding and placebo groups (although blinding and the use of adequate
placebo groups were not always practical or feasible). In addition, few of the available studies
discussed the magnitude of benefit of FES treatment or whether the therapy leads to meaningful
improvements in health outcomes for patients with MS.
Future, well-designed, sufficiently powered RCTs with adequate follow-up are necessary to
compare the use of FES with appropriate placebo controls, such as sham treatments, and
establish the magnitude of benefit of FES devices. Future research should compare different
applications of FES, including implanted or surface stimulation. Methods of independent
assessment should be incorporated since adequate blinding is not always feasible for this
technology. Additional well-designed studies are necessary to adequately assess the impact of
FES on functional status with a particular emphasis on practical dimensions of ADL. Studies with
a priori plans for subgroup analyses are also needed to determine the patient and disease
characteristics that are associated with clinically relevant, successful outcomes.
A randomized, controlled trial examined coordination exercises, gait training, and treadmill
training with and without FES using intramuscular electrodes in 32 patients after stroke (Daly,
2006). The group treated with FES using intramuscular electrodes demonstrated statistically
significant greater gains for gait component execution and knee flexion coordination than the
control group. A trial of 43 subjects, who had undergone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
were randomly assigned to receive or not receive FES as an adjunct treatment to improve
quadriceps strength. The FES group demonstrated greater quadriceps strength at 12 weeks and
higher levels of self-reported knee function at 12 and 16 weeks as compared to the group that did
not receive FES (Fitzgerald, 2003).
Barrett et al. (2009) conducted a two-group randomized trial to assess the effects of single
channel common peroneal nerve stimulation on objective aspects of gait relative to exercise
therapy for people with chronic progressive multiple sclerosis (CPMS). Forty-four people with a
diagnosis of CPMS and unilateral dropped foot completed the trial. Patients were randomly
allocated to receive either FES (n=20) or a physiotherapy home exercise program (n=24) for 18
weeks. The exercise group showed a statistically significant increase in 10 m walking speed and
distance walked in 3 min, relative to the FES group who showed no significant change in walking
performance without stimulation. At each stage of the trial, the FES group performed to a
significantly higher level with FES than without for the same outcome measures. The authors
concluded that exercise may provide a greater training effect on walking speed and endurance
than FES for people with CPMS. Additional studies are needed to investigate the combined
therapeutic effects of FES and exercise for patients with MS.
Broekmans et al. (2011) conducted a randomized controlled study involving 36 persons with
multiple sclerosis (MS) to examine the effect(s) of unilateral long-term (20 weeks) standardized
resistance training with and without simultaneous electro-stimulation on leg muscle strength and
overall functional mobility. The authors found, that long-term light to moderately intense
resistance training improves muscle strength in persons with MS but simultaneous electrostimulation does not further improve training outcome
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
6
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
A clinical trial by Kesar et al. (2009) evaluated the effects of delivering FES to both ankle
plantarflexors and dorsiflexors to improve gait in 13 post-stroke patients. The authors found that
delivering FES to both the plantarflexor and dorsiflexor muscles can help to correct poststroke
gait deficits at multiple joints (ankle and knee) during both the swing and stance phases of gait.
However, this is a very small uncontrolled study.
A pilot study by Ratchford et al. (2010) evaluated the safety and preliminary efficacy of home FES
cycling in 5 patients with chronic progressive multiple sclerosis (CPMS) to explore how it changes
cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cytokine levels. Outcomes were measured by: Two Minute Walk Test,
Timed 25-foot Walk, Timed Up and Go Test, leg strength, Expanded Disability Status Scale
(EDSS) score, and Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC) score. Quality-of-life was
measured using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Cytokines and growth factors were measured in the
CSF before and after FES cycling. Improvements were seen in the Two Minute Walk Test, Timed
25-foot Walk, and Timed Up and Go tests. Strength improved in muscles stimulated by the FES
cycle, but not in other muscles. No change was seen in the EDSS score, but the MSFC score
improved. The physical and mental health subscores and the total SF-36 score improved. The
authors concluded that FES cycling was reasonably well tolerated by chronic progressive MS
patients and encouraging improvements were seen in walking and quality-of-life. The study is
limited by small sample. Larger studies are needed to evaluate the effects of FES for patients
with MS.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) published a guidance document
in 2009 for the use of FES for foot drop of central neurological origin. NICE concluded that the
evidence on safety and efficacy appears adequate to support the use of FES for foot drop in
terms of improving gait, but further publication on the efficacy of FES would be useful regarding
patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life and activities of daily living.
Preliminary evidence indicates that paraplegics can benefit from functional electrical stimulation
that exercises muscles without providing locomotion. In one study, electrically stimulated
isometric exercise reversed bone demineralization and increased muscle strength (Belanger,
2000). In a second study, electrically stimulated use of an exercise cycle by paraplegics restored
muscle mass (Baldi, 1998). In another study, bone mineral density improved in some bones of
patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) after use of the FES bicycle (Chen, 2005).
Certain studies report results with more sophisticated functional stimulators that allow some
paraplegics to stand and walk. Most of the subjects enrolled in these studies succeeded in
standing and walking and, using their baseline state as a control, they experienced many benefits
including positive psychological changes, improved cardiovascular fitness, and increased muscle
strength, muscle mass, and lower limb blood flow. However, achieving these benefits exposed
the patients to significant risks (Hayes, 2003).
