| Literature DB >> 35178136 |
Danuta Lietz-Kijak1, Roman Ardan2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pain is a natural response of the body to injury and one of the symptoms defining an inflammatory reaction. It is almost always present after orthognathic surgeries (OGS), but its severity is subjective in each patient. Postoperative care of the patient is aimed at minimizing of postoperative pain relief orofacial region. Options of physiotherapy include extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF) and high-energy light-emitting diode (LED). Aim of the Study. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of physiotherapy combining ELF EMF and LED to reduce pain of the orofacial region in patients after OGS. Material and Methods. The study was conducted in thirty-two patients who underwent OGS to treat morphological defects. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: Physiotherapy group (PT) and Control group (CG). In both groups, patients were prescribed Paracetamol and nonsteroidal analgesics (NSAID-ibuprofen). Patients from the PT group additionally received postoperative physiotherapy immediately after leaving the surgical clinic in the form of ELF EMF and LED therapy. Physiotherapeutic treatments were performed for 10 days, three applications a day, at no cost to the patient. Pain intensity was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS), which is a reliable instrument for the measurement of pain intensity self-reported by the patient.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35178136 PMCID: PMC8847020 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3115154
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pain Res Manag ISSN: 1203-6765 Impact factor: 3.037
Figure 1(a) and (b). Treatments with an ELF EMF, ring applicator, and elliptic applicators.
Figure 2Applicators generating an extremely ELF EMF and light energy (830 nm and 640 nm) emitted from the LEDs during the physiotherapy treatment.
Descriptive statistics for pain intensity.
| Variable | Min | Max | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| VAS1 | 4 | 10 | 7.125 ± 1.500 |
| VAS5 | 0 | 5 | 2.875 ± 1.147 |
| VAS10 | 0 | 0 | 0 ± 0.000 |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| VAS1 | 6 | 10 | 8.062 ± 1.237 |
| VAS5 | 4 | 8 | 4.812 ± 1.424 |
| VAS10 | 0 | 4 | 1.938 ± 1.289 |
Figure 3Reduction in pain intensity after physiotherapy treatments with ELF EMF and LED (PT group vs CG group).
Significance of mean differences in pain intensity for the PT group.
| Variable | Mean |
| 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| VAS1 | 7.125 | 19.0 | (6.326, 7.924) | ≤0.001 |
| VAS5 | 2.875 | 10.0 | (2.264, 3.486) | ≤0.001 |
| VAS1–VAS5 | 4.25 | 13.2 | (3.562, 4.938) | ≤0.001 |
Results of Tukey HSD test for the CG group.
| Difference | Mean | 95% CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| VAS1–VAS10 | 6.125 | (4.995, 7.255) | ≤0.001 |
| VAS5–VAS10 | 2.875 | (1.745, 4.005) | ≤0.001 |
| VAS1 VAS5 | 3.250 | (2.120, 4.380) | ≤0.001 |
Significance of differences in mean changes in pain intensity between groups.
| Variable | Mean PT | Mean CG |
| 95% CI for difference |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Change1 | –0.597 | –0.411 | –4.2 | (–0.278, –0.094) | ≤0.001 |
| Change1,2 | –1.000 | –0.769 | –6.8 | (–0.304, –0.158) | ≤0.001 |
Figure 4Distribution of relative changes in pain intensity in the PT and CG (lower = greater pain relief).