Suppr超能文献

比较粘连性囊炎患者的麦吉尔手法与肌肉能量技术。

Comparison of Mulligan technique versus muscle energy technique in patients with adhesive capsulitis.

机构信息

University Institute of Physical Therapy, University of Lahore, Pakistan.

University Institute of Public Health, The University of Lahore, Pakistan.

出版信息

J Pak Med Assoc. 2022 Feb;72(2):211-215. doi: 10.47391/JPMA.1678.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of Mulligan technique and muscle energy technique in patients with adhesive capsulitis.

METHODS

The randomised controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Physiotherapy, Government Mian Munshi Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, from September 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, and comprised patients with adhesive capsulitis who were randomised into Mulligan mobilisation Group A and muscle energy technique Group B. The outcome assessor was kept blinded to the treatment plan. Pain, range of motion and functional disability were measured using Visual Analogue Scale, universal goniometer and Shoulder Pain and Disability Indexat baseline, and subsequently at the end of third and sixth weeks. Data was analysed using SPSS 24.

RESULTS

Of the 78 subjects, 39(50%) were in each of the two groups. Group A had 11(28%) male and 28(72%) female patients, while Group B had 20(51%) male and 19(49%) female patients. Both groups showed significant improvement (p<0.001), and inter-group comparison showed the difference to be non-significant at baseline and third week (p>0.05). However, post-intervention difference showed significantly better results in Group A compared to Group B (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Mulligan technique was found to be more effective than muscle energy technique in improving range of motion, and in reducing pain and functional disability.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

IRCT 20200605047660.

摘要

目的

比较麦特兰德手法和肌肉能量技术治疗粘连性囊炎的效果。

方法

这是一项随机对照试验,于 2019 年 9 月 1 日至 2020 年 3 月 31 日在巴基斯坦拉合尔政府米安·蒙希医院物理治疗科进行,纳入粘连性囊炎患者,将其随机分为麦特兰德手法组(A 组)和肌肉能量技术组(B 组)。结局评估者对治疗方案设盲。在基线时以及第 3 周和第 6 周结束时,使用视觉模拟评分法、通用量角器和肩部疼痛和残疾指数分别评估疼痛、关节活动度和功能障碍。使用 SPSS 24 进行数据分析。

结果

78 名受试者中,每组各 39 名(50%)。A 组 11 名(28%)为男性,28 名(72%)为女性;B 组 20 名(51%)为男性,19 名(49%)为女性。两组患者均有明显改善(p<0.001),组间比较显示,基线和第 3 周时差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。然而,干预后差异显示 A 组优于 B 组(p<0.05)。

结论

与肌肉能量技术相比,麦特兰德手法在改善关节活动度、减轻疼痛和功能障碍方面更有效。

临床试验注册号

IRCT 20200605047660。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验