Despite these increased risks, the benefits of electrically stimulated ambulation do not appear to
exceed those of electrically stimulated isometric or cycling exercise. While most studies involved
patients with many years of muscular atrophy, Baldi et al. (1998) utilized patients with less than 4
months of atrophy. Moreover, electrically stimulated isometric exercise stimulated bone
remineralization that was not observed with electrically stimulated walking (Needham-Shropshire,
1997; Belanger, 2000). The ambulation provided by functional electrical stimulation may also
appear to provide an advantage over devices that only provide paraplegics with exercise but the
speed and range of electrically stimulated ambulation are so limited that researchers evaluating
the Parastep system concluded that it could not replace the wheelchair (Hayes, 2003). Even if the
ambulation provided by devices such as the Parastep significantly improves, it will still only be
usable by a subset of paraplegic patients such as those with T4-T11 spinal cord injuries (Klose,
1997). Stationary electrically stimulated exercise can be performed by a much larger group of
patients including quadraplegics. To summarize, electrically stimulated ambulation cannot be
considered safer or more beneficial than electrically stimulated stationary exercise unless the
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
7
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
benefits of ambulation are shown to be superior in large-scale trials in which paraplegic patients
are randomized to these two therapies. Further studies also need to be performed to confirm the
benefits of electrically stimulated stationary exercise since the controlled trials conducted to date
have used very small study populations and have assessed a limited set of outcome measures
(Baldi, 1998; Belanger, 2000).
In a small-scale study, functional electrical stimulation significantly improved walking speed of
patients with cerebral or spinal cord injuries that caused partial lower limb paralysis (Wieler,
1999). It is anticipated that large, randomized controlled trials would confirm these preliminary
results and establish functional electrical stimulation as a standard therapy for patients with
correctable gait disorders.
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) for muscle rehabilitation
Although the evidence is limited, NMES for the treatment of disuse atrophy in patients where the
nerve supply to the muscle is intact appears to be considered standard of care. There is some
evidence that the use of NMES may be an effective rehabilitative regimen to prevent muscle
atrophy associated with prolonged knee immobilization following ligament reconstruction surgery
or injury, however, controlled clinical trials are necessary to determine if the addition of NMES to
the rehabilitation program will improve health outcomes
De Oliveira Melo et al. (2013) conducted a systematic review to identify the evidence for NMES
for strengthening quadriceps muscles in elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Six
randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria. Four studies included ≤ 50 patients. Study
designs and outcome measures were heterogeneous and comparators varied. NMES parameters
were poorly reported. The trials scored extremely low on the allocation concealment and blinding
items. In most of the trials, the randomization methods were not described. Due to the poor
methodology of the studies and poor description of the strength measurement methods, no or
insufficient evidence was found to support NMES alone or combined with other modalities for the
treatment of elderly patients with OA. Due to the study limitations, no meta-analysis was
performed.
Lin et al. (2011) completed a randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial study to investigate the
long-term efficacy of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in enhancing motor recovery in the
upper extremities of stroke patients. A total of 46 patients with stroke were assigned to a
neuromuscular electrical stimulation group or a control group. Patients in the neuromuscular
electrical stimulation group received neuromuscular electrical stimulation for 30 min, 5 days a
week for 3 weeks. Measurements were recorded before treatment, at the 2nd and 3rd week of
treatment and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment ended. The Modified Ashworth Scale for
spasticity, the upper extremity section of the Fugl-Meyer motor assessment, and the Modified
Barthel Index were used to assess the results. Significant improvements were found in both
groups in terms of Fugl-Meyer motor assessment, and Modified Ashworth Scale scores after the
3rd week of treatment. The significant improvements persisted 1 month after treatment had been
discontinued. At 3 and 6 months after treatment was discontinued the average scores in the
neuromuscular electrical stimulation group were significantly better than those in the control
group. Three weeks of neuromuscular electrical stimulation to the affected upper extremity of
patients with stroke improves motor recovery. One limitation of this study was the absence of a
sham stimulation group. Future studies, using similar stimulation protocols with a larger sample,
are needed to gain further insight into the potential to induce functionally beneficial neuroplasticity
in stroke patients.
Hsu et al. (2010) conducted a randomized controlled trial to investigate the effects of different
doses of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on upper-extremity function in acute stroke
patients with severe motor deficit. Sixty-six acute stroke patients were equally randomized to 3
groups: high NMES, low NMES, or control. The treatment groups received NMES 5 days per
week with the high-NMES group receiving 60 minutes of stimulation per day, and low-NMES
group receiving 30 minutes per day for 4 weeks. The Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment Scale,
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
8
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
Action Research Arm Test, and Motor Activity Log were used to assess the patients at baseline, 4
and 12 weeks. Twelve subjects were lost to follow-up because of transportation difficulties (n=10)
and relocation (n=2). Both NMES groups showed significant improvement on Fugl-Meyer Motor
Assessment and Action Research Arm Test scales compared with the control group at week 4
and week 12. The high-NMES group showed treatment effects similar to those of the low-NMES
group. The authors concluded that both higher and lower doses of NMES led to similar
improvements in motor function.
In a randomized, controlled study by Ring and Rosenthal (2005), 22 patients with moderate to
severe upper limb paresis 3-6 months post-onset were evaluated to assess the effects of daily
neuroprosthetic (NESS Handmaster) functional electrical stimulation in sub-acute stroke. Patients
were stratified into 2 groups: no active finger movement and partial active finger movements, and
then randomized to control and neuroprosthesis groups. The neuroprosthesis group had
significantly greater improvements in spasticity, active range of motion and scores on the
functional hand tests (those with partial active motion). Of the few patients with pain and edema,
there was improvement only among those in the neuroprosthesis group. There were no adverse
reactions. The authors concluded that supplementing standard outpatient rehabilitation with daily
home neuroprosthetic activation improve upper limb outcomes.
There are also studies that NMES can be effective when used for quadriceps strength training
following ACL reconstruction or prior to total knee arthroplasty. In a small randomized controlled
trial of NMES for quadriceps strength training following ACL reconstruction, the group that
received NMES demonstrated moderately greater quadriceps strength at 12 weeks and
moderately higher levels of knee function at both 12 and 16 weeks of rehabilitation compared to
the control group (Fitzgerald, 2003). Another small study by Walls et al. (2010) evaluated the
effects of preoperative NMES for 9 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Five patients
served as a control group. Preoperative quadriceps muscle strength increased by 28% in NMES
group. Early postoperative strength loss was similar in both groups; however the NMES group
had a faster recovery with greater strength over the control group at 12 weeks postoperatively.
