{"title":"干扰电流治疗肩峰下撞击综合征的疗效。","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":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"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":"{\"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\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"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\":\"\",\"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\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","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":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy of Interferential Current Therapy in Patients Diagnosed with Subacromial Impingement Syndrome.
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.