Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of Maitland accessory mobilization and neural mobilization in patients with tennis elbow.
METHODS: Twenty-five patients meeting the selection criteria were randomly assigned to three experimental groups: Group C (conventional treatment), Group B (neural mobilization), and Group A (Maitland mobilization). Quality of life was assessed using the Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), while pain, range of motion, and grip strength were evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), a universal goniometer, and a handheld dynamometer. The interventions were administered three times per week for four weeks to the respective groups.
RESULTS: Non-parametric tests were employed to analyze the results due to the non-normal distribution of the data (p < 0.05). Both the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were utilized to assess differences within and between groups. The results of the between-group analysis demonstrated significant differences in pain (p = 0.018) and quality of life (p = 0.045) among the three groups.
CONCLUSIONS: After a 4-week intervention, all three groups exhibited notable improvements in discomfort levels, grip strength, and quality of life. Notably, Group B demonstrated the most substantial increase in range of motion (ROM) compared to Groups A and C. Consequently, incorporating neural mobilization into the treatment plan is recommended for patients experiencing Tennis Elbow.
METHODS: Twenty-five patients meeting the selection criteria were randomly assigned to three experimental groups: Group C (conventional treatment), Group B (neural mobilization), and Group A (Maitland mobilization). Quality of life was assessed using the Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), while pain, range of motion, and grip strength were evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), a universal goniometer, and a handheld dynamometer. The interventions were administered three times per week for four weeks to the respective groups.
RESULTS: Non-parametric tests were employed to analyze the results due to the non-normal distribution of the data (p < 0.05). Both the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Kruskal-Wallis test were utilized to assess differences within and between groups. The results of the between-group analysis demonstrated significant differences in pain (p = 0.018) and quality of life (p = 0.045) among the three groups.
CONCLUSIONS: After a 4-week intervention, all three groups exhibited notable improvements in discomfort levels, grip strength, and quality of life. Notably, Group B demonstrated the most substantial increase in range of motion (ROM) compared to Groups A and C. Consequently, incorporating neural mobilization into the treatment plan is recommended for patients experiencing Tennis Elbow.
摘要：
目的：本研究的目的是评估梅特兰附件动员和神经动员对网球肘患者的疗效。
方法：将符合入选标准的25例患者随机分为三个实验组：C组（常规治疗），B组（神经动员），和A组（Maitland动员）。使用患者额定网球肘评估（PRTEE）评估生活质量，虽然痛苦，运动范围,和握力使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)进行评估，通用测角器，和一个手持式测功机.对各组进行每周3次干预，共4周。
结果：由于数据的非正态分布，因此采用非参数检验对结果进行分析（p<0.05）。Wilcoxon符号秩检验和Kruskal-Wallis检验均用于评估组内和组间的差异。组间分析的结果表明，三组之间的疼痛（p=0.018）和生活质量（p=0.045）存在显着差异。
结论：经过4周的干预，三组的不适程度均有显著改善,握力,和生活质量。值得注意的是,与A组和C组相比，B组的运动范围（ROM）增加最多。对于经历网球肘的患者，建议将神经动员纳入治疗计划。
方法：将符合入选标准的25例患者随机分为三个实验组：C组（常规治疗），B组（神经动员），和A组（Maitland动员）。使用患者额定网球肘评估（PRTEE）评估生活质量，虽然痛苦，运动范围,和握力使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)进行评估，通用测角器，和一个手持式测功机.对各组进行每周3次干预，共4周。
结果：由于数据的非正态分布，因此采用非参数检验对结果进行分析（p<0.05）。Wilcoxon符号秩检验和Kruskal-Wallis检验均用于评估组内和组间的差异。组间分析的结果表明，三组之间的疼痛（p=0.018）和生活质量（p=0.045）存在显着差异。
结论：经过4周的干预，三组的不适程度均有显著改善,握力,和生活质量。值得注意的是,与A组和C组相比，B组的运动范围（ROM）增加最多。对于经历网球肘的患者，建议将神经动员纳入治疗计划。
