PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Tennis elbow is a common musculoskeletal disease of elbow and causes restricted movement of forearm. Various treatment modalities like NSAID, corticosteroid injection, counter bracing, physiotherapy, surgery etc are available but safety and efficacy of one treatment over another is under research. Ayurveda classifies this condition as Snayugata vata. According to Sushruta, Agnikarma (thermal cautery) is the one among the treatment modalities for Snayugata vata. Previously published randomised controlled trials have shown that therapeutic ultrasound is safe and effective for tennis elbow. However, the comparative efficacy of these two treatment modalities is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the effects of Agnikarma (AGK) with Therapeutic Ultrasound (TUS) in reducing pain, tenderness and restores the ability to do various tasks.
METHODS: A total of 30 patients were enrolled in the study as an open-label, double-armed, prospectively designed comparative clinical study, with 15 patients in each group. Group AGK received two sittings of Agnikarma and Group TUS received therapeutic ultrasound. To analyze the patients, three outcome measures were adopted: pain intensity, assessed with a Numerical Pain Rating Scale, tenderness - Grade 0 to Grade 4 (mentioned in Hutchinson\'s clinical methods) and pain and functional Disability assessed with the Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) questionnaire. Assessment was done on 0th, 8th, 15th, 30th and 60th day.
RESULTS: Tennis elbow can be effectively treated with AGK and TUS. (p < 0.001 for pain, tenderness and PRTEE). While comparing between the groups, on 8th day and 15th day statistically significant difference in pain and PRTEE (p < 0.05) was noted between AGK and TUS groups. Agnikarma showed better results than therapeutic ultrasound in pain management and showed an improved quality of life from 8th day onwards and for a period up to 2 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Both Agnikarma and therapeutic ultrasound have roles in the management of tennis elbow. However, starting on the 8th day and continuing for up to 2 months, Agnikarma showed a significant benefit in pain management and improved status for quality of life.
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the effects of Agnikarma (AGK) with Therapeutic Ultrasound (TUS) in reducing pain, tenderness and restores the ability to do various tasks.
METHODS: A total of 30 patients were enrolled in the study as an open-label, double-armed, prospectively designed comparative clinical study, with 15 patients in each group. Group AGK received two sittings of Agnikarma and Group TUS received therapeutic ultrasound. To analyze the patients, three outcome measures were adopted: pain intensity, assessed with a Numerical Pain Rating Scale, tenderness - Grade 0 to Grade 4 (mentioned in Hutchinson\'s clinical methods) and pain and functional Disability assessed with the Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE) questionnaire. Assessment was done on 0th, 8th, 15th, 30th and 60th day.
RESULTS: Tennis elbow can be effectively treated with AGK and TUS. (p < 0.001 for pain, tenderness and PRTEE). While comparing between the groups, on 8th day and 15th day statistically significant difference in pain and PRTEE (p < 0.05) was noted between AGK and TUS groups. Agnikarma showed better results than therapeutic ultrasound in pain management and showed an improved quality of life from 8th day onwards and for a period up to 2 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Both Agnikarma and therapeutic ultrasound have roles in the management of tennis elbow. However, starting on the 8th day and continuing for up to 2 months, Agnikarma showed a significant benefit in pain management and improved status for quality of life.
摘要：
背景：网球肘是一种常见的肘关节肌肉骨骼疾病，可导致前臂活动受限。各种治疗方式，如NSAID，皮质类固醇注射液,反撑,物理治疗,手术等是可用的，但一种治疗的安全性和有效性正在研究中。阿育吠陀将这种情况归类为Snayugatavata。根据Sushruta的说法,Agnikarma（热烧灼）是Snayugatavata的治疗方式之一。先前发表的随机对照试验表明，治疗性超声对网球肘是安全有效的。然而,这两种治疗方式的疗效比较尚不清楚.
目的：本研究比较了Agnikarma（AGK）与治疗性超声（TUS）在减轻疼痛方面的作用，温柔，恢复做各种任务的能力。
方法：共有30名患者作为开放标签纳入研究，双臂,前瞻性设计的比较临床研究，每组15名患者。AGK组接受了两次Agnikarma，TUS组接受了治疗性超声检查。为了分析病人，采用了三项结果测量:疼痛强度，用数字疼痛评定量表评估，压痛-0级至4级（在Hutchinson的临床方法中提到）以及使用患者评定的网球肘评估（PRTEE）问卷评估的疼痛和功能残疾。评估是在0号完成的，8th,15th,第30天和第60天。
结果：用AGK和TUS可以有效治疗网球肘。（疼痛p<0.001，压痛和PRTEE）。在组间比较时，在第8天和第15天，AGK和TUS组之间的疼痛和PRTEE差异具有统计学意义（p<0.05）。Agnikarma在疼痛管理方面显示出比治疗性超声更好的结果，并且从第8天开始和长达2个月的时间内显示出改善的生活质量。
结论：Agnikarma和治疗性超声在网球肘的治疗中都有作用。然而,从第8天开始，持续2个月，Agnikarma在疼痛管理和改善生活质量方面显示出显著的益处。
目的：本研究比较了Agnikarma（AGK）与治疗性超声（TUS）在减轻疼痛方面的作用，温柔，恢复做各种任务的能力。
方法：共有30名患者作为开放标签纳入研究，双臂,前瞻性设计的比较临床研究，每组15名患者。AGK组接受了两次Agnikarma，TUS组接受了治疗性超声检查。为了分析病人，采用了三项结果测量:疼痛强度，用数字疼痛评定量表评估，压痛-0级至4级（在Hutchinson的临床方法中提到）以及使用患者评定的网球肘评估（PRTEE）问卷评估的疼痛和功能残疾。评估是在0号完成的，8th,15th,第30天和第60天。
结果：用AGK和TUS可以有效治疗网球肘。（疼痛p<0.001，压痛和PRTEE）。在组间比较时，在第8天和第15天，AGK和TUS组之间的疼痛和PRTEE差异具有统计学意义（p<0.05）。Agnikarma在疼痛管理方面显示出比治疗性超声更好的结果，并且从第8天开始和长达2个月的时间内显示出改善的生活质量。
结论：Agnikarma和治疗性超声在网球肘的治疗中都有作用。然而,从第8天开始，持续2个月，Agnikarma在疼痛管理和改善生活质量方面显示出显著的益处。
