| Literature DB >> 21953301 |
Ercan Madenci1, Ozlem Altindag, Irfan Koca, Mustafa Yilmaz, Ali Gur.
Abstract
We aimed to bring a more understandable and applicable technique to the literature instead of "massage therapy" in CTS. We compared our new technique with the splint wear, of which the efficacy in CTS has been proven with many studies. Eighty-four patients between 31 and 65 years of age were included in the study. The patients were divided into two equal groups. In the first group, splint and "Madenci" hand massage technique were applied, and in the second group only splint was applied. A splint was provided for all patients with tendon and nerve gliding exercises, and also when needed analgesic drugs were given. When the pretreatment and posttreatment parameters were compared via repetitive measurement analysis, it was found that PGA and MDPGA were significantly decreased in both groups (P = 0.001), whereas grip strength was significantly increased (P = 0.001). While no statistically significant difference was found between the groups regarding pretreatment values (P > 0.05), the posttreatment PGA, MDPGA, and grip strength scores were significantly improved in Group I compared to Group II (P < 0.05). To the best our knowledge, the present study is the first and largest study in the literature conducted on the massage technique that will contribute to the treatment of CTS. As this new massage technique is easy for self-application, cheap, and practical, every patient with CTS can apply the massage to him/herself easily.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21953301 PMCID: PMC3456919 DOI: 10.1007/s00296-011-2149-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rheumatol Int ISSN: 0172-8172 Impact factor: 2.631
Fig. 1Splint application
Fig. 2Application of “Madenci” hand massage technique manipulations: Effleurage: Thirty seconds, scrubbing the surface, from distal to proximal, on forearm. Friction: Sixty seconds, stroking deep tissues, from distal to proximal, clock wise, on solar surface. Petrissage: Thirty seconds, scouring depths, from distal to proximal, on forearm. Shaking: Thirty seconds. Effleurage: Thirty seconds, scrubbing the surface, from distal to proximal, on forearm
Fig. 3Tendon gliding exercises [11]
Fig. 4Median nerve gliding exercises [11]
Comparison of demographic characteristics of the groups
| Group I ( | Group II ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year; mean ± SD) | 43.4 ± 7.6 | 44.2 ± 7.8 | >0.05 |
| Gender ( | |||
| Male | 2 | 2 | >0.05 |
| Female | 38 | 38 | >0.05 |
| BMI (kg/m²; mean ± SD) | 28.6 ± 4.8 | 28.3 ± 4.6 | >0.05 |
| Symptom duration (month; mean ± SD) | 4.3 ± 3.1 | 4.5 ± 3.2 | >0.05 |
Group I, splint + massage; Group II, splint; SD standard deviation, BMI body mass index
Comparison of the groups in terms of the patient global assessment, physician global assessment, and hand grip strength
| Group I | Group II | preT | postT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| preT | postT | preT | postT | p1 | p2 | |
| PGA | 8.5 ± 1.1 | 2.3 ± 0.8 | 8.2 ± 1.2 | 4.1 ± 0.7 | >0.05 | 0.001 |
| MDPGA | 5.9 ± 0.8 | 1.2 ± 0.5 | 5.1 ± 0.9 | 2.7 ± 0.8 | >0.05 | 0.001 |
| Grip strength | ||||||
| Right | 25.4 ± 6.3 | 30.3 ± 5.2 | 25.7 ± 5.9 | 28.2 ± 3.2 | >0.05 | 0.042 |
| Left | 21.2 ± 3.2 | 26.9 ± 2.6 | 20.5 ± 3.3 | 24.1 ± 2.3 | >0.05 | 0.041 |
Group I, splint + massage; Group II, splint; PreT pretreatment, PostT posttreatment, GPE patient global assessment, MDPGA physician global assessment, p1 pretreatment inter-group comparison, p2 posttreatment inter-group comparison
Comparison of pretreatment and posttreatment electroneurophysiological parameters of Group I
| Group I |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| preT | postT | ||
| mMDL (right) | 4.2 ± 0.5 | 3.6 ± 0.5 |
|
| mMDL (left) | 3.9 ± 0.7 | 3.4 ± 0.6 |
|
| mMNCV (right) | 56.1 ± 5.3 | 56.5 ± 4.9 | >0.05 |
| mMNCV (left) | 54.6 ± 4.2 | 55.1 ± 4.3 | >0.05 |
| mSNCV (right) | 43.4 ± 6.2 | 44.1 ± 5.9 | >0.05 |
| mSNCV (left) | 41.3 ± 6.5 | 43.8 ± 6.3 |
|
Group I, splint + massage; PreT pretreatment, PostT posttreatment, mMDL median nerve motor distal latency, mMNCV median motor nerve conduction velocity, mSNCV median sensory nerve conduction velocity
Comparison of electrophysiological parameters between the groups
| Group I | Group II | preT | postT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| preT | postT | preT | postT | p1 | p2 | |
| mMDL (right) | 4.2 ± 0.5 | 4.2 ± 0.5 | 4.4 ± 0.8 | 3.9 ± 0.9 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
| mMDL (left) | 3.9 ± 0.7 | 3.9 ± 0.7 | 4.1 ± 0.7 | 3.9 ± 0.8 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
| mMNCV (right) | 56.1 ± 5.3 | 56.1 ± 5.3 | 53.3 ± 4.6 | 54.2 ± 4.4 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
| mMNCV (left) | 54.6 ± 4.2 | 55.1 ± 4.3 | 54.3 ± 4.5 | 55.6 ± 4.6 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
| mSNCV (right) | 43.4 ± 6.2 | 44.1 ± 5.9 | 43.2 ± 6.2 | 44.3 ± 6.4 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
| mSNCV (left) | 41.3 ± 6.5 | 43.8 ± 6.3 | 41.6 ± 6.5 | 42.5 ± 6.6 | >0.05 | >0.05 |
Group I, Splint + massage; Group II, splint; PreT pretreatment, PostT posttreatment, mMDL median nerve motor distal latency, mMNCV median motor nerve conduction velocity, mSNCV median sensory nerve conduction velocity, p1 pretreatment inter-group comparison, p2 posttreatment inter-group comparison
Comparison between the groups in terms of pretreatment and posttreatment results of Boston symptom severity scale and functional capacity scale
| Group I | Group II | preT | postT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| preT | postT | preT | postT | p1 | p2 | |
| Boston symptom severity scale | 3.9 ± 1.1 | 1.8 ± 0.4 | 3.7 ± 1.0 | 2.5 ± 0.5 | >0.05 | 0.001 |
| Boston functional capacity scale | 3.2 ± 0.8 | 2.0 ± 0.4 | 3.2 ± 0.6 | 2.6 ± 0.6 | >0.05 | 0.001 |
Group I, splint + massage; Group II, splint; PreT pretreatment, PostT posttreatment, p1 pretreatment inter-group comparison, p2 posttreatment inter-group comparison