| Literature DB >> 34465677 |
Somaia A Hamed1, Ibrahim M Zoheiry2, Nevien Maher Waked3, Lama Saad El-Din Mahmoud4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Heamophilia is considered a disorder in both children and adolescents which may affect their quality of life seriously than their normal peers; this study investigated the impact of the Neurodynamics Nerve Flossing Technique (NFT) on femoral neuropathy in patients with haemophilia.Entities:
Keywords: Femoral Nerve; Haemophilia; Nerve Flossing; Neurodynamics; Neuropathy
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34465677 PMCID: PMC8426650
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact ISSN: 1108-7161 Impact factor: 2.041
Figure 1Flow chart showing the experimental design of the study.
Figure 2Femoral nerve Neurodynamics neural slider technique from a prone lying position with a towel under the knee while the patient flexed the knee of the affected side and with the therapist’s assistance to guide the movement and stabilize the pelvis.
Figure 3Femoral nerve Neurodynamics neural tensioner technique from a prone lying position with a towel under the knee of the affected side, while the patient’s other leg was crossed behind the affected stretched leg with the therapist’s assistance to push.
Figure 4Femoral nerve Neurodynamics neural slider technique from a side-lying position on the non-affected side. The patient was asked to bend the above-knee, then the therapist performed extension and adduction of the patient’s top hip until the lumbar lordosis level increased.
Figure 5Femoral nerve Neurodynamics neural tensioner technique from a side-lying position on the non-affected side. The patient was asked to hold his ankle to his bottom with his hand, then with the therapist’s assistance gently pull backward with hip extension.
Descriptive statistics for the participants’ demographic data for both groups.
| Items | Control Group | Study Group | Comparison | S | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | t-value | P-value | ||
| Age (Years) | 13.967± 0.972 | 14.3± 0.819 | 1.0153 | 0.3186 |
|
| Weight (Kilograms) | 50.733±1.005 | 51.213±1.285 | 1.1394 | 0.2642 |
|
| Height (Meter) | 1.5040±0.0507 | 1.5193±0.0492 | 0.8407 | 0.4076 |
|
SD: standard deviation, P: probability, S: significance, NS: non-significant.
Mean values of femoral nerve motor conduction velocity pre-treatment and post-treatment test at both groups.
| Femoral Nerve MCV (m/sec) | Pre-treatment | Post- treatment | Mean difference | % of improvement | f-value | P- value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Means ± SD | Means ± SD | |||||
| Control group | 32.9±1.65 | 44.01±0.67 | -11.11 | 33.78% | 850.40 | 0.0001 |
| Study group | 32.68 ±0.915 | 46.44±0.577 | -13.760 | 42.11% | 1303.69 | 0.0001 |
| Mean difference | 0.220 | -2.427 | ||||
| f-value | .333 | 40.547 | ||||
| P- value | 0.566 | 0.0001 |
MCV: motor conduction velocity, m/sec: millimeter/second, SD: standard deviation, %: percentage, P: probability,
Significant level is set at alpha level <0.05
Mean values of pain sensation (VAS scores) pre-treatment and post-treatment at both groups.
| VAS (cm) | Pre- treatment | Post -treatment | Mean difference | % of improvement | f-value | P- value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Means ± SD | Means ± SD | |||||
| Control group | 7.2±0.676 | 4.33± 0.816 | 2.87 | 39.86% | 100.33 | 0.0001 |
| Study group | 7.066±0.703 | 2.466±0.915 | 4.6 | 65.094% | 285.34 | 0.0001 |
| Mean difference | 0.133 | 1.866 | ||||
| f-value | 0.217 | 42.54 | ||||
| P- value | 0.643 | 0.0001 |
VAS: Visual Analogue Scale, cm: centimeter, %: percentage, SD: standard deviation, P: probability,
Significant level is set at alpha level <0.05.