Merrick Mark A, Bernard Kristy D, Devor Steven T, Williams M John M
Division of Athletic Training, College of Medicine and Public Health, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210-1234, USA.
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2003 Jul;33(7):379-85. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2003.33.7.379.
A counterbalanced, repeated-measures design with ultrasound device (Omnisound 3000C, Dynatron 950, Excel Ultra III) as the independent variable. The 2 dependent variables were intramuscular (IM) temperature at 6 minutes and at the end of a 10-minute treatment.
To compare IM temperatures produced by identical 3-MHz ultrasound treatments between 3 different ultrasound devices.
Most recent studies prescribing intensity and duration parameters for thermal ultrasound treatments have been performed using an Omnisound device, but have not been verified in other common ultrasound devices.
Six uninjured volunteers (mean age +/- SD, 22 +/- 3.4 y; mean height +/- SD, 171.9 +/- 11.0 cm; mean mass +/- SD, 66.1 +/- 11.1 kg) gave informed consent and served as subjects. Separate ultrasound treatments using identical parameters (3 MHz, 1.5 W/cm2, 10 minutes, treatment area equal to twice transducer surface area) were administered at 24 or 48 hours intervals using a different ultrasound device for each treatment. Left medial calf IM temperature was recorded every 20 seconds using implantable thermocouples at a depth of 1.6 cm below the treatment surface. Data were analyzed using MANOVA with Sidak adjusted multiple comparisons post hoc.
Tissue heating using the Omnisound device was greater than with either the Dynatron or the Excel. The results of treatments using Dynatron or Excel devices did not differ. The Omnisound was the only device to consistently produce IM temperatures above the 40 degrees C therapeutic threshold and did so in less than 6 minutes. The other devices did not reach this threshold within the 10-minute treatment session. Subjects routinely reported heating sensations approaching discomfort when the IM temperature reached the 40 degrees C therapeutic threshold.
Because there are differences in thermal effects between ultrasound devices, our results suggest that recently published parameters for ultrasound intensity and duration parameters will not produce equally therapeutic effects for all ultrasound devices.
采用平衡重复测量设计,将超声设备(Omnisound 3000C、Dynatron 950、Excel Ultra III)作为自变量。两个因变量分别为6分钟时和10分钟治疗结束时的肌肉内(IM)温度。
比较三种不同超声设备进行相同的3兆赫超声治疗所产生的IM温度。
最近关于热超声治疗强度和持续时间参数的研究大多使用Omnisound设备进行,但尚未在其他常见超声设备中得到验证。
六名未受伤的志愿者(平均年龄±标准差,22±3.4岁;平均身高±标准差,171.9±11.0厘米;平均体重±标准差,66.1±11.1千克)签署知情同意书并作为研究对象。使用相同参数(3兆赫、1.5瓦/平方厘米、10分钟,治疗面积等于换能器表面积的两倍)进行单独的超声治疗,每次治疗使用不同的超声设备,治疗间隔为24或48小时。使用植入式热电偶在治疗表面下方1.6厘米深处每隔20秒记录左小腿内侧的IM温度。数据采用多变量方差分析(MANOVA)及Sidak校正的事后多重比较进行分析。
使用Omnisound设备时组织升温幅度大于使用Dynatron或Excel设备时。使用Dynatron或Excel设备的治疗结果无差异。Omnisound是唯一能持续使IM温度超过40摄氏度治疗阈值的设备,且在不到6分钟内就能达到。其他设备在10分钟的治疗过程中未达到该阈值。当IM温度达到40摄氏度治疗阈值时,受试者通常会报告热感接近不适。
由于超声设备之间存在热效应差异,我们研究结果表明,最近公布的超声强度和持续时间参数对所有超声设备不会产生同等的治疗效果。