RESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare the effects of various types of ultrasound therapy (UST) on pain, function, and quality of life in patients with hip osteoarthritis. METHODS: Seventy-one patients receiving conventional physiotherapy (exercise, massage, and balneotherapy), were randomly allocated into four treatment groups: (1) continuous UST, (2) pulsed UST, (3) UST combined with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), (4) placebo UST. We evaluated the hip pain (Visual Analog Scale), medication use, functional impairment (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index; 6-minute walking test) and quality of life (SF-36) before, right after the treatments, and at 3 months follow-up. RESULTS: Resting pain improved significantly in all treatment groups at the follow-up visit compared to baseline (p (group1-4) ≤0.002). The proportion of patients achieving Minimal Clinically Important Improvement (MCII) in function at month 3 was the highest in group 3 (73%). The 6-minute walking test significantly improved in each group during the follow-up period (p (group1-4) ≤ 0.025). Pain (p (group1-4) ≤ 0.014) and general health domains of the SF-36 showed the greatest improvement (p (group 2-4) ≤ 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference among the effects of various types of UST on pain, function, and quality of life in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis. Additional ultrasound treatment is not likely to increase the effect of the conventional therapy on pain and function in hip osteoarthritis.
