Department of Emergency Medicine, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, NY, USA.
Acad Emerg Med. 2010 May;17(5):484-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00735.x.
OBJECTIVES: Acute back and neck strains are very common. In addition to administering analgesics, these strains are often treated with either heat or cold packs. The objective of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of heat and cold in relieving pain from back and neck strains. The authors hypothesized that pain relief would not differ between hot and cold packs. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled trial conducted at a university-based emergency department (ED) with an annual census of 90,000 visits. ED patients >18 years old with acute back or neck strains were eligible for inclusion. All patients received 400 mg of ibuprofen orally and then were randomized to 30 minutes of heating pad or cold pack applied to the strained area. Outcomes of interest were pain severity before and after pack application on a validated 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain), percentage of patients requiring rescue analgesia, subjective report of pain relief on a verbal rating scale (VRS), and future desire for similar packs. Outcomes were compared with t-tests and chi-square tests. A sample of 60 patients had 80% power to detect a 15-mm difference in pain scores. RESULTS: Sixty patients were randomized to heat (n = 31) or cold (n = 29) therapy. Mean (+/-standard deviation [SD]) age was 37.8 (+/-14.7) years, 51.6% were female, and 66.7% were white. Groups were similar in baseline patient and pain characteristics. There were no differences between the heat and cold groups in the severity of pain before (75 mm [95% CI = 66 to 83] vs. 72 mm [95% CI = 65 to 78]; p = 0.56) or after (66 mm [95% CI = 57 to 75] vs. 64 mm [95% CI = 56 to 73]; p = 0.75) therapy. Pain was rated better or much better in 16/31 (51.6%) and 18/29 (62.1%) patients in the heat and cold groups, respectively (p = 0.27). There were no between-group differences in the desire for and administration of additional analgesia. Twenty-five of 31 (80.6%) patients in the heat group and 22 of 29 (75.9%) patients in the cold group would use the same therapy if injured in the future (p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a 30-minute topical application of a heating pad or cold pack to ibuprofen therapy for the treatment of acute neck or back strain results in a mild yet similar improvement in the pain severity. However, it is possible that pain relief is mainly the result of ibuprofen therapy. Choice of heat or cold therapy should be based on patient and practitioner preferences and availability.
目的:急性腰背扭伤非常常见。除了给予镇痛药外,通常还使用热或冷包来治疗这些扭伤。本研究的目的是比较热和冷在缓解腰背扭伤疼痛方面的镇痛效果。作者假设热和冷包在缓解疼痛方面没有差异。
方法:这是一项在大学急诊部(ED)进行的随机对照试验,每年有 90000 次就诊。年龄在 18 岁以上、有急性腰背扭伤的 ED 患者符合纳入标准。所有患者均口服 400 毫克布洛芬,然后随机接受 30 分钟热垫或冷包敷于扭伤部位。主要观察指标是应用后 100 毫米视觉模拟量表(VAS)从 0(无痛)到 100(最痛)评估疼痛严重程度,VAS 评分在前和在后的差值,需要使用解救性镇痛药的患者比例,患者对疼痛缓解的自述(VRS),以及对类似包装的未来需求。采用 t 检验和卡方检验比较结果。60 名患者的样本具有 80%的效能来检测疼痛评分差异 15 毫米。
结果:60 名患者被随机分配到热(n = 31)或冷(n = 29)治疗组。平均(+/-标准差[SD])年龄为 37.8(+/-14.7)岁,51.6%为女性,66.7%为白人。两组患者在基线患者和疼痛特征方面相似。热组和冷组治疗前(75 毫米[95%可信区间=66 至 83]与 72 毫米[95%可信区间=65 至 78];p = 0.56)或治疗后(66 毫米[95%可信区间=57 至 75]与 64 毫米[95%可信区间=56 至 73];p = 0.75)疼痛严重程度无差异。热组和冷组中分别有 16/31(51.6%)和 18/29(62.1%)的患者报告疼痛得到了更好或明显的改善(p = 0.27)。两组患者对额外镇痛药物的需求和使用均无差异。31 名热组患者中有 25 名(80.6%)和 29 名冷组患者中有 22 名(75.9%)患者(p = 0.65)表示如果将来受伤会使用相同的治疗方法。
结论:在布洛芬治疗急性颈或腰背扭伤的基础上加用 30 分钟的热垫或冷包外敷,可轻度且相似地改善疼痛严重程度。然而,疼痛缓解可能主要是布洛芬治疗的结果。热或冷治疗的选择应基于患者和医生的偏好和可用性。
Acad Emerg Med. 2010-5
Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2021-12
J Pain Res. 2020-8-13
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020-8-1
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019-4-10
Int Urogynecol J. 2019-10