Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Comparison of application of the radial versus focused probes of extracorporeal shockwave therapy on pain, range of motion and function in patients with adhesive capsulitis |
Hameedi IA, Shadmehr A, Malmir K, Fereydounnia S, Shiravi Z |
NeuroQuantology 2022;20(6):2726-2736 |
clinical trial |
8/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: Yes; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of application of the radial versus focused probes of extracorporeal shockwave therapy to treating adhesive capsulitis (AC) in order to increase range of motion (ROM), relieve pain, improve function of the shoulder joint in fewer sessions, reduce the recovery time and reduce the patient's financial losses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 patients with AC were randomized into two groups: Group A (n = 20) received rESWT with conventional therapy and Group B (n = 20) received fESWT with conventional therapy, including Infra-red, US, supervised exercise and home exercises, two treatments every week for four weeks. All the patients treated using ESWT one session per week as well as one session per week conventional therapy was carried out. The visual analogue scale (VAS) scores during at rest and during exercise, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire, scapular dyskinesia, flexion, extension, abduction, internal rotation, and external rotation ranges of shoulder motion were evaluated before, after two weeks, and after four weeks of the intervention. Two-way mixed analyses of variance were used to assess the impact of the type of the probe of the ESWT on the outcomes during the assessment intervals. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in each outcome within the group (p < 0.001), but no significant difference was observed between groups for the outcomes at baseline, two weeks, and four weeks after treatment (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: It is recommended to use the rESWT in the first weeks of treatment for the acceleration treatment method compare to the fESWT.
|