Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Health Sciences, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Education and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey -
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Health Sciences, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Education and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018 Jun;54(3):351-357. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04743-8. Epub 2017 Sep 11.
Although interferential current (IFC) is a common electrotherapeutic modality used to treat musculoskeletal pain, there is not any randomized controlled trial investigating its clinical efficacy in subacromial impingement syndrome (SAIS).
Investigation of effectiveness of IFC treatment in patients with SAIS.
Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study.
Physical medicine and rehabilitation outpatient clinic.
Patients (N.=65) between 25 and 65 years of age, with a diagnosis of SAIS according to clinical evaluation and subacromial injection test.
Patients were randomly distributed into two groups: 1) active IFC group (N.=33); 2) sham IFC group (N.=32). Exercise, cryotherapy, and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) were given to both groups. Ten sessions of IFC with bipolar method were applied to the active IFC group daily 20 minutes per session, 5 days per week, for 2 weeks while sham IFC was applied to the sham IFC group with the same protocol. Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Constant scores, and Shoulder Disability Questionnaire (SDQ) were used for evaluation at baseline, immediately post-treatment, and 1 month post-treatment. Both the patients and the researcher who assessed the outcomes were blinded to the treatment protocol throughout the study period.
Sixty of the 65 patients (active IFC group N.=30, sham IFC group N.=30) completed the study, 3 patients from active IFC, 2 from sham IFC group dropped during the follow up period. Statistically significant improvement was observed in all parameters of both groups immediately and 1 month post-treatment (P<0.01). There were no statistical differences between the active IFC group and sham IFC group in all outcome parameters (P>0.05).
Our results demonstrated that IFC therapy does not provide additional benefit to NSAID, cryotherapy, and exercise program in treatment of SAIS.
Our study responds to the needs of the lack of evidence in the field of rehabilitation. IFC therapy does not provide additional benefit for the treatment of SAIS.
干扰电疗法(IFC)是一种常用于治疗肌肉骨骼疼痛的电疗方法,但目前尚无随机对照试验研究其在肩峰下撞击综合征(SAIS)中的临床疗效。
研究 IFC 治疗 SAIS 患者的效果。
随机、双盲、假对照研究。
物理医学与康复门诊。
年龄在 25 至 65 岁之间的患者,根据临床评估和肩峰下注射试验诊断为 SAIS。
患者随机分为两组:1)主动 IFC 组(N=33);2)假 IFC 组(N=32)。两组均给予运动、冷敷和非甾体抗炎药(NSAID)。主动 IFC 组每天接受 20 分钟双极法 IFC 治疗,每周 5 天,共 2 周;假 IFC 组在相同方案下接受假 IFC 治疗。在基线、治疗后即刻和治疗后 1 个月时,采用视觉模拟评分(VAS)、Constant 评分和肩关节残疾问卷(SDQ)进行评估。在整个研究期间,患者和评估结果的研究人员均对治疗方案不知情。
65 例患者中有 60 例(主动 IFC 组 N=30,假 IFC 组 N=30)完成了研究,主动 IFC 组有 3 例、假 IFC 组有 2 例在随访期间脱落。两组所有参数在治疗后即刻和 1 个月时均有显著改善(P<0.01)。主动 IFC 组和假 IFC 组在所有结局参数上均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。
我们的结果表明,IFC 治疗在 NSAID、冷敷和运动方案治疗 SAIS 方面没有额外获益。
我们的研究满足了康复领域缺乏证据的需求。IFC 治疗对 SAIS 的治疗没有额外获益。