Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of focused low-intensity pulsed ultrasound versus pulsed shortwave diathermy on knee osteoarthritis: a randomized comparative trial

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of focused low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (FLIPUS) with pulsed shortwave diathermy (PSWD) in subjects with painful knee osteoarthritis (OA). In a prospective randomized trial, 114 knee OA patients were randomly allocated to receive FLIPUS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jia, Lang, Li, Dongqian, Wei, Xia, Chen, Jinyun, Zuo, Deyu, Chen, Wenzhi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9329394/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35896688
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17291-z
_version_ 1784757910478258176
author Jia, Lang
Li, Dongqian
Wei, Xia
Chen, Jinyun
Zuo, Deyu
Chen, Wenzhi
author_facet Jia, Lang
Li, Dongqian
Wei, Xia
Chen, Jinyun
Zuo, Deyu
Chen, Wenzhi
author_sort Jia, Lang
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of focused low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (FLIPUS) with pulsed shortwave diathermy (PSWD) in subjects with painful knee osteoarthritis (OA). In a prospective randomized trial, 114 knee OA patients were randomly allocated to receive FLIPUS or PSWD therapy. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores. Secondary outcomes included the numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain assessment, time up and go (TUG) test, active joint range of motion (ROM) test, and Global Rating of Change (GRC) scale. Data were collected at baseline, 12 days, 12 weeks and 24 weeks. Patients receiving FLIPUS therapy experienced significantly greater improvements in the WOMAC total scores than patients receiving PSWD therapy at 12 days (mean difference, − 10.50; 95% CI − 13.54 to − 7.45; P = 0.000). The results of the NRS, TUG test, ROM test and GRC scale showed that participants treated with FLIPUS reported less pain and better physical function and health status than those treated with PSWD at 12 days (P = 0.011, P = 0.005, P = 0.025, P = 0.011, respectively). Furthermore, patients in the FLIPUS group showed significant improvements in the WOMAC total scores and NRS scores at 12 weeks (mean difference, − 7.57; 95% CI − 10.87 to − 4.26; P = 0.000 and − 1.79; 95% CI − 2.11 to − 1.47, respectively) and 24 weeks (mean difference, − 6.96; 95% CI − 10.22 to − 3.71; P = 0.000 and − 1.37; 95% CI − 1.64 to − 0.96; P = 0.000, respectively) of follow-up. There were no adverse events during or after the interventions in either group. This study concluded that both FLIPUS and pulsed SWD are safe modalities, and FLIPUS was more effective than PSWD in alleviating pain and in improving dysfunction and health status among subjects with knee OA in the short term. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000032735. Registered 08/05/2020, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=53413.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9329394
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93293942022-07-29 Efficacy and safety of focused low-intensity pulsed ultrasound versus pulsed shortwave diathermy on knee osteoarthritis: a randomized comparative trial Jia, Lang Li, Dongqian Wei, Xia Chen, Jinyun Zuo, Deyu Chen, Wenzhi Sci Rep Article The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of focused low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (FLIPUS) with pulsed shortwave diathermy (PSWD) in subjects with painful knee osteoarthritis (OA). In a prospective randomized trial, 114 knee OA patients were randomly allocated to receive FLIPUS or PSWD therapy. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores. Secondary outcomes included the numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain assessment, time up and go (TUG) test, active joint range of motion (ROM) test, and Global Rating of Change (GRC) scale. Data were collected at baseline, 12 days, 12 weeks and 24 weeks. Patients receiving FLIPUS therapy experienced significantly greater improvements in the WOMAC total scores than patients receiving PSWD therapy at 12 days (mean difference, − 10.50; 95% CI − 13.54 to − 7.45; P = 0.000). The results of the NRS, TUG test, ROM test and GRC scale showed that participants treated with FLIPUS reported less pain and better physical function and health status than those treated with PSWD at 12 days (P = 0.011, P = 0.005, P = 0.025, P = 0.011, respectively). Furthermore, patients in the FLIPUS group showed significant improvements in the WOMAC total scores and NRS scores at 12 weeks (mean difference, − 7.57; 95% CI − 10.87 to − 4.26; P = 0.000 and − 1.79; 95% CI − 2.11 to − 1.47, respectively) and 24 weeks (mean difference, − 6.96; 95% CI − 10.22 to − 3.71; P = 0.000 and − 1.37; 95% CI − 1.64 to − 0.96; P = 0.000, respectively) of follow-up. There were no adverse events during or after the interventions in either group. This study concluded that both FLIPUS and pulsed SWD are safe modalities, and FLIPUS was more effective than PSWD in alleviating pain and in improving dysfunction and health status among subjects with knee OA in the short term. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000032735. Registered 08/05/2020, http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=53413. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9329394/ /pubmed/35896688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17291-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Jia, Lang
Li, Dongqian
Wei, Xia
Chen, Jinyun
Zuo, Deyu
Chen, Wenzhi
Efficacy and safety of focused low-intensity pulsed ultrasound versus pulsed shortwave diathermy on knee osteoarthritis: a randomized comparative trial
title Efficacy and safety of focused low-intensity pulsed ultrasound versus pulsed shortwave diathermy on knee osteoarthritis: a randomized comparative trial
title_full Efficacy and safety of focused low-intensity pulsed ultrasound versus pulsed shortwave diathermy on knee osteoarthritis: a randomized comparative trial
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of focused low-intensity pulsed ultrasound versus pulsed shortwave diathermy on knee osteoarthritis: a randomized comparative trial
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of focused low-intensity pulsed ultrasound versus pulsed shortwave diathermy on knee osteoarthritis: a randomized comparative trial
title_short Efficacy and safety of focused low-intensity pulsed ultrasound versus pulsed shortwave diathermy on knee osteoarthritis: a randomized comparative trial
title_sort efficacy and safety of focused low-intensity pulsed ultrasound versus pulsed shortwave diathermy on knee osteoarthritis: a randomized comparative trial
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9329394/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35896688
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17291-z
work_keys_str_mv AT jialang efficacyandsafetyoffocusedlowintensitypulsedultrasoundversuspulsedshortwavediathermyonkneeosteoarthritisarandomizedcomparativetrial
AT lidongqian efficacyandsafetyoffocusedlowintensitypulsedultrasoundversuspulsedshortwavediathermyonkneeosteoarthritisarandomizedcomparativetrial
AT weixia efficacyandsafetyoffocusedlowintensitypulsedultrasoundversuspulsedshortwavediathermyonkneeosteoarthritisarandomizedcomparativetrial
AT chenjinyun efficacyandsafetyoffocusedlowintensitypulsedultrasoundversuspulsedshortwavediathermyonkneeosteoarthritisarandomizedcomparativetrial
AT zuodeyu efficacyandsafetyoffocusedlowintensitypulsedultrasoundversuspulsedshortwavediathermyonkneeosteoarthritisarandomizedcomparativetrial
AT chenwenzhi efficacyandsafetyoffocusedlowintensitypulsedultrasoundversuspulsedshortwavediathermyonkneeosteoarthritisarandomizedcomparativetrial