INTRODUCTION:Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I is a pathological condition that occurs without evident nerve injury and follows a course characterized by severe pain. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess whether or not electromagnetic field treatment administered with calcitonin and exercise has positive effects on clinical improvement, scintigraphic assessment and bone markers compared to calcitonin and exercise administration. METHOD: In this randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 40 patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I, that developed after a Colles fracture were included in the assessments and were administered calcitonin and exercise treatment for 6 weeks. In addition to this treatment, half the patients received electromagnetic field treatment, and the other half received placebo treatment. The patients were evaluated at the beginning and end of treatment with clinical parameters, scintigraphic assessment and biochemical markers. RESULTS: Although we found some significant improvements in our evaluation criteria, we could not find a significant statistical difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a significant difference between the two groups in the assessment parameters has been interpreted as evidence that electromagnetic field treatment does not provide additional benefit to calcitonin and exercise treatment.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION:Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I is a pathological condition that occurs without evident nerve injury and follows a course characterized by severe pain. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to assess whether or not electromagnetic field treatment administered with calcitonin and exercise has positive effects on clinical improvement, scintigraphic assessment and bone markers compared to calcitonin and exercise administration. METHOD: In this randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 40 patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I, that developed after a Colles fracture were included in the assessments and were administered calcitonin and exercise treatment for 6 weeks. In addition to this treatment, half the patients received electromagnetic field treatment, and the other half received placebo treatment. The patients were evaluated at the beginning and end of treatment with clinical parameters, scintigraphic assessment and biochemical markers. RESULTS: Although we found some significant improvements in our evaluation criteria, we could not find a significant statistical difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a significant difference between the two groups in the assessment parameters has been interpreted as evidence that electromagnetic field treatment does not provide additional benefit to calcitonin and exercise treatment.