Suppr超能文献

超声与体外冲击波疗法治疗肱骨外上髁炎的比较

Comparison of ultrasound and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in lateral epicondylosis.

作者信息

Yalvaç Bestami, Mesci Nilgün, Geler Külcü Duygu, Yurdakul Ozan Volkan

机构信息

Özel Başarı Hospital, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Istanbul, Turkey.

Haydarpaşa Numune Education and Research Hospital, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Istanbul, Turkey.

出版信息

Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2018 Sep;52(5):357-362. doi: 10.1016/j.aott.2018.06.004. Epub 2018 Jun 28.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and therapeutic ultrasound (US) in the treatment of lateral epicondylosis (LE).

METHODS

Our study enrolled 50 patients with LE. Patients were randomized into two groups. Group 1 underwent therapeutic US (n = 24; 5 males and 15 females; mean age: 43.75 ± 4.52) Group 2 underwent ESWT (n = 20; 8 males and 16 females; mean age: 46.04 ± 9.24). Patients were evaluated at baseline, after treatment,and 1 month following treatment. The outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS), algometer, grip dynamometer, quick-disability of the arm,shoulder,and hand (QDASH), patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey questionnairre.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant improvements in terms of VAS (all p values < 0.0001), dynamometer (p = 0.001 vs p = 0.015), algometer (all p values < 0.0001), PRTEE (all p values < 0.0001), QDASH (all p values < 0.0001), and SF-36 scores (p = 0.001 vs p = 0.005) within time. There was no significant difference between the two groups, except algometer scores in favor of ESWT (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

ESWT and therapeutic US are equally effective in treating LE. ESWT is an alternative therapeutic intervention and as effective as US.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Therapeutic study.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较体外冲击波疗法(ESWT)和治疗性超声(US)治疗外侧上髁炎(LE)的疗效。

方法

本研究纳入了50例LE患者。患者被随机分为两组。第1组接受治疗性超声(n = 24;男性5例,女性15例;平均年龄:43.75 ± 4.52),第2组接受ESWT(n = 20;男性8例,女性16例;平均年龄:46.04 ± 9.24)。在基线、治疗后和治疗后1个月对患者进行评估。观察指标包括视觉模拟量表(VAS)、痛觉计、握力计、手臂、肩部和手部快速残疾评定量表(QDASH)、患者自评网球肘评估量表(PRTEE)以及简明健康调查问卷(SF-36)。

结果

两组在VAS(所有p值<0.0001)、握力计(p = 0.001对比p = 0.015)、痛觉计(所有p值<0.0001)、PRTEE(所有p值<0.0001)、QDASH(所有p值<0.0001)和SF-36评分(p = 0.001对比p = 0.005)方面随时间均有显著改善。两组之间无显著差异,除了痛觉计评分ESWT更优(p = 0.029)。

结论

ESWT和治疗性超声在治疗LE方面同样有效。ESWT是一种替代治疗干预措施,与超声效果相同。

证据级别

III级,治疗性研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f5f/6204478/30b372a1a675/gr1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验