首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Sports Medicine >Eccentric loading versus eccentric loading plus shock-wave treatment for midportion achilles tendinopathy: a randomized controlled trial.
【24h】

Eccentric loading versus eccentric loading plus shock-wave treatment for midportion achilles tendinopathy: a randomized controlled trial.

机译:偏心负荷与偏心负荷加冲击波治疗中部跟腱炎:一项随机对照试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Results of a previous randomized controlled trial have shown comparable effectiveness of a standardized eccentric loading training and of repetitive low-energy shock-wave treatment (SWT) in patients suffering from chronic midportion Achilles tendinopathy. No randomized controlled trials have tested whether a combined approach might lead to even better results. PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of 2 management strategies--group 1: eccentric loading and group 2: eccentric loading plus repetitive low-energy shock-wave therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with a chronic recalcitrant (>6 months) noninsertional Achilles tendinopathy were enrolled in a randomized controlled study. All patients had received unsuccessful management for >3 months, including at least (1) peritendinous local injections, (2) nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and (3) physiotherapy. A computerized random-number generator was used to draw up an allocation schedule. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: At 4 months from baseline, the VISA-A score increased in both groups, from 50 to 73 points in group 1 (eccentric loading) and from 51 to 87 points in group 2 (eccentric loading plus shock-wave treatment). Pain rating decreased in both groups, from 7 to 4 points in group 1 and from 7 to 2 points in group 2. Nineteen of 34 patients in group 1 (56%) and 28 of 34 patients in group 2 (82%) reported a Likert scale of 1 or 2 points ("completely recovered" or "much improved"). For all outcome measures, groups 1 and 2 differed significantly in favor of the combined approach at the 4-month follow-up. At 1 year from baseline, there was no difference any longer, with 15 failed patients of group 1 opting for having the combined therapy as cross-over and with 6 failed patients of group 2 having undergone surgery. CONCLUSION: At 4-month follow-up, eccentric loading alone was less effective when compared with a combination of eccentric loading and repetitive low-energy shock-wave treatment.
机译:背景:先前的一项随机对照试验的结果表明,标准偏心负荷训练和重复性低能量冲击波治疗(SWT)在患有慢性中部跟腱炎的患者中具有相当的有效性。没有随机对照试验测试联合方法是否可能导致更好的结果。目的:比较两种管理策略的有效性-第1组:偏心负荷和第2组:偏心负荷加重复性低能量冲击波治疗。研究设计:随机对照试验;证据级别:1。方法:将68例患有慢性顽固性(> 6个月)非插入性跟腱病的患者纳入一项随机对照研究。所有患者均接受了超过3个月的治疗失败,包括至少(1)腹膜局部注射,(2)非甾体类抗炎药和(3)理疗。使用计算机化的随机数生成器来制定分配时间表。分析是按意向进行的。结果:从基线开始的4个月,两组的VISA-A评分均增加,第一组从50分提高到73分(偏心负荷),第二组从51分提高到87分(偏心负荷加冲击波治疗)。两组疼痛评分均下降,第1组从7分降至7分,第2组从7分降至2分。第1组的34位患者中有19位(56%)和第2组的34位患者中有28位(82%)报告了利克特量表为1或2分(“完全康复”或“大大改善”)。对于所有结局指标,在第4个月的随访中,第1组和第2组在联合治疗方面存在显着差异。从基线开始的第1年,两者之间不再存在任何差异,第1组的15例失败患者选择了交叉治疗作为联合疗法,第2组的6例失败的患者接受了手术治疗。结论:在四个月的随访中,与偏心负荷和重复性低能量冲击波治疗相结合,仅偏心负荷的效果较差。

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