Journals / Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Bilimleri Dergisi / 2018 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of the Effects of Pulse Electromagnetic Field Therapy and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Therapy on Pain and Functionality in Knee Osteoarthritis: Randomized Clinical Trial

Diz Osteoartritinde Pulse Elektromanyetik Alan Tedavisi ile Transkutanöz Elektriksel Sinir Stimülasyonu Tedavisinin Ağrı ve Fonksiyonellik Üzerine Etkilerinin Karşılaştırılması: Randomize Klinik Çalışma

Pages
115–121
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results also indicated that both TENS and PEMF treatments displayed similar effects.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To compare the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus pulse electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapies, when applied in addition to the superficial heat and diathermy treatments, on pain and functionality in patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients were randomly assigned into TENS (n=24) and PEMF (n=24) using a closed envelope method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results also indicated that both TENS and PEMF treatments displayed similar effects.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) versus pulse electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapies, when applied in addition to the superficial heat and diathermy treatments, on pain and functionality in patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis. Material and Methods: Forty-eight patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned into TENS (n=24) and PEMF (n=24) using a closed envelope method. The first group received 100 Hz frequency of TENS treatment for 30 min/session. The second group received 50 Hz frequency and 60 microtesla intensity of PEMF treatment for 24 min/session. Both groups received superficial heat (hot pack, based on the hot tolerance 20 min/session) and diathermy (ultrasound, 1.5 W/cm2 and 6 min/session) treatments in one session daily for 5 days a week. Evaluations were performed at the beginning and at the end of the treatments. Visual analoguescale (VAS; 0-100), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Lequesne Scale were used as outcome measurements. Results: In both groups, VAS, WOMAC index and Lequesne scale scores improved after the treatment (p<0.05). When the pre and post treatment changes were compare between TENS and PEMF groups, VAS (p=0.109), WOMAC (p=0.427) and Lequesne (p=0.264) scores were similar to each other. Conclusion: The results of the current study demonstrated that both TENS and PEMF treatments were effective for ameliorating the osteoarthritis symptoms when applied in addition to the conventional therapies. The results also indicated that both TENS and PEMF treatments displayed similar effects.

Özet

Amaç: Diz osteoartrit tanısı almış hastalarda yüzeyel sıcak ve diatermi tedavilerine ek olarak uygulanan transkutanöz elektriksel sinir stimülasyon (TENS) ile yüzeyel sıcak ve diatermi tedavilerine ek olarak uygulanan pulse elektromanyetik alan (PEMF) tedavisinin ağrı ve fonksiyonel durum üzerine etkilerini karşılaştırmaktır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya 48 semptomatik diz osteoartitli hasta dâhil edildi. Hastalar, kapalı zarf yöntemi ile TENS (n=24) ve PEMF (n=24) grupları olarak ikiye ayrıldı. Birinci gruba 100 Hz frekansta, 30 dakika/seans TENS uygulandı. İkinci gruba ise 50 Hz frekansta, 60 mikrotesla şiddet ile 24 dakika/seans PEMF uygulandı. Her iki gruba da iki hafta boyunca, haftada beş gün, günde bir seans yüzeyel sıcak (sıcak paket, sıcak toleransa göre, 20 dakika/seans) ve diatermi (ultrason 1,5 W/cm2 6 dakika/seans) uygulandı. Değerlendirmeler başlangıçta ve tedavi sonunda yapıldı. Sonuç ölçümleri olarak, vizüel analog skala (VAS) (0-100), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) ve Lequesne Skalası kullanıldı. Bulgular: Her iki grupta da VAS, WOMAC indeks ve Lequesne skala skorunda tedavi sonrasında tedavi öncesine göre anlamlı düzelme izlendi (p<0.05). Tedavi öncesi ve tedavi sonrası ölçüm değerleri farkının gruplar arası karşılaştırılmasında, TENS ve PEMF grupları arasında VAS (p=0,109), WOMAC (p=0,427) ve Lequesne (p=0,264) skorlarına göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmadı. Sonuç: Çalışmamız konvansiyonel tedaviye ek olarak uygulanan TENS ve PEMF’nin her ikisinin de diz OA semptomlarını iyileştirmede etkili olduğunu göstermiştir. PEMF ve TENS’nin benzer etki düzeyine sahip olduğu saptanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

YAŞAR, M. F., TÖNÜK, Ş. B. (2018). Comparison of the Effects of Pulse Electromagnetic Field Therapy and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation Therapy on Pain and Functionality in Knee Osteoarthritis: Randomized Clinical Trial. Fiziksel Tıp ve Rehabilitasyon Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 3, 115–121. https://ajindex.com/articles/224323

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Karaaslan Y. Osteoartrit. Klinik Romatoloji. 1st ed. Ankara: Hekimler Yayın Birliği; 1996. s. 198-209. Schnitzer T. Management of osteoarthritis. In: McCarty DJ, Koopman WJ, eds. Arthritis and Allied Conditions. 12th ed. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1993. p.1761-9.
  2. Yurtkuran M, Kocagil T. TENS, electroacupuncture and ice massage: comparison of treatment for osteoarthritis of the knee. Am J Acupunct. 1999;27:133-40.
  3. Cheing GL, Hui-Chan CW. Would the addition of TENS to exercise training produce better physical performance outcomes in people with knee osteoarthritis than either intervention alone? Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:487-97.
  4. Carroll D, Moore RA, McQuay HJ, et al. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001:CD003222. Quittan M, Schuhfried O, Wiesinger GF, et al. Clinical effectiveness of magnetic field therapy--a review of the literature. Acta Med Austriaca. 2000;27:61-8. Trock DH. Electromagnetic fields and magnets. Investigational treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2000;26:51-62.
  5. Harrison MH, Bassett CA. Use of pulsed electromagnetic fields in Perthes disease: report of a pilot study. J Pediatr Orthop. 1984;4:579- 84. Bassett CA, Schink-Ascani M, Lewis SM. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on Steinberg ratings of femoral head osteonecrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989:172-85.
  6. Tabrah F, Hoffmeier M, Gilbert F Jr, et al. Bone density changes in osteoporosis-prone women exposed to pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs). J Bone Miner Res. 1990;5: 437-42.
  7. Dallari D, Fini M, Giavaresi G, et al. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic stimulation on patients undergoing hip revision prostheses: a randomized prospective double-blind study. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009;30:423-30.
  8. Wierzcholski K, Miszczak A. Magneto-therapy of human joint cartilage. Acta Bioeng Biomech. 2017;19:115-24.
  9. Pipitone N, Scott DL. Magnetic pulse treatment for knee osteoarthritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2001;17:190-6.
  10. Thamsborg G, Florescu A, Oturai P, et al. Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with pulsed electromagnetic fields: a randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005;13:575-81.
  11. Williams HJ, Ward JR, Egger MJ, et al. Comparison of naproxen and acetaminophen in a two-year study of treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis Rheum. 1993;36:1196-206.
  12. Kane RL, Bershadsky B, Rockwood T, et al. Visual analog scal