Pain research & management · 2019
Two Transcutaneous Stimulation Techniques in Shoulder Pain: Transcutaneous Pulsed Radiofrequency (TPRF) versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): A Comparative Pilot Study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lin Mu-Lien, Chiu Hung-Wei, Shih Zao-Ming, Lee Po-Ying, Li Pei-Zhi, Guo Chin-Hong, Luo Yuan-Jie, Lin Shen-Chieh, Lin Kwan-Yu, Hsu Yu-Ming, Pang Angela, Pang Weiwu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of 2 transcutaneous stimulation techniques, transcutaneous pulsed radiofrequency (TPRF) versus transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), in chronic shoulder tendonitis.
DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial.
SETTING: Academic pain service of a city hospital.
SUBJECTS: Fifty patients with sonography-confirmed shoulder tendonitis.
METHODS: Fifty patients were randomly allocated into two groups for electrical stimulation treatment with 3-month follow-ups: Group 1 (n=25), TENS and Group 2 (n=25), TPRF. Both groups underwent either treatment for 15 minutes every other day, three times total. Our primary goals were to find any treatment comfort level, adverse event, and changes in Constant-Murley shoulder (CMS) scores. The secondary goals were finding the changes in pain, enjoyment of life, and general activity (PEG) scores.
RESULTS: For primary goals, no adverse events were noted throughout this study. No differences were found between groups for treatment tolerability (3.20 + 0.87 vs. 2.16 + 0.75). Statistically significant lower PEG scores were noticeable with the TPRF group after the course (12.73 + 5.79 vs. 24.53 + 10.21, p=0.013). Their statistical significance lasted for 3 months although the difference gap diminished after 1 month. CMS scores were significantly higher in the TPRF group (70.84 + 6.74 vs. 59.56 + 9.49, p=0.007) right after treatment course but the significance did not last.
CONCLUSIONS: In treating chronic shoulder tendinitis using two transcutaneous stimulation techniques, both TPRF and TENS are safe and effective. TPRF is superior to TENS.
DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, and double-blind clinical trial.
SETTING: Academic pain service of a city hospital.
SUBJECTS: Fifty patients with sonography-confirmed shoulder tendonitis.
METHODS: Fifty patients were randomly allocated into two groups for electrical stimulation treatment with 3-month follow-ups: Group 1 (n=25), TENS and Group 2 (n=25), TPRF. Both groups underwent either treatment for 15 minutes every other day, three times total. Our primary goals were to find any treatment comfort level, adverse event, and changes in Constant-Murley shoulder (CMS) scores. The secondary goals were finding the changes in pain, enjoyment of life, and general activity (PEG) scores.
RESULTS: For primary goals, no adverse events were noted throughout this study. No differences were found between groups for treatment tolerability (3.20 + 0.87 vs. 2.16 + 0.75). Statistically significant lower PEG scores were noticeable with the TPRF group after the course (12.73 + 5.79 vs. 24.53 + 10.21, p=0.013). Their statistical significance lasted for 3 months although the difference gap diminished after 1 month. CMS scores were significantly higher in the TPRF group (70.84 + 6.74 vs. 59.56 + 9.49, p=0.007) right after treatment course but the significance did not last.
CONCLUSIONS: In treating chronic shoulder tendinitis using two transcutaneous stimulation techniques, both TPRF and TENS are safe and effective. TPRF is superior to TENS.