Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2018
Comparison of ultrasound and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in lateral epicondylosis.
Название 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.
Yalvaç B, Mesci N, Geler Külcü D, Yurdakul OV
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) and therapeutic ultrasound (US) in the treatment of lateral epicondylosis (LE).
METHODS: Our study enrolled 50 patients with LE. Patients were randomized into two groups. Group 1 underwent therapeutic US (n = 24; 5 males and 15 females; mean age: 43.75 ± 4.52) Group 2 underwent ESWT (n = 20; 8 males and 16 females; mean age: 46.04 ± 9.24). Patients were evaluated at baseline, after treatment,and 1 month following treatment. The outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS), algometer, grip dynamometer, quick-disability of the arm,shoulder,and hand (QDASH), patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey questionnairre.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvements in terms of VAS (all p values < 0.0001), dynamometer (p = 0.001 vs p = 0.015), algometer (all p values < 0.0001), PRTEE (all p values < 0.0001), QDASH (all p values < 0.0001), and SF-36 scores (p = 0.001 vs p = 0.005) within time. There was no significant difference between the two groups, except algometer scores in favor of ESWT (p = 0.029).
CONCLUSION: ESWT and therapeutic US are equally effective in treating LE. ESWT is an alternative therapeutic intervention and as effective as US.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic study.
METHODS: Our study enrolled 50 patients with LE. Patients were randomized into two groups. Group 1 underwent therapeutic US (n = 24; 5 males and 15 females; mean age: 43.75 ± 4.52) Group 2 underwent ESWT (n = 20; 8 males and 16 females; mean age: 46.04 ± 9.24). Patients were evaluated at baseline, after treatment,and 1 month following treatment. The outcome measures were the visual analog scale (VAS), algometer, grip dynamometer, quick-disability of the arm,shoulder,and hand (QDASH), patient-rated tennis elbow evaluation (PRTEE), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey questionnairre.
RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvements in terms of VAS (all p values < 0.0001), dynamometer (p = 0.001 vs p = 0.015), algometer (all p values < 0.0001), PRTEE (all p values < 0.0001), QDASH (all p values < 0.0001), and SF-36 scores (p = 0.001 vs p = 0.005) within time. There was no significant difference between the two groups, except algometer scores in favor of ESWT (p = 0.029).
CONCLUSION: ESWT and therapeutic US are equally effective in treating LE. ESWT is an alternative therapeutic intervention and as effective as US.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic study.