In a 2008 systematic review of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL) rehabilitation.
Wright et al. reported that 14 randomized controlled trials had evaluated postoperative NMES
following ACL reconstructionStudy limitations included the following: poor study design;
heterogeneous patient populations; and lack of independent observers. The authors noted that it
was difficult to make generalized conclusions regarding NMES for this indication.
Cauraugh and Kim (2003) examined NMES for the assistance of stroke motor recovery in a RCT
of 34 stroke patients. The mixed design analyses on three categories of behavioral measures
demonstrated motor improvements in the treatment group.
In 2010, Weber and colleagues reported on the use of the Bioness H200 device for use as a
supplement to treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA and occupational therapy among 23 stroke
patients with spasticity after stroke.[12] The primary outcome was progression in upper limb
motor function, as measured by improvement in the Motor Activity Log instrument after 12 weeks
of therapy. Although improvements in motor activity were seen among all patients after 6 and 12
weeks, no additional benefit was observed among patients treated with functional neuromuscular
electrical stimulation versus the comparison group, potentially due to small sample size.
NMES has been used to treat a variety of other conditions including strengthening leg muscles
after hip fracture and spinal cord injury, increasing wrist extension and reducing arm impairment
after stroke, and providing exercise for patients with severe physical limitations due to chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease or heart disease. Although RCTs that met the criteria for detailed
review provided some evidence that NMES might benefit some patients with these conditions,
these trials were small and did not involve sufficient follow-up to provide convincing evidence of
the benefits of NMES treatment.
A detailed search of the medical peer-reviewed literature did not identify any clinical studies that
evaluated electrical stimulation for the treatment of scoliosis.
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
9
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
A 2008 Hayes Directory Report on Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Muscle Rehabilitation
states there is insufficient evidence for NMES for all other indications, including rehabilitating leg
muscles after anterior cruciate ligament surgery, strengthening leg muscles after hip fracture or
hip replacement surgery, strengthening muscles of the arm after spinal cord injury, improving
motor function in patients with cerebral palsy, and providing exercise for patients with severe
physical limitations due to chronic osteoarthritis, obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic heart
failure.
Professional Societies/Organizations
The American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Chronic Pain and the American
Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine practice guidelines (2011) stated that
NMES may be used as part of a multimodal treatment of patients with painful peripheral nerve
injuries unresponsive to other therapies.
In the evaluation of the literature regarding electrical stimulation for the treatment of spasticity in
multiple sclerosis, the Multiple Sclerosis Council for Clinical Practice Guidelines (2005)
stated that “surface electrical stimulation may be of benefit in reducing spasticity in persons with
MS, but there is currently no evidence to support this supposition at this time.”
Interferential therapy (IFT)
IFT (Interferential therapy), is a treatment modality that is proposed to relieve musculoskeletal
pain and increase healing in soft tissue injuries and bone fractures. Two medium-frequency,
pulsed currents are delivered via electrodes placed on the skin over the targeted area producing
a low-frequency current. IFT delivers a crisscross current resulting in deeper muscle penetration.
It is theorized that IFT prompts the body to secrete endorphins and other natural painkillers and
stimulates parasympathetic nerve fibers to increase blood flow and reduce edema.
Musculoskeletal Pain:
In 2010, Fuentes and colleagues published a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies
evaluating the effectiveness of interferential stimulation for treating pain. A total of 20 studies met
the following inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trial; included adults diagnosed with a
painful musculoskeletal condition; compared IFS (alone or as a co-intervention) to placebo, no
treatment or an alternative intervention; and assessed pain on a numeric scale. Fourteen of the
trials reported data that could be included in a pooled analysis. Interferential stimulation as a
stand-alone intervention was not found to be more effective than placebo or an alternative
intervention.
A 2008 (2012Updated) Hayes Directory Report on Interferential Therapy for Pain and Bone
Fractures states there is a lack of evidence that interferential therapy is effective for pain relief
and tissue healing.
In 2005, the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF) concluded that interferential
therapy has not been shown to be as beneficial as the alternatives for the treatment of
musculoskeletal pain. Validated treatments for musculoskeletal pain include medication as
necessary, such as acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, muscle relaxants or
opioids; discourage bed rest, consider spinal manipulation for pain relief and refer for exercise
therapy.
Osteoarthritis:
Gundog et al. (2012) conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of IFC
to sham IFC for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Treatments were given for twenty minutes each,
five times a week, for three weeks. Patients were allowed to use paracetamol during the study.
The primary outcome was pain intensity measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster
University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Secondary outcomes included range of motion (ROM)
of both knees, time to walk a distance of 15-meters, and the amount of soft-tissue swelling and
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
10
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
synovial effusion. Pain at rest, pain on movement, and disability were measured by the Visual
Analog Scale. There was a significant improvement in all patients in all outcomes compared to
baseline except for ranges of motions. The mean percentage decreases in all outcomes were
significantly greater in the active IFC group compared to sham Improvement in WOMAC stiffness
subscale was only reported in the IFC group. Intake of paracetamol was significantly higher in
the sham group . The effectiveness of the different amplitude-modulated frequency (AMF) of
active IFC was not significantly different between the groups. Author-noted limitations of the study
included: the small patient population; difficulty finding patients to include in the study who had
not experienced any electrotherapy before the study and who were approved to participate in a
singular treatment regimen for three weeks; and short-term follow-up.
Rutjes et al. (2009) conducted a systematic review of randomized or quasi-randomized controlled
trials of electrical stimulation, including IFT (n=4 studies), for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the
knee. Due to the poor methodological and reporting quality of the studies, the effectiveness of IFT
could not be confirmed.
