首页> 外文OA文献 >Two Transcutaneous Stimulation Techniques in Shoulder Pain: Transcutaneous Pulsed Radiofrequency (TPRF) versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): A Comparative Pilot Study
【2h】

Two Transcutaneous Stimulation Techniques in Shoulder Pain: Transcutaneous Pulsed Radiofrequency (TPRF) versus Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): A Comparative Pilot Study

机译:肩部疼痛的两个经皮刺激技术:经皮脉冲射频(TPRF)与经皮辐射电力刺激(TENS):比较试验研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

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.
机译:客观的。为了比较2个经皮刺激技术的安全性和功效,经皮脉冲射频(TPRF)与经皮肩肌腱炎的经皮辐射刺激(TERS)。设计。预期,随机和双盲临床试验。环境。城市医院的学术痛苦服务。主题。 50例超声检查肩肌腱炎。方法。将五十名患者随机分配成两组用于电刺激治疗,3个月随访时间:1 n = 25,数十,第2组N = 25,TPRF。两组两组每隔一天都经过15分钟,总共三次。我们的主要目标是找到任何治疗舒适程度,不良事件,以及恒门肩部(CMS)分数的变化。二次目标正在寻找痛苦的变化,享受生活和一般活动(PEG)分数。结果。对于主要目标,本研究期间没有注意任何不良事件。对于治疗耐受性的组之间没有发现差异(3.20 + 0.87与2.16 + 0.75)。在课程后的TPRF组(12.73 + 5.79与24.53 + 10.21,P = 0.013),统计学上显着的较低的PEG分数明显。他们的统计学显着性持续了3个月,尽管1个月后差异差距减少。在治疗过程之后,CMS评分在TPRF组(70.84 + 6.74,P = 0.007)中显着较高,但显着性并未持续。结论。在使用两个经皮刺激技术治疗慢性肩肌腱炎时,TPRF和数十都安全有效。 TPRF优于数十。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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