Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Adv Skin Wound Care ; 29(10): 447-59, 2016 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27632442

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of high-voltage monophasic pulsed current (HVMPC) as an adjunct to a standard wound care for the treatment of Stage II and III pressure ulcers (PrUs). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study. SETTING: Two nursing and care centers. PATIENTS: Patients with PrUs that did not respond to previous treatment for at least 4 weeks were randomly assigned to the electrical stimulation (ES) group (25 patients; mean age of 79.92 ± 8.50 years; mean wound surface area [WSA] of 10.58 ± 10.57 cm) or to the control group (24 patients; mean age of 76.33 ± 12.74 years; mean WSA of 9.71 ± 6.70 cm). INTERVENTIONS: Both the ES and control groups received standard wound care and respectively, cathodal HVMPC (154 microseconds; 100 pulses per second; 0.24 A; 250 µ/s) applied continuously for 50 minutes once a day, 5 times a week, or sham HVMPC. MAIN OUTCOME: Percentage area reduction over 6 weeks of intervention. MAIN RESULTS: In the ES group, there was a statistically significant decrease in WSA after 1 week of treatment (35% ± 30.5%) compared with 17.07% ± 34.13% in the control group (P = .032). After treatment, at week 6, percentage area reduction in the ES group was 80.31% ± 29.02% versus 54.65% ± 42.65% in the control group (P = .046). CONCLUSIONS: Cathodal HVMPC reduces the WSA of Stage II and III PrUs. The results are consistent with the results of other researchers who used HVMPC to treat PrUs.


Subject(s)
Electric Stimulation Therapy/methods , Pressure Ulcer/diagnosis , Pressure Ulcer/therapy , Wound Healing/physiology , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Double-Blind Method , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Sex Factors , Statistics, Nonparametric , Treatment Outcome
2.
J Hum Kinet ; 47: 127-35, 2015 Sep 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26557197

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of radial and focused shock wave therapies applied to treat tennis elbow. Patients with tennis elbow were randomized into two comparative groups: focused shock wave therapy (FSWT; n=25) and radial shock wave therapy (RSWT; n=25). Subjects in the FSWT and RSWT groups were applied with a focused shock wave (3 sessions, 2000 shocks, 4 Hz, 0.2 mJ/mm(2)) and a radial shock wave (3 sessions, 2000 + 2000 shocks, 8 Hz, 2.5 bar), respectively. The primary study endpoints were pain relief and functional improvement (muscle strength) one week after therapy. The secondary endpoint consisted of the results of the follow-up observation (3, 6 and 12 weeks after the study). Successive measurements showed that the amount of pain patients felt decreased in both groups. At the same time grip strength as well as strength of wrist extensors and flexors of the affected extremity improved significantly. Both focused and radial shock wave therapies can comparably and gradually reduce pain in subjects with tennis elbow. This process is accompanied by steadily improved strength of the affected extremity.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...