A multi-center, randomized single-blind, controlled study by Burch et al. (2008) to investigate the
benefits of the combination of interferential (IF) and patterned muscle stimulation in the treatment
of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. The study randomized 116 patients with OA of the knee to a
test or control group. The devices used to deliver the electrical stimulation were pre-programmed
to deliver either IF plus patterned muscle stimulation (test group) or low-current TENS treatment
(control group). Both groups were treated for 8 weeks. Subjects completed questionnaires at
baseline and after 2, 4 and 8 weeks. Primary outcomes included the pain and physical function
subscales of the Western Ontario MacMaster (WOMAC) OA Index and Visual Analog Scales
(VAS) for pain and quality of life. The mean changes from baseline to last visit in quality of life
VAS rating were similar between the two groups (18.17 vs. 18.16). Patients in the test group had
a greater decrease in the overall pain VAS (27.91 vs. 23.19; P=0.29) at their last visit, but the
difference between treatment groups did not achieve statistical significance. However, if only
patients who completed the study (49 in test group and 50 in control group) were included for the
analysis, the difference between groups in mean change from baseline increased from 4.71 to
9.40 for overall pain VAS rating and achieved statistical significance (P = 0.038). Although the
study design was a randomized controlled trial of sufficient size, the study was manufacturer
sponsored, with intervening treatment variables, 10% drop out rate and the treatment effect did
not reach sufficient significant difference.
Anterior Cruciate Ligament/Menisectomy/Knee Chondroplasty:
Jarit et al. (2003) conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of home-based,
interferential therapy in 87 patients who had undergone anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)
reconstruction, menisectomy, or knee chondroplasty. Patients were divided into 3 groups based
on type of knee surgery and within each group randomized into treatment and placebo group. All
patients were given home IFT devices. The treatment groups received working IFT units while the
placebo groups received units set to deliver no current. At baseline, there were no statistically
significant differences between IFT and control groups in edema or ROM. All IFT subjects
reported significantly less pain and had significantly greater range of motion at all post-operative
time points. ACL and menisectomy IFC subjects experienced significantly less edema at all time
points, while chondroplasty subjects experienced significantly less edema until 4 weeks
postoperatively. The authors concluded that IFT may help to reduce pain, need for pain
medication and edema as well as enhance recovery of function after knee surgery. The study is
limited by subjective reporting of edema by patients, small treatment and control groups and lack
of comparison to other treatment modalities. In addition, the control group was aware they were
not receiving IFT thereby confounding the results.
Tibial Fractures:
Fourie and Bowerbank (1997) studied interferential therapy (IT) as a treatment to accelerate
healing of tibial fractures in a double blind, controlled, randomized study. Forty-one men received
IFT, 35 received sham, and 151 received no intervention. Outcomes were measured by the time
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
11
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
to union or incidence of nonunion. No difference in the time for union was found in the three
groups. The authors concluded that IFT did not reduce healing time for new tibial fractures or
prevent nonunion.
Low Back Pain:
Limited success with interferential therapy was obtained by Hurley et al. (2001) who concluded
that during treatment of low back pain the interferential current must be applied to the associated
spinal nerve rather than the painful area. These investigators found a statistically significant
reduction in functional disability scores for the spinal nerve therapy group compared with the
control group or the painful area therapy group. However, differences in pretreatment status and
treatment protocols for the different patient groups in this study hamper interpretation of this
finding. Moreover, no advantage was observed for spinal nerve therapy in pain scores or qualityof-life scores.
In a later study, Hurley et al. (2004) investigated the outcomes of manipulative therapy and IFT
for acute low back pain. Eighty patients received manipulative therapy, 80 received IFT, and 80
received a combination of both manipulative and interferential therapies. Functional disability was
assessed by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. All interventions significantly reduced
functional disability to the same degree at discharge, 6 months and 12 months follow-up. At
discharge all interventions significantly reduced functional disability and there were no significant
differences found between the groups for recurrence of back pain, work absenteeism, medication
consumption, exercise participation or the use of healthcare at 12 months. The authors
concluded that there was no difference between the effects of a combined manipulative therapy
and interferential therapy package and either manipulative therapy or interferential therapy alone.
The body of evidence on interferential therapy (IFT) includes a number of randomized controlled
trials (RCTs) and a meta-analysis of RCTs. Several studies reported no significant difference
between IFT treatment groups compared to placebo or other co-interventions. Studies which
have reported some benefit of IFT treatment for pain have been limited by small sample size,
limited follow-up, and lack of placebo control groups. Overall, the evidence suggests that IFS is
not efficacious for improving pain, function and/or range of motion for patients with
musculoskeletal conditions;
Professional Societies/Organizations
The Work Loss Data Institute (2009) stated that “there is no quality evidence of effectiveness
except in conjunction with recommended treatments, including return to work, exercise and
medications” and the evidence of improvement was limited. The reported results from trials were
negative or non-interpretable and study design and methodology were poor. There was a lack of
standardized protocol for IFT, and the therapies varied in electrode-placement technique,
frequency of stimulation, pulse duration, and treatment time.
Clinical practice guidelines from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain
Society published in 2007 concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend
interferential stimulation for the treatment of low back pain.
Pulsed Electrical Stimulation (PES)
The BioniCare Knee System( formerly Bio-1000 system), is a noninvasive, low-amplitude,
pulsed electrical stimulation (PES) device designed to reduce pain and improve function in
patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. The device consists of a signal generator, signal
applicator, and electrodes encased in either a supportive knee brace or a soft wrap. PES is
delivered to the knee and the brace is worn by the patient for ≥ 6 hours per day during waking
hours; the soft wrap is used overnight while sleeping. During an in-office consultation, the
healthcare professional instructs the patient in proper use of the device. PES is intended for
patients with knee pain due to OA who do not respond well to nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory
drug treatment or who are not appropriate candidates for, or do not wish to undergo, total knee
arthroplasty (TKA). Hayes Technology Brief (2011).
