Efficacy of Interferential Current Therapy in Patients Diagnosed with Subacromial Impingement Syndrome.

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Muhammet Tugay, Ayhan Kul
{"title":"Efficacy of Interferential Current Therapy in Patients Diagnosed with Subacromial Impingement Syndrome.","authors":"Muhammet Tugay, Ayhan Kul","doi":"10.5152/eurasianjmed.2023.22282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of interferential current treatment on a range of motion of joint and shoulder pain, functional status, and quality of life in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome and to compare interferential current with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and sham interferential current.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients complaining of shoulder discomfort participated in the present study. Diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome is based on anamnesis, clinical examinations, and shoulder magnetic resonance imaging. A total of 52 patients divided into 3 groups: Group 1 (17 patients, mean age 51.8 years) received interferential current, group 2 (18 patients, mean age 51.8 years) received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and group 3 (17 patients, mean age 49.1 years) received sham interferential current. Hot pack and exercise treatments were added to all groups. All groups were treated for 3 weeks, 5 times a week, for 15 sessions and 20 minutes for each session. Evaluations were made before treatment (T0), in the middle of treatment (T1; end of 8th session), and at the end of treatment (T2; end of 15th session) using active range of motion and visual analog scale for pain, the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Problems Questionnaire for functional status, and Short Form-36 for quality of life.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were significant improvement effects on all of the range of motion, visual analog scale, and the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Problems Questionnaire scores at T2 and on the scores in some subparameters of Short Form-36 in all groups (P < .05). However, there was no statistically significant difference at T2 between the groups (P > .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Interferential current and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation exhibited equivalent results regarding range of motion, pain, function, and quality of life of patients with subacromial impingement syndrome, with no significant difference between interferential current and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Adding interferential current or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation treatments to hot pack +exercise therapy did not result in any extra benefits to the patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":53592,"journal":{"name":"Eurasian Journal of Medicine","volume":"55 3","pages":"192-198"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10724834/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eurasian Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/eurasianjmed.2023.22282","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of interferential current treatment on a range of motion of joint and shoulder pain, functional status, and quality of life in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome and to compare interferential current with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and sham interferential current.

Materials and methods: Patients complaining of shoulder discomfort participated in the present study. Diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome is based on anamnesis, clinical examinations, and shoulder magnetic resonance imaging. A total of 52 patients divided into 3 groups: Group 1 (17 patients, mean age 51.8 years) received interferential current, group 2 (18 patients, mean age 51.8 years) received transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and group 3 (17 patients, mean age 49.1 years) received sham interferential current. Hot pack and exercise treatments were added to all groups. All groups were treated for 3 weeks, 5 times a week, for 15 sessions and 20 minutes for each session. Evaluations were made before treatment (T0), in the middle of treatment (T1; end of 8th session), and at the end of treatment (T2; end of 15th session) using active range of motion and visual analog scale for pain, the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Problems Questionnaire for functional status, and Short Form-36 for quality of life.

Results: There were significant improvement effects on all of the range of motion, visual analog scale, and the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Problems Questionnaire scores at T2 and on the scores in some subparameters of Short Form-36 in all groups (P < .05). However, there was no statistically significant difference at T2 between the groups (P > .05).

Conclusion: Interferential current and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation exhibited equivalent results regarding range of motion, pain, function, and quality of life of patients with subacromial impingement syndrome, with no significant difference between interferential current and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Adding interferential current or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation treatments to hot pack +exercise therapy did not result in any extra benefits to the patients.

干扰电流治疗肩峰下撞击综合征的疗效。
目的:本研究的目的是评估干扰电流治疗肩峰下撞击综合征患者关节和肩部疼痛活动范围、功能状态和生活质量的有效性,并将干扰电流与经皮神经电刺激和假干扰电流进行比较。材料和方法:患者抱怨肩部不适,参与本研究。肩峰下撞击综合征的诊断是基于记忆、临床检查和肩部磁共振成像。共有52名患者分为3组:第一组(17名患者,平均年龄51.8岁)接受干扰电流,第二组(18名患者,均年龄51.8年)接受经皮神经电刺激,第三组(17例患者,均为49.1岁)接受假干扰电流。所有组都加入了热包和运动治疗。所有组治疗3周,每周5次,共15次,每次20分钟。在治疗前(T0)、治疗中期(T1;第8节结束)和治疗结束时(T2;第15节结束)使用活动范围和视觉模拟量表对疼痛进行评估,使用手臂、肩膀和手部问题问卷对功能状态进行评估,并使用简式-36对生活质量进行评估。结果:在T2时,所有组的运动范围、视觉模拟量表、手臂、肩膀和手部问题问卷得分以及Short Form-36的一些子参数得分都有显著的改善作用(P<0.05),在T2时,两组之间没有统计学上的显著差异(P>0.05)。结论:干扰电流和经皮神经电刺激在肩峰下撞击综合征患者的运动范围、疼痛、功能和生活质量方面表现出等效的结果,而干扰电流和经皮神经电刺激之间没有显著差异。在热敷+运动疗法中加入干扰电流或经皮神经电刺激治疗并没有给患者带来任何额外的好处。
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
Eurasian Journal of Medicine
Eurasian Journal of Medicine Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
59
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Eurasian Journal of Medicine (Eurasian J Med) is an international, scientific, open access periodical published by independent, unbiased, and triple-blinded peer-review principles. The journal is the official publication of Atatürk University School of Medicine and published triannually in February, June, and October. The publication language of the journal is English. The aim of the Eurasian Journal of Medicine is to publish original research papers of the highest scientific and clinical value in all medical fields. The Eurasian J Med also includes reviews, editorial short notes and letters to the editor that either as a comment related to recently published articles in our journal or as a case report. The target audience of the journal includes researchers, physicians and healthcare professionals who are interested or working in in all medical disciplines.
×
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