MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3031822472 · doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2019.05.004

Effect of ultrasound-guided extracorporeal shock wave on neck-shoulder myofascial pain syndrome

2019· article· en· W3031822472 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bo Chen, Min Su, Zhenglu Yin, Jibing Wang, Xibin Zhang, Xing Jin, Xuehan Sang, Zhaoxiang Meng

Notice bibliographique

RevueChin J Geriatr Orthop Rehabil(Electronic Edition) · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineUltrasoundTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationMassageMyofascial pain syndromePlantar fasciaSurgeryRehabilitationNeck painTherapeutic ultrasoundOutpatient clinicAnesthesiaPhysical therapyPlantar fasciitisHeelInternal medicineRadiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Objective To explore the clinical efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided extracorporeal shock wave in the treatment of the neck-shoulder myofascial pain syndrome. Methods A total of 60 patients with neck and shoulder muscle fascia pain syndrome admitted to the outpatient department of Jiangsu Subei People's Hospital and the First Affiliated Hospital of Suzhou University from January 2017 to June 2018 were prospectively divided into treatment group and the control group according to the random number table, each group had 30 cases, the control group received infrared, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, massage and other routine rehabilitation training, the treatment group had additional ultrasound guided guided shock wave treatment, 2 times a week, continuous treatment for 3 week under the basis of the control group. The McGill pain questionnaire (MQG) and the neck disability index (NDI) were used to evaluate the function of the two groups before and after the first treatment and after 3 weeks. The hardness of the neck and shoulder fascia (Emean value) and thickness (mm) were evaluated by shear wave ultrasound elastography. Results The PRI-T scores of the two groups before treatment, after the first treatment, and after 3 weeks of treatment were (8.1±3.2)/(7.9±3.3), (4.3 ±2.6)/(5.2±2.5), (1.1±1.3)/(3.3±1.4) points, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (F=2.368, F=1.985, P<0.05). There was significant difference between the groups (t=1.985, P<0.05). The VAS scores were: (6.2±2.3)/(6.4±2.4), (4.4±2.1)/(4.9±2.3), (2.6±1.3)/(3.2±1.7) points, before and after treatment, the differences between the two groups were statistically significant (F=2.315, F=1.876, P<0.05). The difference between the groups was statistically significant (t=1.752, P<0.05). The PPI scores were (2.6±0.8)/(2.5±0.7), (1.3±0.6)/(1.6±0.4), (0.4±0.3)/(0.9±0.6) points. The difference before and after treatment between the two groups was statistically significant (F=2.056, F=1.988, P<0.05), and the intergroup difference was statistically significant (t=1.680, P<0.05). The NDI were (43.2±2.9)/(42.9±2.8), (26.7±3.4)/(31.1±3.3), (11.4±3.2)/(23.3±3.4) points, and the differences before and after treatment between the two groups were statistical significance (F=3.689, F=3.002, P<0.05), the intergroup comparison was statistically significant (t=1.680, P<0.05). After 3 weeks of the treatment, the hardness and thickness of the trapezius fascia were improved from (18.4±4.3)/(17.9±4.4) kPa and (7.9±0.8)/(7.8±0.8) mm before treatment to (6.5±2.8)/(9.7±3.2) kPa and (4.6±0.5)/(5.4±0.7) mm, the difference was statistically significant (t=6.325, t=5.256, t=2.589, t=2.014, P< 0.05), and the treatment group were better than the control group, difference was statistically significant (t=2.652, t=1.801, P<0.05). The hardness and thickness of the levator fascia of the two groups were improved, from (14.7±3.4)/(14.9±3.1) kPa and (6.7±0.6)/(6.8±0.5) mm before treatment to (5.9±2.4)/(8.1±3.7) kPa and (4.8±0.6)/(5.1±0.6) mm, the difference were statistically significant (t=4.585, t=3.652, t=1.982, t=1.710, P<0.05). The treatment group were better than the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (t=2.655, t=1.699, P<0.05). The hardness and thickness of the rhomboid fascia of the two groups were improved, from (10.3±4.2)/(11.1±3.8) kPa and (6.0±0.7)/(6.4±0.6) mm to (4.2±1.3)/(6.4±2.8) kPa and (4.7±0.3)/(5.6±0.6) mm, the difference were statistically significant (t=4.602, t=4.055, t=2.621, t=1.986, P<0.05), and the treatment group were better than the control group, difference was statistically significant (t=2.540, t=1.729, P<0.05). Conclusion Ultrasound-guided extracorporeal shock wave can effectively relieve the pain of neck-shoulder myofascial pain syndrome, improve the function of neck and the shoulder. Meanwhile, the application of shear-wave ultrasonic elastography can provide accurate diagnosis and treatment, which is worthy of clinical application. Key words: Myofascial pain syndromes; Extracorporeal shockwave therapy; Trigger points; Musculoskeletal ultrasound

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,002

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,004
Tête enseignante GPT0,229
Écart entre enseignants0,225 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueChin J Geriatr Orthop Rehabil(Electronic Edition)Même sujetMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentTravaux en français237 207