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
12
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial by Fary et al. (2011) evaluated the
effectiveness of pulsed electrical stimulation in the symptomatic management of osteoarthritis
(OA) of the knee. Thirty-four patients were randomized to PES and 36 to placebo. Primary
outcomes measured pain by visual analog scale (VAS). Other measures included Western
Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores for pain, function, and
joint stiffness, Short-Form 36 health survey and perceived effect on quality of life and physical
activity. Over 26 weeks, both groups showed improvement in pain scores. There were no
differences between groups for changes in WOMAC pain, function, and stiffness scores, SF-36
physical and mental component summary scores, patient's global assessment of disease activity
or activity measures. Fifty-six percent of the PES-treated group achieved a clinically relevant 20mm improvement in VAS pain score at 26 weeks compared with 44% of controls. The authors
concluded that PES was no more effective than placebo in managing osteoarthritis of the knee.
A randomized controlled trial conducted and supported by the manufacturer of the BIO-1000
System evaluated the analgesic potential and functional improvement following the use of PES in
patients (n=78) with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee (Zizic, 1995). Patients were randomized to
receive an active device or a placebo device, both of which were used daily for 4 weeks. Three
primary efficacy variables (patient pain, patient function, and physician global evaluation of
patient condition) and 6 secondary variables (duration of morning stiffness, range of motion, knee
tenderness, joint swelling, joint circumference, and walking time) were assessed. Patients treated
with the active device demonstrated significantly better improvement than the placebo group for
all primary efficacy variables in comparison of mean change from baseline to the end of
treatment. There was 50% improvement in all three primary efficacy variables in 24% of the
active device group versus 6% of the placebo group. No statistically significant differences were
observed for tenderness, swelling, or walking time. This study is limited by short follow-up, lack of
power analysis, 9% of patients were not evaluable at follow-up, and manufacturer sponsor.
Farr et al. (2006) reported on a prospective, cohort study examining the use of PES for the
treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee in 288 patients. The device was used for 16 to 600 days
with a mean of 889 hours. Improvement in all efficacy variables was reported. A dose-response
relationship between the effect and hours of usage was observed as cumulative time increased to
more than 750 hours. Improvements in the patient's or physician's global evaluation of the
patient's condition occurred in 59% of patients who used PES less than 750 hours and in 73% of
patient's who used it more than 750 hours. The lack of a control group weakens the evidence of
this study.
Mont et al. (2006) examined the use of PES to defer total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for patients
with knee osteoarthritis. 157 patients who had been referred for a TKA were treated by PES daily
for one year. They were compared to a matched group of 101 patients. TKA was deferred for one
year in 83% of patients, for two years in 75% of patients, for three years in 65% of patients and
for four years in 60% of patients. In the matched group, TKA was deferred for one year in 67% of
patients, for two years in 51% of patients, for three years in 46% of patients, and for four years in
35% of patients. The differences in deferral were statistically significant and the investigators
state that none of the demographic variables studied influenced the need for TKA.
Peripheral Subcutaneous Field Stimulation (PSFS) or Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation
(PNFS)
Subcutaneous stimulation (peripheral nerve field stimulation/PNFS) is a novel neuromodulation
modality that has increased in its utilization during the past decade.
In this particular treatment, an electrical current is transmitted via an electrode that has been
implanted around the selected peripheral nerve. This electrical current purports to block or disrupt
the normal transmission of pain signals. The electrodes are connected by a wire to the
peripherally implanted neurostimulator (also known as an implantable subcutaneous target
stimulator). An external generator (similar to a remote control device) controls the degree of
stimulation the patient receives.
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
13
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
Yakovlev et al. (2011) evaluated peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) as an alternative
treatment option for patients with postlaminectomy syndrome (PLS) when conventional
treatments did not provide adequate relief of intractable low back pain. Eighteen patients
underwent an uneventful PNFS trial with percutaneous placement of four temporary quadripolar
leads. The leads were placed subcutaneously over the lumbar or thoraco-lumbar area. The
temporary leads were removed when patients experienced excellent pain relief over the next two
days. The patients were then implanted with permanent leads. All patients reported sustained
pain relief 12 months after implantation. The authors concluded that PNFS may be more effective
in treating intractable low back pain than spinal cord stimulation in patients with PLS after
multilevel spinal surgeries. The lack of a control group limits the validity of the conclusions of this
study.
Verrills et al. (2011) evaluated the clinical outcomes of 100 consecutive patients receiving
peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) for chronic pain in a prospective, observational study.
The patients received PNFS for the treatment of chronic craniofacial, thorax, lumbosacral,
abdominal, pelvic, and groin pain conditions. Overall, 72% of patients reduced their analgesic use
following PNFS. Patients receiving a lumbosacral PNFS for chronic low back pain reported a
significant reduction in disability following treatment, as determined by the Oswestry Disability
Index. No long-term complications were reported. The authors concluded that PNFS can be a
safe and effective treatment option for intractable chronic pain conditions. This study was not
randomized or case controlled.
Six patients with failed back surgery syndrome who had failed conventional therapies were
implanted in the subcutaneous tissues of the low back region with neurostimulation leads. Leads
were placed superficially in the region of maximum pain, as identified by each individual patient.
The use of peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) enabled patients to decrease their pain
medication and increase their level of activity. The patients all reported reduction in pain as
measured by visual analog scale scores and an improved quality of life. The authors concluded
that PNFS is a safe and effective alternative treatment for patients with chronic low back pain,
and should be considered in this population (Paicius, 2007). This study is limited by a small study
population.
Evidence on PSFS is limited, consisting of small uncontrolled and case studies. Prospective
controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of this treatment for chronic pain.
U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)
FES devices, such as the Parastep, that have been proposed for restoring ambulation to
paraplegics are regulated by the FDA’s premarket approval (PMA) process.
Several functional electrical stimulator devices have been approved by the FDA under product
code GZI. Additional information is available at:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm. Accessed October 6, 2015.
