3.9 Article

EFFICACY OF PULSED ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD THERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH LUMBAR SPINAL STENOSIS: A RANDOMISED CONTROLLED STUDY

期刊

出版社

GUNES KITABEVI LTD STI
DOI: 10.31086/tjgeri.2018.62

关键词

Spinal stenosis; Magnetic fields; Back pain; Quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a disorder that may cause low back and/or leg pain. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in lomber spinal stenosis. Materials and method: This study is single-blind randomised controlled study. Fifty patients diagnosed with lomber spinal stenosis were randomised into two groups. Patients in the first group [median age 61 (51-84) years] underwent 10 sessions of active pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (25 Hz, 80 gauss) for 15 minutes a day, whereas those in the second group [median age 64 (55-77) years] were controls and underwent 10 sessions of placebo pulsed electromagnetic field therapy. The patients were assessed with VAS, the Timed Up and Go test, Oswestry Disability Index and EQ5D-VAS. All tests were completed at baseline, after treatment and at a 3-week follow-up. Results: Forty-nine patients completed the study. The pulsed electromagnetic field therapy group significantly improved VAS score, Oswestry Disability Index and EQ5D-VAS (p<0.05) after treatment. Significant improvement was sustained after 3-week follow up. In the placebo group, there was no significant change in VAS score, Oswestry Disability Index or EQ5D-VAS (p>0.05) after treatment. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy group showed significant improvement than plasebo group in terms of pain severity, Oswestry Disability Index, EQ5D-VAS and Timed Up and Go after treatment and at follow-up (p<0.05). Conclusion: Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy appears to be useful in terms of back and/or leg pain, functional mobility, physical disability and general health-related quality of life in lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据