在治疗肘外侧肌腱病时,运动塑形疗法与反作用力支撑疗法的比较

A. Abdelmonem, Mariam A. Ameer, Ammar M. AlAbbad, A. Abdelmohsen
{"title":"在治疗肘外侧肌腱病时,运动塑形疗法与反作用力支撑疗法的比较","authors":"A. Abdelmonem, Mariam A. Ameer, Ammar M. AlAbbad, A. Abdelmohsen","doi":"10.1177/22104917231208211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The main purpose of the current study was to assess whether counter force brace (CFB) offers any additional value over Kinesiotaping (KT) in the management of tennis elbow. Materials and Methods: Forty-five females with clinically diagnosed tennis elbow participated in the current study. They were equally assigned into three groups of equal numbers. 12 sessions over 4 weeks of treatment interventions; experimental group A received the traditional physiotherapy program in addition to KT. Group B received the physiotherapy program in addition to the CFB. Group C (Control Group) received the physiotherapy program only. The degree of tennis elbow pain and myoelectrical activities of forearm muscles were measured. Results: There was a statistically significant reduction of pain in the experimental group A (KT) in comparison with the control group (p = 0.000), while a statistically significant reduction of pain (p = 0.000) and improvement of the myoelectrical activities of the forearm muscles (p = 0.000) were detected in the experimental group B (CFB) in comparison with the control group. In addition, the statistically significant reduction of pain (p = 0.000) and improvements in wrist flexors and extensors (p = 0.001 and p = 0.000, respectively) were detected in CFB compared with KT. Conclusion: Compared to KT or a physical therapy program alone, the use of CFB in the treatment of lateral elbow tendinopathy may be beneficial, especially in reducing pain and enhancing the muscle activities of the elbow flexors and extensors.","PeriodicalId":517288,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Rehabilitation","volume":"61 10-11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kinesiotaping versus counterforce brace in the management of lateral elbow tendinopathy\",\"authors\":\"A. Abdelmonem, Mariam A. Ameer, Ammar M. AlAbbad, A. Abdelmohsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/22104917231208211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: The main purpose of the current study was to assess whether counter force brace (CFB) offers any additional value over Kinesiotaping (KT) in the management of tennis elbow. Materials and Methods: Forty-five females with clinically diagnosed tennis elbow participated in the current study. They were equally assigned into three groups of equal numbers. 12 sessions over 4 weeks of treatment interventions; experimental group A received the traditional physiotherapy program in addition to KT. Group B received the physiotherapy program in addition to the CFB. Group C (Control Group) received the physiotherapy program only. The degree of tennis elbow pain and myoelectrical activities of forearm muscles were measured. Results: There was a statistically significant reduction of pain in the experimental group A (KT) in comparison with the control group (p = 0.000), while a statistically significant reduction of pain (p = 0.000) and improvement of the myoelectrical activities of the forearm muscles (p = 0.000) were detected in the experimental group B (CFB) in comparison with the control group. In addition, the statistically significant reduction of pain (p = 0.000) and improvements in wrist flexors and extensors (p = 0.001 and p = 0.000, respectively) were detected in CFB compared with KT. Conclusion: Compared to KT or a physical therapy program alone, the use of CFB in the treatment of lateral elbow tendinopathy may be beneficial, especially in reducing pain and enhancing the muscle activities of the elbow flexors and extensors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":517288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\"61 10-11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/22104917231208211\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedics, Trauma and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22104917231208211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的主要目的是评估反作用力支撑(CFB)在治疗网球肘方面是否比运动塑形(KT)更有价值。材料与方法:45名临床诊断为网球肘的女性患者参加了本次研究。她们被平均分配到人数相等的三组。实验 A 组在接受 KT 治疗的同时,还接受传统的物理治疗。B 组除接受 CFB 治疗外,还接受物理治疗。C组(对照组)只接受物理治疗。对网球肘疼痛程度和前臂肌肉的肌电活动进行了测量。结果显示与对照组相比,实验组 A(KT)的疼痛明显减轻(P = 0.000);与对照组相比,实验组 B(CFB)的疼痛明显减轻(P = 0.000),前臂肌肉的肌电活动明显改善(P = 0.000)。此外,与 KT 组相比,CFB 组的疼痛明显减轻(p = 0.000),腕关节屈肌和伸肌的改善也有统计学意义(p = 0.001 和 p = 0.000)。结论与 KT 或单独的物理治疗方案相比,使用 CFB 治疗肘外侧肌腱病可能是有益的,尤其是在减轻疼痛和增强肘部屈伸肌的肌肉活动方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Kinesiotaping versus counterforce brace in the management of lateral elbow tendinopathy
Purpose: The main purpose of the current study was to assess whether counter force brace (CFB) offers any additional value over Kinesiotaping (KT) in the management of tennis elbow. Materials and Methods: Forty-five females with clinically diagnosed tennis elbow participated in the current study. They were equally assigned into three groups of equal numbers. 12 sessions over 4 weeks of treatment interventions; experimental group A received the traditional physiotherapy program in addition to KT. Group B received the physiotherapy program in addition to the CFB. Group C (Control Group) received the physiotherapy program only. The degree of tennis elbow pain and myoelectrical activities of forearm muscles were measured. Results: There was a statistically significant reduction of pain in the experimental group A (KT) in comparison with the control group (p = 0.000), while a statistically significant reduction of pain (p = 0.000) and improvement of the myoelectrical activities of the forearm muscles (p = 0.000) were detected in the experimental group B (CFB) in comparison with the control group. In addition, the statistically significant reduction of pain (p = 0.000) and improvements in wrist flexors and extensors (p = 0.001 and p = 0.000, respectively) were detected in CFB compared with KT. Conclusion: Compared to KT or a physical therapy program alone, the use of CFB in the treatment of lateral elbow tendinopathy may be beneficial, especially in reducing pain and enhancing the muscle activities of the elbow flexors and extensors.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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