Interferential stimulators are regulated by the FDA as Class II devices under product codes LIH
and IPF. More than 50 instruments have received 510(k) approval.
A complete list of devices for IF is too extensive for inclusion in this report.
Additional information is available at:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm. Accessed October6, 2015
Neuromuscular stimulators that restore ambulation to paraplegics are regulated as Class III or
high-risk devices by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Parastep I received
premarket approval from the FDA on April 1994 under Application #P900038. Additional
information is available at:
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
14
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm?id=14655. Accessed October
6,2015
The WalkAide device received 501(k) approval September 21, 2005 as a neuromuscular
functional stimulator to electrically stimulate the muscles that cause ankle dorsiflexion in patients
who have sustained damage to upper motor neurons or pathways to the spinal cord. Additional
information is available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf5/K052329.pdf.
Accessed October 6, 2015.
The WalkAide is a product of Myo-Orthotics Technology, a term coined by the manufacturer,
Innovative Neurotronics (Austin, TX). According to the manufacturer, it represents the
convergence of orthotic technology (which braces a limb) and ES (which restores specific muscle
function). The WalkAide device is intended to counteract foot drop by producing dorsiflexion of
the ankle during the swing phase of the gait. The device attaches to the leg, just below the knee,
near the head of the fibula. During a gait cycle, the WalkAide stimulates the common peroneal
nerve, which innervates the tibialis anterior and other muscles that produce dorsiflexion of the
ankle. The WalkAide is designed to offer persons with foot drop increased mobility, functionality
and independence. It was cleared by the FDA through the 510(k) process. However, there is
currently insufficient evidence to support its use for foot drop and other indications. Prospective
clinical studies of the WalkAide device are necessary to evaluate whether it improves function
and reduces disability compared to standard bracing in persons with foot drop.
The NESS L300 received 510(k) marketing clearance on July 7, 2006. The NESS L300 is
intended to provide ankle dorsiflexion in individuals with drop foot following an upper motor
neuron injury or disease. During the swing phase of gait, the NESS L300 electrically stimulates
muscles in the affected leg to provide dorsiflexion of the foot; thus, it may improve the individual's
gait. The NESS L300 may also facilitate muscle re-education, prevent/retard disused atrophy,
maintain or increase joint range of motion and increase local blood flow. Additional information is
available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf5/K053468.pdf. Accessed October 6,
2015.
The ODFS Dropped Foot Stimulator (Odstock) received FDA approval on July 15, 2005. The
ODFS is intended to provide ankle dorsiflexion in individuals with dropped foot following an upper
motor neuron injury. During the swing phase of gait, the ODFS electrically stimulates muscles in
the leg and ankle of partially paralyzed individuals to provide flexion of the foot and may thus
improve the individual's gait. Additional information (product code GZI and IPF) is available at:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf5/K050991.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2015
®
A newer version, the ODFS Pace, received FDA approval on March 30, 2011. Additional
information is available at:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf10/K102115.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2015
The NESS Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation System or Handmaster was approved
through 510(K) on September 11, 2002. The most recent approval is under the name
Handmaster in 2003. The NESS System is intended to be used for the following indications:
maintenance or increase of range of motion, reduction of muscle spasm, prevention or retardation
of disuse atrophy, muscle reeducation, and increasing local blood circulation. Additional
information is available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf3/K031900.pdf.
Accessed October 6, 2015.
ERGYS was approved as a powered muscle stimulator by the FDA under 510(k) number
K841112 on April 4, 1984. Additional information is available at:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm. Accessed October 6, 2015
The RT300 FES cycle ergometer was approved as a powered muscle stimulator for general
rehabilitation for relaxation of muscle spasms, prevention or retardation of disuse atrophy,
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
15
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
increasing local blood circulation and maintaining or increasing range of motion on June 27,
2005. Additional information is available at:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf9/K090750.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2015
The BioniCare BIO-1000 System (product code NYN), a pulsed electrical stimulation system, is
classified as a stimulator, electrical, transcutaneous for arthritis device by the FDA and is
designed to help reduce pain and improve function in osteoarthritis of the knee. It received 510(k)
approval on June 6, 2003. Additional information is available at:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf3/K030332.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2015.
Peripheral Subcutaneous Field Stimulation (PSFS) or Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation
(PNFS) using a fully implantable system is not currently approved by the FDA. See the following
Web site for more information:
http://wwwp.medtronic.com/Newsroom/NewsReleaseDetails.do?itemId=1306157336003&lang=e
n_US Accessed October 6, 2015.
CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES (CMS)
Medicare covers neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and functional electrical stimulation
(FES) when criteria are met. Refer to the NCDs for Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES)
(160.12) and Supplies Used in the Delivery of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation
(TENS) and Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation (NMES)(160.13). Local Coverage
Determinations (LCDs) do not exist at this time.
Medicare does not have a National Coverage Determination (NCD) for interferential therapy
(IFT). Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) do exist. Refer to the LCDs for Medicine: Physical
Therapy-Outpatient, Outpatient Physical Therapy and Outpatient Physical and Occupational
Therapy Services.
Medicare does not have a National Coverage Determination (NCD) for pulsed electrical
stimulation (PES). Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) do not exist at this time.
Medicare does not have a National Coverage Determination (NCD) for peripheral subcutaneous
field stimulation (PSFS) or peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS). Local Coverage
Determinations (LCDs) do exist. Refer to the LCDs for Noncovered Services, Peripheral Nerve
and Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation and Services That Are Not Reasonable and Necessary.
(Accessed October 13, 2015)
REFERENCES
Abejon D, Krames ES. Peripheral nerve stimulation or is it peripheral subcutaneous filed
stimulation; what is in a moniker? Neuromodulation 2009; 12:1–3.
American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Chronic Pain Management; American
Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Practice guidelines for chronic pain
management: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on
Chronic Pain Management and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.
Apr 11, 2011. Accessed Jul 5, 2011.
