Suppr超能文献

痛风性关节炎治疗中局部热敷和按摩风险的数据洞察

Data Insights on the Risks of Local Heat and Massage in Gouty Arthritis Treatment.

作者信息

Mehra Shivam, Mehra Kamal, Mehra Nindiya Kapoor, Kale Sachin Yashwant, Manchanda Bharat Veer

机构信息

Mehra Hospital and Research Institute, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Department of Orthopaedics, Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil School of Medicine, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

出版信息

J Orthop Case Rep. 2025 Jan;15(1):260-265. doi: 10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i01.5194.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Gouty arthritis is a common inflammatory condition caused by the deposition of uric acid crystals in the joints, leading to intense pain, swelling, and functional impairment. Thermal therapies, including hot and cold fomentation, are often used as adjunctive treatments for managing inflammation and pain in various musculoskeletal conditions. However, the efficacy of these therapies in acute gout remains underexplored. This study aims to compare the effects of hot fomentation versus cold fomentation in patients experiencing acute gout flares, assessing pain reduction, swelling, joint mobility, and overall patient satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 2,400 patients diagnosed with acute gouty arthritis, divided into two equal groups: Group A received hot fomentation (38°C-42°C) and Group B received cold fomentation (5°C-10°C). Both interventions were applied twice daily for 20 min over 5 days, alongside standard gout care. Pain intensity was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS), while joint circumference, range of motion, and patient satisfaction were recorded at baseline, day 3, and day 5. Statistical analyses compared outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

Cold fomentation significantly reduced pain intensity (VAS score reduction of 68% by day 5) compared to hot fomentation (26% reduction, P < 0.001). Joint swelling decreased by 25% in the cold group versus 5% in the hot group, with cold therapy also leading to greater improvements in joint mobility (average increase of 15° vs. 5°, P < 0.01). Notably, 35% of patients in the hot fomentation group experienced flare-ups, compared to only 2% in the cold fomentation group (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was also higher in the cold group, with 85% of participants reporting satisfaction versus 30% in the hot group.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that cold fomentation is significantly more effective than hot fomentation in managing acute gouty arthritis. Cold therapy provided superior pain relief, reduced swelling, improved joint mobility, and minimized the risk of symptom exacerbation. In contrast, hot fomentation often worsened symptoms, making it unsuitable for acute gout management. These findings suggest that cold fomentation should be the preferred thermal therapy for gout flare-ups, while heat applications should be avoided.

摘要

引言

痛风性关节炎是一种常见的炎症性疾病,由尿酸结晶在关节中沉积引起,导致剧烈疼痛、肿胀和功能障碍。热疗法,包括热敷和冷敷,常被用作辅助治疗手段,用于管理各种肌肉骨骼疾病中的炎症和疼痛。然而,这些疗法在急性痛风中的疗效仍未得到充分探索。本研究旨在比较热敷与冷敷对急性痛风发作患者的影响,评估疼痛减轻、肿胀、关节活动度和患者总体满意度。

材料与方法

对2400例诊断为急性痛风性关节炎的患者进行了一项随机对照试验,将其分为两组,每组人数相等:A组接受热敷(38°C - 42°C),B组接受冷敷(5°C - 10°C)。两种干预措施均每天应用两次,每次20分钟,持续5天,同时给予标准的痛风护理。使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)测量疼痛强度,在基线、第3天和第5天记录关节周长、活动范围和患者满意度。统计分析比较两组之间的结果。

结果

与热敷组(疼痛评分降低26%,P < 0.001)相比,冷敷组疼痛强度显著降低(到第5天VAS评分降低68%)。冷敷组关节肿胀减少25%,而热敷组减少5%,冷疗还使关节活动度有更大改善(平均增加15°对5°,P < 0.01)。值得注意的是,热敷组35%的患者病情复发,而冷敷组仅为2%(P < 0.001)。冷敷组患者满意度也更高,85%的参与者表示满意,而热敷组为30%。

结论

本研究表明,在管理急性痛风性关节炎方面,冷敷明显比热敷更有效。冷疗提供了更好的疼痛缓解效果,减轻了肿胀,改善了关节活动度,并将症状加重的风险降至最低。相比之下,热敷常常使症状恶化,使其不适用于急性痛风的管理。这些发现表明,冷敷应是痛风发作时首选的热疗法,而应避免使用热疗。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5ca2/11723740/c9e34a2f06e6/JOCR-15-260-g001.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