Dissanayaka Thusharika Dilrukshi, Pallegama Ranjith Wasantha, Suraweera Hilari Justus, Johnson Mark I, Kariyawasam Anula Padma
From the Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences (TDD); Division of Physiology, Faculty of Dental Sciences (RWP); and Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine (APK), University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka; Teaching Hospital, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka (HJS); and Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, City Campus, United Kingdom (MIJ).
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2016 Sep;95(9):663-72. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000461.
The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interferential therapy (IFT) both in combination with hot pack, myofascial release, active range of motion exercise, and a home exercise program on myofascial pain syndrome patients with upper trapezius myofascial trigger point.
A total of 105 patients with an upper trapezius myofascial trigger point were recruited to this single-blind randomized controlled trial. Following random allocation of patients to three groups, three therapeutic regimens-control-standard care (hot pack, active range of motion exercises, myofascial release, and a home exercise program with postural advice), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation-standard care and IFT-standard care-were administered eight times during 4 wks at regular intervals. Pain intensity and cervical range of motions (cervical extension, lateral flexion to the contralateral side, and rotation to the ipsilateral side) were measured at baseline, immediately after the first treatment, before the eighth treatment, and 1 wk after the eighth treatment.
Immediate and short-term improvements were marked in the transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation group (n = 35) compared with the IFT group (n = 35) and the control group (n = 35) with respect to pain intensity and cervical range of motions (P < 0.05). The IFT group showed significant improvement on these outcome measurements than the control group did (P < 0.05).
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation with standard care facilitates recovery better than IFT does in the same combination.
本研究旨在比较经皮电刺激神经疗法和干扰电疗法（IFT）联合热敷、肌筋膜松解、主动活动范围锻炼以及家庭锻炼计划，对患有上斜方肌肌筋膜触发点的肌筋膜疼痛综合征患者的疗效。
本单盲随机对照试验共招募了105例患有上斜方肌肌筋膜触发点的患者。将患者随机分为三组后，三种治疗方案——对照组（标准护理，包括热敷、主动活动范围锻炼、肌筋膜松解以及提供姿势建议的家庭锻炼计划）、经皮电刺激神经疗法联合标准护理、干扰电疗法联合标准护理——在4周内定期进行8次治疗。在基线、首次治疗后即刻、第八次治疗前以及第八次治疗后1周测量疼痛强度和颈椎活动范围（颈椎伸展、向对侧侧屈以及向同侧旋转）。
与干扰电疗法组（n = 35）和对照组（n = 35）相比，经皮电刺激神经疗法组（n = 35）在疼痛强度和颈椎活动范围方面即刻和短期改善明显（P < 0.05）。干扰电疗法组在这些结局指标上的改善比对照组显著（P < 0.05）。
在相同联合治疗中，经皮电刺激神经疗法联合标准护理比干扰电疗法更有助于恢复。
