| Literature DB >> 29581969 |
Xiangnan Yuan1, Fenghua Zhou1, Lixin Zhang1, Zhiqiang Zhang1, Jianjun Li2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to explore whether extracorporeal shockwave treatment (ESWT) based on the theory of fascial manipulation (FM) at select treatment points is superior to traditional local ESWT for pain relief in adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29581969 PMCID: PMC5822906 DOI: 10.1155/2018/3450940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Baseline clinical characteristics.
| Number | Age | Duration of pain | Affected side (left/right) | p-NRS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESWT-FM group | 16 (9/7) | 53.6 ± 5.1 | 4.1 ± 0.6 | 5/11 | 6.7 ± 0.8 |
| L-ESWT group | 18 (10/8) | 52.8 ± 4.9 | 3.9 ± 0.4 | 6/12 | 6.4 ± 0.9 |
ESWT-FM: extracorporeal shockwave therapy combined with fascial manipulation theory; L-ESWT: local extracorporeal shockwave treatment.
Figure 1Comparison of p-NRS after ESWT-FM and L-ESWT. ESWT-FM: extracorporeal shockwave therapy combined with fascial manipulation theory; L-ESWT: local extracorporeal shockwave treatment. ∗ indicates comparison of p-NRS after treatment versus baseline, p < 0.05; #p-NRS after treatment; comparison between groups, p < 0.05.
Comparison of range of motion results after ESWT-FM and L-ESWT.
| Baseline | After 1st treatment | After 5th treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Forward flexion | 75.1 ± 12.5 | 81.8 ± 10.3 | 90.1 ± 9.3 |
| Lateral abduction | 57.9 ± 13.3 | 62.3 ± 14.5 | 66.7 ± 15.9 |
| External rotation | 10.5 ± 4.1 | 11.6 ± 4.9 | 12.4 ± 4.9 |
| Internal rotation | 14.8 ± 6.6 | 16.1 ± 7.4 | 17.1 ± 8.1 |
|
| |||
| Forward flexion | 73.7 ± 11.2 | 75.3 ± 11.9 | 77.1 ± 11.8 |
| Lateral abduction | 56.8 ± 14.7 | 58.7 ± 14.9 | 61.5 ± 14.9 |
| External rotation | 9.9 ± 4.3 | 10.5 ± 4.4 | 11.7 ± 4.6 |
| Internal rotation | 15.2 ± 7.1 | 15.9 ± 7.3 | 16.9 ± 7.6 |
ESWT-FM: extracorporeal shockwave therapy combined with fascial manipulation theory; L-ESWT: local extracorporeal shockwave treatment; range of motion after treatment versus baseline, p < 0.05. #Range of motion after treatment; comparison between groups, p < 0.05.