نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 کمیته تحقیقات دانشجویی، دانشکده علوم توانبخشی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
2 گروه فیزیوتراپی، دانشکده علوم توانبخشی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
3 گروه علوم پایه، دانشکده علوم توانبخشی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Introduction: Tennis elbow is an involvement of the lateral part of the elbow that seriously impairs upper extremity function. Recently, radial shock wave therapy (RSWT) and dry needling (DN) have been proposed in the treatment of various tendinopathies. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of DN and RSWT in the treatment of tennis elbow.
Methods: In this pilot study, 12 participamts in the age range of 30 to 50 years old with tennis elbow enrolled based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Participamts were randomly divided into two groups, including RSWT (n= 6 - three weekly sessions with an energy level of 1.5 times and a frequency of 10 Hz and 2000 shocks) and DN (n=6- five sessions). To assess the pain level, we used the visual analog scale (VAS) and pressure pain threshold (PPT). To assess functional disability, we utilized the Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (Quick DASH) questionnaire. Additionally, we measured disability using a grip test. All outcome measures were assessed before the intervention, after the intervention, and at the follow-up (four weeks after the intervention).
Results: In the RSWT group, the pain and disability during follow-up compared to pre-intervention showed a significant improvement (P<0.05), while post-intervention compared to pre-intervention, no significant improvement was observed (P˃0.05). The score of Quick DASH questionnaire was significantly decreased at post-intervention and follow-up compared to pre-intervention (P<0.05). In the DN group, pain showed a significant decrease in the follow-up compared to pre-intervention (P<0.05). The disability also showed a significant improvement in both post-intervention and follow-up compared to the pre-intervention (P<0.05). DN did not cause a significant change in the scores of the Quick DASH questionnaire at different times of the study (P>0.05). The mean of PPT score of the first point, PPT values of the second point, and the difference between the mean PPT of the first and second points were not significantly different in both group (P>0.05). None of the investigated variables were significantly different between the two treatment groups during the post-intervention and follow-up (P>0.05).
Conclusions: The results of this pilot study indicated that DN and RSWT significantly decreased pain during follow-up. In addition, the comparison of the measures outcomes between the two groups showed that there was no significant difference in the pain level, pressure pain threshold, disability level (grip) and Quick DASH questionnaire scores in patients with tennis elbow. Therefore, both DN and RSWT have a suitable therapeutic potential in the treatment of tennis elbow.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)