Andrade Ortega Juan Alfonso, Cerón Fernández Encarnación, García Llorent Rosario, Ribeiro González Marisa, Delgado Martínez Alberto Damián
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Complejo Hospitalario de Jaén, Avenida del Ejército Español, s/n, 23005 Jaén, Spain.
Physiotherapy Unit, Complejo Hospitalario de Jaén, Avenida del Ejército Español, s/n, 23005 Jaén, Spain.
Spine J. 2014 Aug 1;14(8):1712-21. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.025. Epub 2013 Nov 1.
Although the use of deep heat therapy is widespread, there is scant literature available on its effectiveness in treating back or neck pain.
The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of microwave diathermy to treat nonspecific chronic neck pain.
The study was designed as a double-blind, randomized controlled trial.
The patient sample consisted of 149 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain in a hospital of the Andalusian Public Health Care System, Spain
The study outcome measures are as follows: at baseline, pain intensity (using a visual analogue scale), disability (Neck Disability Index), and health-related quality of life (36-item short form health survey [SF-36]); at 3 weeks, baseline measures and patients' perceived overall outcome and satisfaction with the treatment; and at 6 months, 3-week measures, therapeutic co-interventions, and adherence to exercises.
Patients were allocated randomly to three groups. The first group received continuous microwave diathermy, the second group was administered pulsed microwaves, and the third group (the control group) received unplugged microwaves. All three groups received the same general treatment: range of motion, isometric exercises, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.
The three groups had reduced pain and disability, and improvement was seen in some dimensions of the SF-36. However, there were no differences found in any of the parameters measured among the three therapeutic groups.
Microwave diathermy does not provide additional benefit to a treatment regimen of chronic neck pain that already involves other treatment approaches.
尽管深部热疗的应用广泛，但关于其治疗背部或颈部疼痛有效性的文献却很少。
本研究旨在确定微波透热疗法治疗非特异性慢性颈部疼痛的疗效。
本研究设计为双盲随机对照试验。
患者样本包括西班牙安达卢西亚公共卫生保健系统一家医院的149例非特异性慢性颈部疼痛患者。
本研究的结局指标如下：基线时，疼痛强度（使用视觉模拟量表）、功能障碍（颈部功能障碍指数）和健康相关生活质量（36项简短健康调查问卷[SF - 36]）；3周时，基线指标以及患者对治疗的总体结局感知和满意度；6个月时，3周时的指标、治疗联合干预措施以及运动依从性。
患者被随机分为三组。第一组接受连续微波透热疗法，第二组接受脉冲微波治疗，第三组（对照组）接受未接通电源的微波治疗。所有三组均接受相同的常规治疗：活动范围训练、等长运动和经皮电刺激神经疗法。
三组的疼痛和功能障碍均有所减轻，并且SF - 36的某些维度有所改善。然而，在三个治疗组之间测量的任何参数均未发现差异。
对于已经采用其他治疗方法的慢性颈部疼痛治疗方案，微波透热疗法并未提供额外益处。
