Rahbar Mohammad, Ranjbar Kiyakalayeh Sepideh, Mirzajani Reza, Eftekharsadat Bina, Dolatkhah Neda
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Research Center, Aging Research Institute, 48432Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Faculty of Medicine, 48432Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Clin Rehabil. 2022 May;36(5):669-682. doi: 10.1177/02692155211070451. Epub 2021 Dec 29.
The objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy of acromioclavicular joint mobilization and standard physical-therapy versus physical-therapy alone in the treatment of the frozen shoulder.
Single-blind randomized clinical trial.
Outpatient setting.
Patients with frozen shoulder.
Participants were randomly allocated into mobilization + physical-therapy (n = 28), and physical-therapy alone (n = 28) groups for one month.
The primary outcomes were the shoulder pain and disability index and the shoulder range of motion. The secondary outcome was the visual analogue scale. Measures were performed at the baseline, immediately and one month after the beginning of the treatment.
Visual analogue scale and the shoulder pain and disability index improved more significantly in the mobilization group compared to the physical-therapy group immediately [-4.63 (-5.58--3.67) vs. -2.22 (-2.96--1.47), < 0.001 and -23.08 (-28.63--17.53) vs. -13.04 (-17.93--8.16), = 0.008, respectively] and one month after the beginning of the treatment [-5.58 (-6.45--4.72) vs. -3.61 (-4.60--2.62), < 0.001 and -33.43 (-40.85--26.01) vs. -20.03 (-26.00--14.07), = 0.001, respectively]. Active abduction range of motion was also improved more significantly immediately after the treatment in the mobilization group compared to the physical-therapy group [25.83 (11.45-40.13) vs. 10.17 (1.02-19.15), = 0.025], however there were no significant differences between two groups concerning other measured range of motions.
Adding acromioclavicular mobilization to standard physical-therapy was more efficient in decreasing pain and disability and improving active abduction range of motion compared to standard physical-therapy in frozen shoulder patients.
本试验的目的是比较肩锁关节松动术联合标准物理治疗与单纯物理治疗在治疗肩周炎方面的疗效。
单盲随机临床试验。
门诊。
肩周炎患者。
参与者被随机分为松动术+物理治疗组(n = 28)和单纯物理治疗组(n = 28),为期1个月。
主要结局指标为肩痛及功能障碍指数和肩关节活动范围。次要结局指标为视觉模拟评分。在基线、治疗开始时及治疗开始后1个月进行测量。
与单纯物理治疗组相比,松动术组在治疗开始时[视觉模拟评分为-4.63(-5.58--3.67)对-2.22(-2.96--1.47),P<0.001;肩痛及功能障碍指数为-23.08(-28.63--17.53)对-13.04(-17.93--8.16),P = 0.008]和治疗开始后1个月[视觉模拟评分为-5.58(-6.45--4.72)对-3.61(-4.60--2.62),P<0.001;肩痛及功能障碍指数为-33.43(-40.85--26.01)对-20.03(-26.00--14.07),P = 0.001]时,视觉模拟评分和肩痛及功能障碍指数改善更显著。与单纯物理治疗组相比,松动术组在治疗后立即主动外展活动范围改善也更显著[25.83(11.45 - 40.13)对10.17(1.02 - 19.15),P = 0.025],然而在其他测量的活动范围方面两组之间无显著差异。
与单纯标准物理治疗相比,在肩周炎患者中,在标准物理治疗基础上加用肩锁关节松动术在减轻疼痛和功能障碍以及改善主动外展活动范围方面更有效。