Yalvaç Bestami, Mesci Nilgün, Geler Külcü Duygu, Yurdakul Ozan Volkan
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.
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2018 Sep;52(5):357-362. doi: 10.1016/j.aott.2018.06.004. Epub 2018 Jun 28.
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).
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.
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).
ESWT and therapeutic US are equally effective in treating LE. ESWT is an alternative therapeutic intervention and as effective as US.
Level III, Therapeutic study.
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。
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)。
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)。
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。
III级,治疗性研究。