| Literature DB >> 35310022 |
Zhiwei Fu1, Changming Xu2, You Wang1, Xinhua Qu1, Chunxi Yang1.
Abstract
Objective: To reduce the pain of quadriceps during knee flexion after total knee arthroplasty and increase range motion of knee flexion. Design: Three-month prospective before/after quality improvement project. Setting. Department of Bone and Joint Surgery. Participants. A total of 80 patients who met the surgical indications were admitted to the outpatient department for surgery. They were randomly grouped by computer in advance, and the patients were divided into two groups according to the time of admission, each with 40 cases. Intervention. The intervention group performed routine rehabilitation exercises and received quadriceps acupoint massages for 20 minutes twice a day for two consecutive weeks. The control group performed routine rehabilitation exercises, such as gentle quadriceps massage for 20 minutes twice a day for two consecutive weeks. Main Outcome Measures. PPT (pressure pain threshold) of quadriceps femoris/VAS (visual analog scale) of knee flexion and motion of knee flexion.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35310022 PMCID: PMC8930215 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1091174
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Patient selection process and study protocol.
Figure 2Traditional Chinese acupoint massage procedure.
Figure 3PPT was measured.
Comparison of the basic information of the two groups of patients.
| Group | Num | Age | Man | Female | Height (cm) | Weight (kg) | BMI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | 39 | 67.05 ± 7.27 | 6 (15.4%) | 33 (84.6%) | 158.77 ± 5.54 | 66.13 ± 9.58 | 26.22 ± 3.57 |
| Control | 38 | 66.53 ± 8.09 | 9 (23.7%) | 27 (76.3%) | 160.32 ± 6.82 | 65.82 ± 9.03 | 25.60 ± 3.31 |
|
| 0.401 | 0.278 | 0.883 | 0.436 |
Comparison of the WOMAC scores in the prospective patients.
| Group |
| One week before the operation | Three months after the operation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention | 39 | 75.36 ± 17.24 | 25.03 ± 11.16 |
| Control | 38 | 74.87 ± 17.88 | 29.84 ± 13.35 |
|
| 0.903 | 0.090 |
Figure 4(a) Comparison of VAS scores between the two groups of patients with 60° flexion. (b) Comparison of VAS scores between the two groups of patients with 90° flexion. (c) Comparison of VAS scores between the two groups of patients with 110° flexion. (d) Comparison of flexion mobility between the two groups of patients.
Figure 5Comparison of the PPT values between the two groups of patients at different degrees of flexion. (a) Comparison of PPT values of A point between two groups of patients with the knee at a flexion of 60°. (b) Comparison of PPT values of B point between two groups of patients with the knee at a flexion of 60°. (c) Comparison of PPT values of A point between two groups of patients with the knee at a flexion of 90°. (d) Comparison of PPT values of B point between two groups of patients with the knee at a flexion of 90°.