Baldi JC, Jackson RD, Moraille R, Mysiw WJ. Muscle atrophy is prevented in patients with acute
spinal cord injury using functional electrical stimulation. Spinal Cord. 1998;36:463-469.
Barrett CL, Mann GE, Taylor PN, et al. A randomized trial to investigate the effects of functional
electrical stimulation and therapeutic exercise on walking performance for people with multiple
sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2009 Apr;15(4):493-504. Epub 2009 Mar 12.
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
16
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
Belanger M, Stein RB, Wheeler GD, et al. Electrical stimulation: can it increase muscle strength
and reverse osteopenia in spinal cord injured individuals? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000;81:10901098.
Bioness Inc. Ness H200 [website]. Valencia, CA: Bioness; 2009.
Broekmans T, Roelants M, Feys P, et al. Effects of long-term resistance training and
simultaneous electro-stimulation on muscle strength and functional mobility in multiple
sclerosis.Mult Scler. 2011 Apr;17(4):468-77. Epub 2010 Dec 9.
Burch FX, Tarro JN, Greenberg JJ, et al. Evaluating the benefits of patterned stimulation in the
treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a multi-center, randomized, single-blind, controlled study
with an independent masked evaluator. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008 Aug;16(8):865-72.
California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF). Interferential Stimulation For The Treatment
Of Musculoskeletal Pain. October 19, 2005.
Cauraugh JH and Kim SB. Chronic stroke motor recovery: duration of active neuromuscular
stimulation. J Neurol Sci. 2003 Nov 15;215(1-2):13-9.
Chen SC, Lai CH, Chan WP, et al. Increases in bone mineral density after functional electrical
stimulation cycling exercises in spinal cord injured patients. Disabil Rehabil. 2005;27(22):133741.
Chou, R, Qaseem, A, Snow, V, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical
practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society. Ann
Intern Med. 2007 Oct 2;147(7):478-91. PMID: 17909209
Daly JJ, Roenigk K, Holcomb J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of functional neuromuscular
stimulation in chronic stroke subjects. Stroke. 2006 Jan;37(1):172-8.
de Oliveira Melo M, Aragão FA, Vaz MA. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for muscle
strengthening in elderly with knee osteoarthritis - a systematic review. Complement Ther Clin
Pract. 2013 Feb;19(1):27-31.
Embrey DG, Holtz SL, Alon G, et al. Functional electrical stimulation to dorsiflexors and plantar
flexors during gait to improve walking in adults with chronic hemiplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
2010 May;91(5):687-96.
Farr J, Mont MA, Garland D, et al. Pulsed electrical stimulation in patients with osteoarthritis of
the knee: follow up in 288 patients who had failed non-operative therapy. Surg Technol Int.
2006;15:227-33.
Fary RE, Carroll GJ, Briffa TG, et al. The effectiveness of pulsed electrical stimulation in the
management of osteoarthritis of the knee: Results of a double-blind, randomized, placebocontrolled, repeated-measures trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2011 May;63(5):1333-42.
Fitzgerald GK, Piva SR, Irrgang JJ. A modified neuromuscular electrical stimulation protocol for
quadriceps strength training following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sports
Phys Ther. 2003 Sep;33(9):492-501.
Fourie JA, Bowerbank P. Stimulation of bone healing in new fractures of the tibial shaft using
interferential currents. Physiother Res Int. 1997;2(4):255-268.
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
17
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
Fuentes JP, Armijo Olivo S, Magee DJ, et al. Effectiveness of Interferential Current Therapy in
the Management of Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Phys Ther.
2010 Jul 22.
Garland D, Holt P, Harrington JT, Caldwell J, Zizic T, Cholewcynski J. A 3-month, randomized,
double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a highly optimized,
capacitively coupled, pulsed electrical stimulator in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15(6):630-637.
Gundog M, Atamaz F, Kanyilmaz S, Kirazli Y, Celepoglu G. Interferential current therapy in
patients with knee osteoarthritis: comparison of the effectiveness of different amplitudemodulated frequencies. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Feb;91(2):107-13.
Hayes, Inc. Medical Technology Directory. BioniCare Knee System (VQ OrthoCare) for
Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee. Lansdale, PA Hayes, Inc; October, 2011.
Hayes, Inc. Medical Technology Directory. Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) Rehabilitation
following Spinal Cord Injury Lansdale, PA: Hayes, Inc.; December 2011.
Hayes, Inc. Medical Technology Directory. Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES) for Treatment
of Foot Drop in Multiple Sclerosis Patients Lansdale, PA: Hayes, Inc.; December 19, 2011.
Hayes, Inc. Medical Technology Directory. Functional Electrical Stimulation for Rehabilitation of
Paralyzed Lower Limbs. Lansdale, PA: Hayes, Inc.; May 2003. Updated March 24, 2008.
Hayes, Inc. Medical Technology Directory. Interferential Therapy for Pain and Bone Fractures.
Lansdale, PA: Hayes, Inc.; April 28, 2008. Updated April 20, 2009.
Hayes, Inc. Medical Technology Directory. Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Muscle
Rehabilitation. Lansdale, PA: Hayes, Inc.; Archived 2013.
Hsu SS, Hu MH, Wang YH, et al. Dose-response relation between neuromuscular electrical
stimulation and upper-extremity function in patients with stroke. Stroke. 2010 Apr;41(4):821-4.
Epub 2010 Mar 4.
Hurley DA, Minder PM, McDonough SM, et al. Interferential therapy electrode placement
technique in acute low back pain: a preliminary investigation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
2001;82(4):485-493.
Hurley DA, McDonough SM, Dempster M, et al. A randomized clinical trial of manipulative
therapy and interferential therapy for acute low back pain. Spine. 2004;29(20):2207-16.
Jarit GJ, Mohr KJ, Waller R, Glousman RE. The effects of home interferential therapy on postoperative pain, edema, and range of motion of the knee. Clin J Sport Med. 2003;13(1):16-20.
