| Literature DB >> 27980864 |
Dalia M Kamel1, Nashwa S Hamed2, Neveen A Abdel Raoof3, Sayed A Tantawy4.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field versus pulsed ultrasound in treating patients with postnatal carpal tunnel syndrome. The study was a randomized, double-blinded trial. Forty postnatal female patients with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome were divided randomly into two equal groups. One group received pulsed electromagnetic field, with nerve and tendon gliding exercises for the wrist, three times per week for four weeks. The other group received pulsed ultrasound and the same wrist exercises. Pain level, sensory and motor distal latencies and conduction velocities of the median nerve, functional status scale and hand grip strength were assessed pre- and post-treatment. There was a significant decrease (P < 0.05) in pain level, sensory and motor distal latencies of the median nerve, and significant increase (P < 0.05) in sensory and motor conduction velocities of the median nerve and hand grip strength in both groups, with a significant difference between the two groups in favour of pulsed electromagnetic field treatment. However, the functional status scale showed intergroup no significant difference (P > 0.05). In conclusion, while the symptoms were alleviated in both groups, pulsed electromagnetic field was more effective than pulsed ultrasound in treating postnatal carpal tunnel syndrome.Entities:
Keywords: CTS, carpal tunnel syndrome; CTSQ, carpal tunnel syndrome questionnaire; Carpal tunnel syndrome; EMG, electromyography; Electromagnetic field; MMCV, median motor conduction velocity; MMDL, median motor distal latency; MSCV, median sensory conduction velocity; MSDL, median segmental sensory distal latency; MSDL, median sensory distal latency; NCSs, nerve conduction studies; NCV, nerve conduction velocity; Nerve conduction velocity; PEMF, pulsed electromagnetic magnetic field; Pain; Postnatal; Pregnancy; Pulsed ultrasound; US, ultrasound; VAS, visual analogue scale
Year: 2016 PMID: 27980864 PMCID: PMC5144749 DOI: 10.1016/j.jare.2016.11.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Adv Res ISSN: 2090-1224 Impact factor: 10.479
Fig. 1Flowchart of the patients.
Demographic data of subjects in both groups.
| PEMF Group | US Group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| n = 20 | n = 20 | ||
| Age (mean ± SD) | 30.75 (2.33) | 29.4 (2.41) | 0.92 |
| Weight (mean ± SD) | 80.63 (8.08) | 81.45 (5.48) | 0.72 |
| Height (mean ± SD) | 170.15 (9.29) | 167.65 (5.89) | 0.31 |
| Parity (mean ± SD) | 2.1 (0.91) | 2.0 (0.92) | 0.71 |
| Type of work (n, %) | |||
| 9 (45%) | 10 (50%) | 0.819 | |
| 11 (55%) | 10 (50%) | 1.000 |
Units for age in years, weight in kg, height in cm and parity in number of times.
Chi2 test.
Comparison of mean pre and post treatment in both groups.
| PEMF Group (n = 20) | US Group (n = 20) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-ttt | Post-ttt | MD | 95% CI | Pre-ttt | Post-ttt | MD | 95% CI | |||||
| L | U | L | U | |||||||||
| Body weight (kg) | 80.63 (8.08) | 79.05 (7.26) | 1.57 | 0.14 | 3.00 | 0.033 | 81.45 (5.48) | 80.0 (5.09) | 1.45 | 0.71 | 2.19 | 0.001 |
| MSDL (msec) | 4.53 (0.71) | 2.47 (0.83) | 2.06 | 1.67 | 2.4 | 0.001 | 4.41 (0.92) | 4.3 (0.89) | 0.11 | −0.08 | 0.27 | 0.002 |
| MSCV (msec) | 37.62 (6.44) | 59.04 (13.15) | 21.42 | −23.6 | −19.7 | 0.001 | 36.01 (5.51) | 41.4 (4.2) | 5.39 | −7.2 | −3.51 | 0.001 |
| MMDL (msec) | 4.44 (0.67) | 3.96 (0.67) | 0.48 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.001 | 4.74 (0.76) | 4.63 (0.8) | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.23 | 0.001 |
| MMCV (m/s) | 54.21 (5.96) | 60.31 (7.31) | 6.1 | −7.31 | −4.88 | 0.002 | 53.36 (5.57) | 54.45 (5.46) | 1.09 | −2.13 | −0.17 | 0.001 |
| Hand grip strength (kg) | 18.10 (2.4) | 21.60 (1.8) | 3.5 | −4.12 | −2.88 | 0.001 | 16.75 (2.3) | 20.10 (1.8) | 3.35 | −3.9 | −2.79 | 0.001 |
Data presented as mean (SD), MD: mean difference, ttt: treatment, CI: confidence interval, L: lower CI, U: upper CI, MSDL: median sensory distal latency, MMDL: median motor distal latency, MSCV: median sensory conduction velocity, MMCV: median motor conduction velocity.
Tinel’s and Phalen’s tests, VAS, and functional status scale in both groups.
| Median | IQR | Significance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tinel sign | PEMF (n = 20) | 0.50 | 1–0.25 | 0.0001 |
| US (n = 20) | 1.00 | 1–0 | 0.0001 | |
| Post intergroups | 0.00 | 1–0 | 0.727 | |
| Phalen test | PEMF (n = 20) | 0.00 | 1–0 | 0.0001 |
| US (n = 20) | 0.50 | 1–0 | 0.0001 | |
| Post intergroups | 0.00 | 1–0 | 0.471 | |
| Functional status scale | PEMF (n = 20) | 29.00 | 31–26 | 0.0001 |
| US (n = 20) | 28.00 | 32–25.25 | 0.0001 | |
| Post intergroups | 26.00 | 28.75–24 | 0.414 | |
| VAS | PEMF (n = 20) | 5.00 | 7–2 | 0.0001 |
| US (n = 20) | 6 | 7–4.25 | 0.021 | |
| Post intergroups | 4.00 | 5–2 | 0.0001 | |
IQR = interquartile range.
Significance P < 0.05.