Tugay Muhammet, Kul Ayhan
Deparment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Atatürk University Faculty of Medicine, Erzurum, Turkey.
Eurasian J Med. 2023 Oct;55(3):192-198. doi: 10.5152/eurasianjmed.2023.22282.
The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of interferential current treatment on a range of motion of joint and shoulder pain, functional status, and quality of life in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome and to compare interferential current with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and sham interferential current.
Patients complaining of shoulder discomfort participated in the present study. Diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome is based on anamnesis, clinical examinations, and shoulder magnetic resonance imaging. A total of 52 patients divided into 3 groups: Group 1 (17 patients, mean age 51.8 years) received interferential current, group 2 (18 patients, mean age 51.8 years) received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and group 3 (17 patients, mean age 49.1 years) received sham interferential current. Hot pack and exercise treatments were added to all groups. All groups were treated for 3 weeks, 5 times a week, for 15 sessions and 20 minutes for each session. Evaluations were made before treatment (T0), in the middle of treatment (T1; end of 8th session), and at the end of treatment (T2; end of 15th session) using active range of motion and visual analog scale for pain, the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Problems Questionnaire for functional status, and Short Form-36 for quality of life.
There were significant improvement effects on all of the range of motion, visual analog scale, and the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Problems Questionnaire scores at T2 and on the scores in some subparameters of Short Form-36 in all groups (P < .05). However, there was no statistically significant difference at T2 between the groups (P > .05).
Interferential current and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation exhibited equivalent results regarding range of motion, pain, function, and quality of life of patients with subacromial impingement syndrome, with no significant difference between interferential current and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Adding interferential current or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation treatments to hot pack +exercise therapy did not result in any extra benefits to the patients.
本研究旨在评估干扰电流疗法对肩峰下撞击综合征患者关节活动范围、肩部疼痛、功能状态及生活质量的有效性，并将干扰电流与经皮电刺激神经疗法及假干扰电流进行比较。
主诉肩部不适的患者参与了本研究。肩峰下撞击综合征的诊断基于病史、临床检查及肩部磁共振成像。共52例患者分为3组：第1组（17例患者，平均年龄51.8岁）接受干扰电流治疗，第2组（18例患者，平均年龄51.8岁）接受经皮电刺激神经疗法，第3组（17例患者，平均年龄49.1岁）接受假干扰电流治疗。所有组均增加热敷和运动治疗。所有组均接受3周治疗，每周5次，共15次，每次20分钟。在治疗前（T0）、治疗中期（T1；第8次治疗结束时）及治疗结束时（T2；第15次治疗结束时）进行评估，评估指标包括主动活动范围、疼痛视觉模拟评分、用于评估功能状态的手臂、肩部和手部问题问卷，以及用于评估生活质量的简明健康状况调查量表。
所有组在T2时的所有活动范围、视觉模拟评分以及手臂、肩部和手部问题问卷得分均有显著改善，且在简明健康状况调查量表的一些子参数得分上也有显著改善（P < 0.05）。然而，在T2时，各组之间无统计学显著差异（P > 0.05）。
对于肩峰下撞击综合征患者，干扰电流和经皮电刺激神经疗法在活动范围、疼痛、功能及生活质量方面显示出等效结果，干扰电流与经皮电刺激神经疗法之间无显著差异。在热敷 + 运动疗法基础上增加干扰电流或经皮电刺激神经疗法治疗对患者并无额外益处。
