便携式和固定式牵引治疗机械性颈部疾病的效果比较

IF 2.3 Q1 REHABILITATION
A. Bello, J. Crabbe, Emmanuel Bonney
{"title":"便携式和固定式牵引治疗机械性颈部疾病的效果比较","authors":"A. Bello, J. Crabbe, Emmanuel Bonney","doi":"10.4137/RPO.S24889","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the therapeutic effects of portable and stationary tractions on treatment outcomes in patients with mechanical neck disorders (MNDs). Methods Forty-one participants with MNDs were randomly assigned to either portable traction or stationary traction. Participants' pain level, activity limitation, disability, and neck range of motion were measured before and after 6 weeks of intervention. Inferential statistics for comparing the treatment outcome involved paired t-test and two-way analysis of variance at P < 0.05. Results The mean age of participants was 47.3 ± 10.5 years. After intervention, there were significant improvements in both groups. However, the portable traction group had significantly higher score on neck flexion than the stationary traction group at baseline (portable: 27.1 ± 6.0, stationary: 22.1 ± 6.8; P = 0.009) and after intervention (F-ratio = 15.0; P = 0.001). Conclusion Inclusion of both portable and stationary tractions to usual physiotherapy provided comparable treatment outcomes in patients with MNDs.","PeriodicalId":41347,"journal":{"name":"Rehabilitation Process and Outcome","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4137/RPO.S24889","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Effects of Portable and Stationary Traction in the Management of Mechanical Neck Disorders\",\"authors\":\"A. Bello, J. Crabbe, Emmanuel Bonney\",\"doi\":\"10.4137/RPO.S24889\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the therapeutic effects of portable and stationary tractions on treatment outcomes in patients with mechanical neck disorders (MNDs). Methods Forty-one participants with MNDs were randomly assigned to either portable traction or stationary traction. Participants' pain level, activity limitation, disability, and neck range of motion were measured before and after 6 weeks of intervention. Inferential statistics for comparing the treatment outcome involved paired t-test and two-way analysis of variance at P < 0.05. Results The mean age of participants was 47.3 ± 10.5 years. After intervention, there were significant improvements in both groups. However, the portable traction group had significantly higher score on neck flexion than the stationary traction group at baseline (portable: 27.1 ± 6.0, stationary: 22.1 ± 6.8; P = 0.009) and after intervention (F-ratio = 15.0; P = 0.001). Conclusion Inclusion of both portable and stationary tractions to usual physiotherapy provided comparable treatment outcomes in patients with MNDs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41347,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rehabilitation Process and Outcome\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4137/RPO.S24889\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rehabilitation Process and Outcome\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4137/RPO.S24889\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rehabilitation Process and Outcome","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4137/RPO.S24889","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的比较便携式牵引和固定式牵引对机械性颈部疾病(MNDs)患者治疗效果的影响。方法41例老年痴呆患者随机分为固定式牵引组和便携式牵引组。在干预前后6周测量参与者的疼痛程度、活动限制、残疾和颈部活动范围。比较治疗结果的推论统计采用配对t检验和P < 0.05的双向方差分析。结果患者平均年龄为47.3±10.5岁。干预后,两组患者均有显著改善。然而,在基线时,便携式牵引组的颈部屈曲评分明显高于固定式牵引组(便携式:27.1±6.0,固定式:22.1±6.8;P = 0.009)和干预后(f比= 15.0;P = 0.001)。结论将便携式和固定式牵引纳入常规物理治疗可为MNDs患者提供相当的治疗效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Effects of Portable and Stationary Traction in the Management of Mechanical Neck Disorders
Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the therapeutic effects of portable and stationary tractions on treatment outcomes in patients with mechanical neck disorders (MNDs). Methods Forty-one participants with MNDs were randomly assigned to either portable traction or stationary traction. Participants' pain level, activity limitation, disability, and neck range of motion were measured before and after 6 weeks of intervention. Inferential statistics for comparing the treatment outcome involved paired t-test and two-way analysis of variance at P < 0.05. Results The mean age of participants was 47.3 ± 10.5 years. After intervention, there were significant improvements in both groups. However, the portable traction group had significantly higher score on neck flexion than the stationary traction group at baseline (portable: 27.1 ± 6.0, stationary: 22.1 ± 6.8; P = 0.009) and after intervention (F-ratio = 15.0; P = 0.001). Conclusion Inclusion of both portable and stationary tractions to usual physiotherapy provided comparable treatment outcomes in patients with MNDs.
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
4
审稿时长
8 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