| Literature DB >> 31592269 |
Dmitrii Vladimirovich Babaskin1, Tatiana Mikhailovna Litvinova1, Liudmila Ivanovna Babaskina1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving the effectiveness of rehabilitation of patients with osteoarthritis necessitates the use of drug electrophoresis with sinusoidal modulated currents (SMC-electrophoresis) in conjunction with drug therapy. The phytocomplex is proposed for electrophoresis composed of the compared, alfalfa and hops dry extract, containing flavonoids, coumestans, polysaccharides, steroids, essential amino acids, vitamins, mineral components and causing its possible use in osteoarthritis. AIM: The research aims to study the effect of the phytocomplex SMC-electrophoresis on the clinical symptoms and quality of life of patients with the knee joint osteoarthritis.Entities:
Keywords: Drug electrophoresis; Electrotherapy; Herbal extract; Knee joint osteoarthritis; Osteoarthritis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31592269 PMCID: PMC6765070 DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.603
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Access Maced J Med Sci ISSN: 1857-9655
Figure 1The main complaints of the patients with knee osteoarthritis included in the study
The results of the comparative analysis of the effectiveness of various methods of rehabilitation of the patients with the knee osteoarthritis in terms of JROM, MS, AI and TI
| Examination period | Group | Indicator, | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JROM, degree | MS, minute | AI, points | TI, points | ||
| Before treatment | 1 ( | 116.5 ± 19.2 | 18.2 ± 3.6 | 1.84 ± 0.36 | 1.34 ± 0.26 |
| 2 ( | 121.5 ± 9.6 | 15.6 ± 4.0 | 1.73 ± 0.34 | 1.37 ± 0.30 | |
| 3 ( | 124.6 ± 16.8 | 17.1 ± 3.4 | 1.79 ± 0.40 | 1.26 ± 0.22 | |
| After treatment | 1 ( | 132.3 ± 25.6 | 7.3 ± 1.8 | 0.74 ± 0.30 | 0,60 ± 0,18 |
| 2 ( | 126.6 ± 19.8 | 7.0 ± 2.4 | 0.93 ± 0.42 | 0,79 ± 0,15 | |
| 3 ( | 125.2 ± 23.6 | 16.1 ± 3.4 | 1.68 ± 0.72 | 1.30 ± 0.32 | |
| 3 months after treatment | 1 ( | 124.2 ± 24.6 | 8.7 ± 2.4 | 0.96 ± 0.42 | 0.91 ± 0.30 |
| 2 ( | 127.9 ± 26.4 | 11.4 ± 3.0 | 1.15 ± 0.48 | 0.97 ± 0.18 | |
| 3 ( | 126.7 ± 33.2 | 16.8 ± 3.2 | 1.73 ± 0.54 | 1.22 ± 0.26 | |
| 6 months after treatment | 1 ( | 120.8 ± 22.4 | 12.2 ± 4.2 | 1.44 ± 0.48 | 1.15 ± 0.24 |
| 2 ( | 125.0 ± 31.2 | 14.2 ± 3.0 | 1.51 ± 0.48 | 1.34 ± 0.14 | |
| 3 ( | 127.2 ± 28.0 | 17.6 ± 4.0 | 1.75 ± 0.60 | 1.25 ± 0.22 | |
| 12 months after treatment | 1 ( | 118.2 ± 27.2 | 14.9 ± 3.2 | 1.62 ± 0.48 | 1.29 ± 0.26 |
| 2 ( | 124.1 ± 18.6 | 14.8 ± 3.8 | 1.66 ± 0.42 | 1.30 ± 0.28 | |
| 3 ( | 126.1 ± 30.6 | 18.3 ± 4.4 | 1.78 0 ± .48 | 1.20 ± 0.34 | |
The experimental, empirical distribution of JROM, MS, AI, TI variables did not differ much from the normal distribution (the Kolmogorov-Smirnov criterion and the schedule of the normal distribution in SPSS); ** The significance of differences between the groups and in the group before and after treatment as per the Student’s t-test (numbers indicate the numbers of the groups); Ur is the unreliable.
Figure 2The results of the comparative analysis of the effectiveness of various methods of rehabilitation of the patients with the knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain level as per VAS (in movement). The significance of differences between the groups (*) and in the group (**) before and after treatment as per the Student’s t-test (group numbers are indicated in numbers)
The results of the comparative analysis of the effectiveness of various methods of rehabilitation of the patients with the knee osteoarthritis as per the WOMAC index
| Examination period | Group | WOMAC index, score, | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PW | SW | FW | ||
| Before treatment | First ( | 34.3 ± 5.6 | 13.7 ± 2.4 | 116.1 ± 20.4 |
| Second ( | 33.3 ± 6.8 | 13.2 ± 2.7 | 112.5 ± 22.6 | |
| Third ( | 31.9 ± 6.2 | 12.8 ± 2.0 | 108.5 ± 20.3 | |
| After treatment | First ( | 20.6 ± 4.2 | 8.2 ± 1.6 | 69.9 ± 14.0 |
| Second ( | 24.6 ± 4.0 | 9.8 ± 2.4 | 83.1 ± 18.6 | |
| Third ( | 30.6 ± 6.4 | 12.3 ± 3.0 | 103.9 ± 20.4 | |
| 3 months after treatment | First ( | 23.2 ± 4.6 | 9.3 ± 1.8 | 78.6 ± 16.0 |
| Second ( | 27.2 ± 5.2 | 10.8 ± 2.2 | 91.8 ± 21.4 | |
| Third ( | 31.4 ± 6.8 | 12.5 ± 2.8 | 106.6 ± 22.0 | |
| 6 months after treatment | First ( | 24.6 ± 5.0 | 9.7 ± 2.8 | 83.6 ± 16.0 |
| Second ( | 28.1 ± 6.2 | 11.2 ± 2.2 | 95.7 ± 20.4 | |
| Third ( | 29.8 ± 7.1 | 12.0 ± 2.4 | 103.9 ± 21.6 | |
| 12 months after treatment | First ( | 27.2 ± 5.8 | 11.1 ± 2.8 | 94.3 ± 19.0 |
| Second ( | 31.0 ± 7.0 | 12.6 ± 2.5 | 106.9 ± 23.2 | |
| Third ( | 31.3 ± 6.2 | 12.5 ± 2.4 | 107.0 ± 22.8 | |
The experimental, empirical distribution of WOMAC variables did not differ much from the normal distribution (the Kolmogorov-Smirnov criterion and the schedule of the normal distribution in SPSS);
The significance of differences between the groups and in the group before and after treatment as per the Student’s t-test (numbers indicate the numbers of the groups).
Figure 3The results of the comparative analysis of the effectiveness of various methods of rehabilitation of the patients with the knee osteoarthritis as per the Lequesne index. The significance of differences between the groups (*) and in the group (**) before and after treatment as per the Student’s t-test (group numbers are indicated in numbers)
Figure 4The results of the comparative analysis of the effectiveness of various methods of rehabilitation of the patients with the knee osteoarthritis as per the HAQ index. The significance of differences between the groups (*) and in the group (**) before and after treatment as per the Student’s t-test (group numbers are indicated in numbers)