Comparison of combined therapy with ultrasound-associated interferential current in healthy subjects

Bárbara Caroline Royer, C. Albuquerque, Cecília Felix da Silva, Gabriela Walker Zancanaro, Gustavo Kiyosen Nakayama, G. Bertolini
{"title":"Comparison of combined therapy with ultrasound-associated interferential current in healthy subjects","authors":"Bárbara Caroline Royer, C. Albuquerque, Cecília Felix da Silva, Gabriela Walker Zancanaro, Gustavo Kiyosen Nakayama, G. Bertolini","doi":"10.5935/2595-0118.20180011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although used in the therapeutic field, there is a shortage of studies that evaluate combined therapy or the association of electrical currents with therapeutic ultrasound, the present study aimed to compare the two forms in healthy individuals, analyzing the pain, number of accommodations and current intensity. METHODS: Thirty healthy volunteers took turns for three weeks in three groups. Nociception was evaluated by means of pressure and thermal stimuli in the lumbar spine and respective dermatomes. Then, the volunteer’s dominant foot was submerged in cold water to evaluate the threshold of pain and its intensity. Shortly after, electroanalgesia (combined therapy, only current association with ultrasound, or placebo) was applied for 15 minutes. The application of the bipolar interferential current used a frequency of 4kHz, and amplitude modulation frequency of 100Hz, with one electrode on L3 and the other on S1. When combined therapy was used, the ultrasound head (1MHz) played the role of the electrode positioned over the L5-S1 region, in continuous form, at a dose of 0.4W/cm2. The intensity of the initial and final current was evaluated, as well as the number of accommodations. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the pain thresholds of pressure and cold, but the combined therapy required more current intensity despite having a smaller number of accommodations. CONCLUSION: None of the therapies produced a difference in pain thresholds, but the combined therapy had fewer accommodations.","PeriodicalId":30846,"journal":{"name":"Revista Dor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5935/2595-0118.20180011","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Dor","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/2595-0118.20180011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although used in the therapeutic field, there is a shortage of studies that evaluate combined therapy or the association of electrical currents with therapeutic ultrasound, the present study aimed to compare the two forms in healthy individuals, analyzing the pain, number of accommodations and current intensity. METHODS: Thirty healthy volunteers took turns for three weeks in three groups. Nociception was evaluated by means of pressure and thermal stimuli in the lumbar spine and respective dermatomes. Then, the volunteer’s dominant foot was submerged in cold water to evaluate the threshold of pain and its intensity. Shortly after, electroanalgesia (combined therapy, only current association with ultrasound, or placebo) was applied for 15 minutes. The application of the bipolar interferential current used a frequency of 4kHz, and amplitude modulation frequency of 100Hz, with one electrode on L3 and the other on S1. When combined therapy was used, the ultrasound head (1MHz) played the role of the electrode positioned over the L5-S1 region, in continuous form, at a dose of 0.4W/cm2. The intensity of the initial and final current was evaluated, as well as the number of accommodations. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the pain thresholds of pressure and cold, but the combined therapy required more current intensity despite having a smaller number of accommodations. CONCLUSION: None of the therapies produced a difference in pain thresholds, but the combined therapy had fewer accommodations.
健康受试者超声相关干扰电流联合治疗的比较
背景和目的:尽管在治疗领域中使用,但缺乏评估联合治疗或电流与治疗性超声的相关性的研究,本研究旨在比较健康个体的两种形式,分析疼痛、调节次数和电流强度。方法:30名健康志愿者分为三组,每组3周。通过腰椎和相应皮节的压力和热刺激来评估伤害感受。然后,将志愿者的优势足浸入冷水中,以评估疼痛阈值及其强度。不久后,应用电镇痛(联合治疗,目前仅与超声或安慰剂相关)15分钟。双极干扰电流的应用使用4kHz的频率和100Hz的调幅频率,其中一个电极在L3上,另一个在S1上。当使用联合治疗时,超声头(1MHz)以0.4W/cm2的剂量以连续形式发挥位于L5-S1区域上方的电极的作用。评估了初始和最终电流的强度,以及住宿的数量。结果:压力和寒冷的疼痛阈值之间没有显著差异,但联合治疗需要更大的电流强度,尽管调节次数较少。结论:没有一种疗法在疼痛阈值上产生差异,但联合疗法的调节作用较少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信