Kesar TM, Perumal R, Reisman DS,et al. Functional electrical stimulation of ankle plantarflexor
and dorsiflexor muscles: effects on poststroke gait. Stroke. 2009 Dec;40(12):3821-7. Epub 2009
Oct 15.
Klose KJ, Jacobs PL, Broton JG, et al. Evaluation of a training program for persons with SCI
paraplegia using the Parastep 1 ambulation system: part 1. Ambulation performance and
anthropometric measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:789-793.
Lin Z, Yan T. Long-term effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation for promoting motor
recovery of the upper extremity after stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2011 May;43(6):506-10.
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
18
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
Mont MA, Hungerford DS, Caldwell JR, et al. Pulsed electrical stimulation to defer TKA in patients
with knee osteoarthritis. Orthopedics 2006;29(10):887-92.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Functional electrical stimulation for drop
foot of central neurological origin: guidance. January 28, 2009
Needham-Shropshire BM, Broton JG, Klose KJ, et al. Evaluation of a training program for
persons with SCI paraplegia using the Parastep 1 ambulation system: part 3. Lack of effect on
bone mineral density. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:799-803.
Paicius, Richard M., et al. Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Low
Back Pain: Preliminary Results of Long-Term Follow-up: A Case Series. Neuromodulation,
Volume 10, Number 3, July 2007 , pp. 279-290.
Ratchford JN, Shore W, Hammond ER, et al. A pilot study of functional electrical stimulation
cycling in progressive multiple sclerosis. NeuroRehabilitation. 2010;27(2):121-8.
Ring H, Rosenthal N. Controlled study of neuroprosthetic functional electrical stimulation in subacute post-stroke rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2005 Jan;37(1):32-6.
Rutjes AWS, Nüesch E, Sterchi R, Kalichman L, Hendriks E, Osiri M, Brosseau L, Reichenbach
S, Jüni P. Transcutaneous electrostimulation for osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 4.
Verrills P, Vivian D, Mitchell B, Barnard A. Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Chronic Pain:
100 Cases and Review of the Literature. Pain Med. 2011 Aug 3. doi: 10.1111/j.15264637.2011.01201.x.
Walls RJ, McHugh G, O'Gorman DJ, et al. Effects of preoperative neuromuscular electrical
stimulation on quadriceps strength and functional recovery in total knee arthroplasty. A pilot
study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010 Jun 14;11:119.
Wieler M, Stein RB, Ladouceur M, et al. Multicenter evaluation of electrical stimulation systems
for walking. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999; 80:495-500.
Work Loss Data Institute (WLDI), California. Medical treatment utilization schedule regulations.
Chronic pain medical treatment guidelines. May 2009. Accessed July 9, 2012.
Wright RW, Preston E, Fleming BC, et al. A systematic review of anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction rehabilitation: part ll: open versus closed kinetic chain exercises, neuromuscular
electrical stimulation, accelerated rehabilitation, and miscellaneous topics. J Knee Surg. 2008
Jul;21 (3):225-34.
Yakovlev AE, Resch BE, Yakovleva VE. Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation in the Treatment of
Postlaminectomy Syndrome after Multilevel Spinal Surgeries. Neuromodulation. 2011 Aug 19.
doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2011.00387.x.
Zizic TM, Hoffman KC, Holt PA, et al. The treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee with pulsed
electrical stimulation. J Rheumatol. 1995;22(9):1757-1761.
POLICY HISTORY/REVISION INFORMATION
Date
•
01/01/2016
Action/Description
Revised coverage rationale:
o Revised language pertaining to functional electrical
stimulation (FES) to indicate FES, a form of neuromuscular
electrical stimulation, is proven and medically necessary
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
19
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.
•
•
when used as one component of a comprehensive
rehabilitation program in persons with paralyzed lower limbs
due to spinal cord injury (SCI) and meet all listed criteria
o Replaced language indicating “neuromuscular electrical
stimulation (NMES) is unproven and not medically necessary
for the treatment of neurologic, orthopedic (e.g., scoliosis) or
other abnormalities including pain not listed as proven and
medically necessary” with “neuromuscular electrical
stimulation (NMES) is unproven and not medically necessary
for any other indication not listed as proven and medically
necessary”
o Modified/clarified language pertaining to clinical
evidence/study findings for NMES to indicate:

There is insufficient evidence in the peer reviewed
literature that use of electrical stimulation will improve
health outcomes for the treatment of multiple conditions
other than those identified above as proven

Overall, studies in the form of randomized controlled trials
and case series included small, heterogeneous patient
populations and short-term follow-ups

Some systematic reviews have reported that no
improvement was seen with NMES, outcomes were
conflicting and/or in some cases, when improvement was
noted, the effects did not last

Heterogeneity of treatment regimens and outcome
measures make it difficult to establish that NMES
resulted in meaningful clinical outcomes (e.g., decrease
pain, functional improvement, improvement in quality of
life and ability to carry out activities of daily living) for
these other conditions and indications
o Modified/clarified language pertaining to clinical
evidence/study findings for interferential therapy (IFT) to
indicate:

There is limited evidence from the available studies to
conclude that interferential therapy reduces the pain or
promotes healing of bone fractures, musculoskeletal or
nonsurgical soft tissue injuries

Although a few studies reported some improvement in
pain or disability following interferential therapy for these
conditions, none of the double-blind, randomized,
placebo-controlled studies reported a positive treatment
effect of interferential therapy for nonsurgical soft tissue
injuries or bone fractures
Updated supporting information to reflect the most current
description of services, clinical evidence, FDA and CMS
information, and references
Archived previous policy version 2015T0126S
Electrical Stimulation for the Treatment of Pain and Muscle Rehabilitation: Medical Policy (Effective 01/01/2016)
20
Proprietary Information of UnitedHealthcare. Copyright 2016 United HealthCare Services, Inc.