...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Physiotherapy research international: the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy >Low‐frequency high‐intensity versus medium‐frequency low‐intensity combined therapy in the management of active myofascial trigger points: A randomized controlled trial
【24h】

Low‐frequency high‐intensity versus medium‐frequency low‐intensity combined therapy in the management of active myofascial trigger points: A randomized controlled trial

机译：低频高强度与中频低强度组合治疗在主动肌动虫触发点管理中：随机对照试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Abstract Background Electrotherapeutic modalities have proven to be one of the best therapeutic options for myofascial pain syndrome, targeting the myofascial trigger points (MTrPs). Combined therapy (CT) is described with paucity in literature as the application of ultrasound (US) and electrical stimulating current concurrently and at the same site. Aim The aim was to compare between low‐frequency, high‐intensity burst transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation CT (burst‐TENS‐CT) and medium‐frequency, low‐intensity amplitude modulated frequency CT (AMF‐CT) on upper trapezius active MTrPs (A‐MTrPs). Participants and intervention In this single‐blinded randomized controlled trial design, 70 participants with acute mechanical neck pain and at least two A‐MTrPs in the upper trapezius were simply and randomly allocated into three groups—the burst‐TENS‐CT, the AMF‐CT, or the sham‐CT control groups. All groups received three sessions per week for four consecutive weeks. Outcome measures Outcome measures included pressure pain threshold (PPT) using a digital electronic algometer and active cervical lateral flexion range of motion (ROM) using an iPhone Clinometer application. Data were collected prior to the first treatment and at the end of the 4‐week trial. Results There were statistically significant improvements in postintervention PPT and ROM values in both treatment groups ( p ??0.0001). As for the sham‐US, no significant difference was found between the preintervention and postintervention values ( p ??0.05). Bonferroni correction test revealed that there was a significant difference between all the three groups ( p ??0.0001). Additionally, burst‐TENS‐CT yields a greater increase in PPT and ROM values (547% and 49.32%, respectively) than that of medium‐frequency AMF‐CT. Conclusion Within the scope of this study, both CT modalities were effective in increasing PPT and cervical lateral flexion ROM. Nonetheless, low‐frequency, high‐intensity burst‐TENS‐CT was shown to be superior over the medium‐frequency, low‐intensity AMF‐CT in terms of reducing pain sensitivity and increasing ROM.
机译：摘要背景电疗方式已被证明是肌动虫疼痛综合征的最佳治疗选择之一，靶向肌菌触发点（MTRPS）。组合治疗（CT）描述于文献中的缺乏作为应用超声（US）和电刺激电流同时和同一部位的应用。目的目的是在上斜坡上的低频，高强度突发经皮电神经刺激CT（突发 - Tens-CT）和中频，低强度幅度调制频率CT（AMF-CT）之间进行比较（ a-mtrps）。参与者和干预在这种单一盲目的随机对照试验设计中，70名与急性机械颈部疼痛的参与者和上梯内的至少两个A-MTRPS简单，随机分配为三组 - 突发 - Tens-CT，AMF- CT，或假CT对照组。所有小组连续四周每周收到三个课程。结果测量结果措施包括使用数字电子距离的压力疼痛阈值（PPT）使用iPhone阈值应用程序使用数字电子避鸟和主动颈横向屈曲（ROM）。在第一次治疗之前，在4周试验结束之前收集数据。结果在两种治疗组中的术后PPT和ROM值中存在统计学上显着的改进（P？＆ 0.0001）。至于Sham-US，在Preintervention和Perting Intervention值之间没有发现显着差异（p？＆ 0.05）。 Bonferroni校正测试显示，所有三个组之间存在显着差异（p？＆？0.0001）。另外，Burst-Tens-CT产生PPT和ROM值的增加（分别为547％和49.32％），而不是中频AMF-CT。结论在本研究的范围内，CT模态的均在增加PPT和颈侧屈曲ROM方面是有效的。尽管如此，在减少疼痛敏感度和增加的ROM方面，仍显示出低频，高强度突发Tens-CT在中频，低强度AMF-CT上优越。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号