...
首页> 外文期刊>International Musculoskeletal Medicine >Randomized controlled trial for the treatment of chronic dorsal wrist pain with dextrose prolotherapy
【24h】

Randomized controlled trial for the treatment of chronic dorsal wrist pain with dextrose prolotherapy

机译:右旋糖疗法治疗慢性背腕痛的随机对照试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objective: To compare the results of treating chronic dorsal wrist pain with lidocaine (placebo) versusnlidocaine/dextrose (dextrose) injection.nMethods: Of the 98 patients screened, 39 were entered into the trial. Patients were assessed at baseline, 3nand 12 months post-treatment with Patient RatedWrist Evaluation (PRWE), range of motion, and grip strength.nInjections were completed monthly, up to a total of six treatments. Injections to the periscaphoid, andnperilunate ligaments, using a peppering technique, for a total of 1 ml at each site, with 1% lidocaine or anmixture of 0.60% lidocaine and 20% dextrose were given. Blinding was done at all stages of the trial fornthe patient, study coordinator, prolotherapist, patient outcome measures, and statistician.nResults: Twenty patients were assigned to the dextrose solution, and 19 patients were assigned to the placebonsolution. There was no statistically significant difference in the PRWE change scores between the dextrosengroup and the placebo group (P=0.483) at 3 months. At 12 months, the adjusted mean reduction in scoresnwas 31.0 for patients treated with dextrose, and 20.9 for those treated with the placebo solution. Thisndifference of 10.1 was a statistically significant effect, with a P-value of 0.043, but is smaller than the minimalnclinically important difference of 20 points defined by MacDermid et al. Grip strength and range of motionnshowed no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups throughout study.nConclusions: Due to the large treatment effect in the placebo group, it was very unlikely with further enrollmentnthat a clinically significant change of greater than 20 on the PRWE would be found and the trial wasndiscontinued. The efficacy of prolotherapy injections with an active agent relative to a control solution,ntherefore, has not yet been established. Further studies are needed to compare a treatment group with annon-injection group, subcutaneous needle injection, or dry needling.
机译:目的:比较利多卡因(安慰剂)与利多卡因/右旋糖(右旋糖)注射液治疗慢性背腕痛的效果。n方法:筛查的98例患者中有39例入选该试验。在基线,治疗后3个月和12个月使用患者评分腕力评估(PRWE),运动范围和握力对患者进行评估。n每月完成注射,总共进行六次治疗。使用胡椒粉技术注射至肩cap骨韧带和n曲韧带,每个部位总计1 ml,注射1%利多卡因或0.60%利多卡因和20%葡萄糖的混合物。在试验的所有阶段,患者,研究协调员,治疗师,患者预后指标和统计学家均进行了盲法试验。n结果:20名患者被分配了葡萄糖溶液,而19名患者被分配了安慰剂。在3个月时,右旋糖苷组和安慰剂组之间的PRWE变化评分无统计学意义(P = 0.483)。在12个月时,用葡萄糖治疗的患者的调整后平均得分降低为31.0,而用安慰剂溶液治疗的患者得分为20.9。 10.1的差异具有统计学意义,P值为0.043,但小于MacDermid等人定义的20点的最小临床意义差异。在整个研究过程中,两个治疗组之间的握力和运动范围n均无统计学意义。n结论:由于安慰剂组的治疗效果显着,进一步入组的可能性很小,PRWE的临床显着性变化大于20被发现,审判没有中止。迄今为止,尚未建立相对于对照溶液的用活性剂进行原液疗法注射的功效。还需要进一步的研究来比较治疗组与非注射组,皮下注射针头或干针刺。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号