Efficacy of therapeutic ultrasound for the management of knee osteoarthritis

Post on May 25, 2014 by André Broussard, D.C.

A randomized, controlled, and double-blind study

Story Source
PubMed Reference
Journal Reference

American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 05/25/2014

Cakir S, et al. – The present study demonstrated that all assessment parameters significantly improved in all groups without a significant difference. This result suggested that therapeutic US provided no additional benefit in improving pain and functions in addition to exercise training.

Methods

  • A randomized controlled study was carried out on 60 patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis according to American College of Rheumatology.
  • The patients were randomized into the following three treatments:
    • (1) continuous US (at a frequency of 1 MHz with intensity of 1 W/cm2),
    • (2) pulse US (same frequency and intensity on 1:4 pulse ratio), and
    • (3) sham US.
    • All treatments were applied with 5–cm2 head US device five times a week for 2 weeks in addition to home exercise program including quadriceps isometric exercise, muscle strength exercises, and stretching exercises of the lower extremity muscles for at least three times per week.
    • Assessments were performed at baseline, at the end of the treatment, and at the end of the treatments and at the sixth month using the following measurements:
    • Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index–pain, stiffness, function, visual analog scale–pain at rest, visual analog scale–pain on movement, visual analog scale–disease severity, and 20–m walking time.
    • Among these parameters, the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index–pain was the primary outcome.

Results

  • All groups showed a significant improvement in all parameters in both following visits (P < 0.05).
  • However, there was no significant difference between the groups.
  • Although the mean reduction percent in Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index–pain was significantly higher in group I (continuous US) when compared to sham group (46.5% vs 28.9%, P < 0.05) at the end of the treatment, this result was not found in other pain parameters.
Comments Are Closed