Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Efficacy of myofascial release with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation conductive glove for neck myofascial syndrome: a randomized clinical trial study [with consumer summary]
Iakovidis P, Lytras D, Kasimis K, Koutras G, Kottaras A, Chasapis G, Ntinou SR, Kostoglou A, Kotsi E
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 2023 Jun-Dec;46(5-9):254-270
clinical trial
8/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; 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: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of a myofascial release (MR) protocol applied with a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) conductive glove. METHODS: Eighty individuals with neck myofascial syndrome were randomly divided into 4 groups: (1) MR protocol with a TENS conductive glove (MR plus TENS), (2) MR protocol without TENS (MR), (3) conventional TENS protocol (TENS), and (4) placebo TENS (control). All participants attended 6 sessions over a period of 3 weeks. The following measures were evaluated at baseline, at the third week, and at the 1-month follow-up: Pain with the visual analog scale (VAS pain), upper trapezius pressure pain threshold (PPT) with pressure algometry, cervical range of motion (ROM) with goniometry, and disability with the neck disability index (NDI). A 2-way ANOVA with repeated measurements was applied. RESULTS: Significant changes between the 3 intervention groups and the control group were noted in the VAS and the NDI scores (p < 0.05) with the MR plus TENS group exhibiting the biggest difference. Additionally, MR significantly increased PPT compared to TENS, and even further when applied with the conductive glove (p < 0.05). Regarding lateral flexion ROM, MR was equally effective either alone or in combination with the glove compared to TENS (p < 0.05). In contrast, TENS did not appear to affect neck PPT and ROM (p > 0.05). Finally, no difference between the groups was detected in cervical rotation ROM (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The MR protocol appears to be more effective in dealing with pain, disability, and lateral flexion ROM than conventional TENS. A TENS conductive glove significantly improves the effects of MR, possibly due to the combined mechanical and electrical stimulation of the muscle.
Reprinted from the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics with copyright permission from the National University of Health Sciences.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help