| Literature DB >> 23482239 |
Dorothea V Atkins1, David A Eichler.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent research has provided a rationale for the efficacy and use of massage therapy in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) symptoms. Additionally, research has also implicated the role of the quadriceps muscles in the genesis of knee OA. Although both areas of research have demonstrated strong evidence that the muscles and massage therapy may affect knee OA symptoms, self-massage applied on the quadriceps muscle has received no attention.Entities:
Keywords: chronic pain; knee osteoarthritis; massage; musculoskeletal; osteoarthritis; self-management; self-massage
Year: 2013 PMID: 23482239 PMCID: PMC3577640 DOI: 10.3822/ijtmb.v6i1.119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Ther Massage Bodywork
Figure 1Flow diagram for randomized, controlled study. The self-massage intervention was conducted in a room with all seats facing a centered desk, theater style, for greater supervision, which facilitated both observation and the individual adaptations necessary in the performance of the intervention.
Self-Massage Therapy Study Baseline Demographics of Evaluable Participants in the Intervention Group Compared to the Control Group
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p | |||||
| Age | Mean (Std) | 65.8 (9.36) | 65.6 (8.33) | 65.7 (8.73) | 0.91 |
| Pain | Median (IntQ) | 2 (1.00) | 2 (1.00) | 2 (1.00) | 0.66 |
| Joint Stiffness | Median (IntQ) | 2 (0.00) | 2 (1.00) | 2 (1.00) | 0.53 |
| Physical Function | Median (IntQ) | 2 (1.00) | 1 (1.00) | 2 (1.00) | 0.25 |
| Global WOMAC | Median (IntQ) | 2 (1.00) | 2 (1.00) | 2 (1.00) | 0.84 |
| Right Flexion | Mean (Std) | 108 (13.6) | 113 (13.0) | 110 (13.4) | 0.20 |
| Left Flexion | Mean (Std) | 108 (16.2) | 114 (11.5) | 111 (14.2) | 0.27 |
| Both Flexion | Mean (Std) | 108 (13.8) | 114 (10.2) | 111 (12.3) | 0.24 |
| Right Extension | Mean (Std) | 6.7 (4.54) | 9.4 (3.79) | 8.1 (4.36) | 0.07 |
| Left Extension | Mean (Std) | 7.1 (3.46) | 10.3 (5.81) | 8.7 (4.98) | 0.09 |
| Both Extension | Mean (Std) | 6.9 (3.75) | 9.9 (3.88) | 8.4 (4.05) | 0.02 |
| Gender | Female | 14 (77%) | 17 (94%) | 31 (86%) | 0.33 |
| Male | 4 (22%) | 1 (5 %) | 5 (13%) | ||
| Race | Caucasian | 17 (94%) | 15 (83.33%) | 32 (88%) | 0.60 |
| Afric-Amer | 1 (5%) | 3 (16%) | 4 (11%) | ||
| Marital Status | Divorced | 3 (16%) | 5 (27%) | 8 (22%) | 0.61 |
| Married | 10 (55%) | 10 (55%) | 20 (55%) | ||
| Single | 2 (11%) | 0 (0.00 %) | 2 (5 %) | ||
| Widowed | 3 (16%) | 3 (16%) | 6 (16%) | ||
p-value based on Wilcoxon rank-sum for ordinal and continuous and Fisher’s exact test for discrete data.
Summary of Pre-Post–WOMAC ANCOVA Analyses Comparing Intervention and Control Groups
| p | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | walking on flat surface | Control | 1.389 | 1.278 | .048a |
| Intervention | 1.556 | 0.842 | |||
| 2 | going up or down stairs | Control | 2.222 | 2.111 | .007 |
| Intervention | 2.222 | 1.278 | |||
| 3 | night while in bed | Control | 1.167 | 1.278 | .001 |
| Intervention | 1.111 | 0.444 | |||
| 4 | sitting or lying | Control | 1.222 | 1.222 | .024 |
| Intervention | 1.278 | 0.611 | |||
| 5 | standing up | Control | 1.556 | 1.444 | .017 |
| Intervention | 1.556 | 0.833 | |||
| 6 | Stiff waking in the mrng | Control | 2.056 | 2.056 | < .001 |
| Intervention | 2.111 | 1.111 | |||
| 7 | stiff lyng, sit or rstng later | Control | 2.111 | 1.833 | .119 |
| Intervention | 1.833 | 1.278 | |||
| 8 | descending stairs | Control | 2.000 | 2.167 | .001 |
| Intervention | 2.056 | 1.333 | |||
| 9 | ascending stairs | Control | 2.222 | 2.167 | .003 |
| Intervention | 2.278 | 1.389 | |||
| 10 | rising from sitting | Control | 2.111 | 2.111 | .006 |
| Intervention | 1.944 | 1.278 | |||
| 11 | standing | Control | 1.500 | 1.500 | .018 |
| Intervention | 1.722 | 0.889 | |||
| 12 | bending to the floor | Control | 2.560 | 1.611 | .011 |
| Intervention | 2.000 | 0.778 | |||
| 13 | diff. walkg on flat surface | Control | 1.444 | 1.389 | .023 |
| Intervention | 1.389 | 0.778 | |||
| 14 | in and out of bed | Control | 1.500 | 1.667 | .002 |
| Intervention | 1.722 | 1.000 | |||
| 15 | shopping | Control | 1.722 | 1.611 | .003 |
| Intervention | 1.722 | 1.000 | |||
| 16 | Putting on socks | Control | 1.333 | 1.500 | < .001 |
| Intervention | 1.389 | 0.611 | |||
| 17 | rising from bed | Control | 1.333 | 1.556 | < .001 |
| Intervention | 1.222 | 0.765 | |||
| 18 | taking off socks | Control | 1.278 | 1.444 | .027 |
| Intervention | 1.278 | 0.643 | |||
| 19 | lying in bed | Control | 0.944 | 1.278 | < .001 |
| Intervention | 1.000 | 0.444 | |||
| 20 | In and out of bath | Control | 1.813 | 1.824 | .330 |
| Intervention | 1.000 | 0.941 | |||
| 21 | sitting | Control | 1.167 | 1.167 | .065 |
| Intervention | 1.000 | 0.611 | |||
| 22 | on and off toilet | Control | 1.556 | 1.833 | .002 |
| Intervention | 1.556 | 1.000 | |||
| 23 | heavy duties | Control | 2.056 | 2.167 | .011 |
| Intervention | 2.333 | 1.611 | |||
| 24 | light duties | Control | 1.333 | 1.444 | .007 |
| Intervention | 1.500 | 0.889 |
Indicates significant result at p < .05, n = 36.
Figure 2Knee pain mean pre- and postscores. Lower scores indicate perceived improvement in pain.
Figure 3Knee stiffness mean pre- and postscores.
Figure 4Physical function mean pre- and postscores.
Figure 5Total mean WOMAC pre- and postscores.
Summary of Pre-Post–ROM ANCOVA Analyses Comparing Intervention and Control Groups
| p | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Knee Rt. flexion | Control | 113.056 | 115.278 | .715 |
| Intervention | 116.944 | 116.944 | |||
| 2 | Knee Lt. flexion | Control | 113.333 | 116.111 | .120 |
| Intervention | 118.611 | 113.611 | |||
| 3 | KneeExtRt.ext. | Control | 9.444 | 8.333 | .889 |
| Intervention | 15.278 | 10.556 | |||
| 4 | KneeExtLtext. | Control | 10.556 | 10.278 | .592 |
| Intervention | 15.278 | 11.389 |
Figure 6Mean knee ROM flexion scores.
Figure 7Mean knee ROM extension scores.