Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Myofascial pain syndrome is a painful musculoskeletal condition with muscle spasm, referred pain, stiffness, restricted range of motion. Capacitive-resistive diathermy heats deep tissues by transferring energy through radiofrequency waves. Although this modality is used to treat various musculoskeletal disorders, there is no specific data on myofascial trigger points. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of capacitive-resistive diathermy on the myofascial trigger points.
METHODS: Thirty-six volunteers with active myofascial trigger points were included. Patients were randomly and equally allocated into two groups. Group-1 is the capacitive-resistive diathermy treatment group; Group-2 is the placebo capacitive-resistive diathermy (PG). Visual analog scale (VAS), pain pressure threshold (PPT), neck disability index (NDI), neck range of motion (nROM), Short form-36 (SF-36) were used as outcomes before and after the intervention.
RESULTS: In both groups, VAS, PPT, NDI score significantly improved within the groups (p < 0.05). The CRG showed a statistically significant improvement in nROM for flexion, extension, and rotation (p < 0.05). However, ROM increase in CRG is not superior to PG (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the two groups. We thought positive results in the PG might attributed to doing exercise. As a result, capacitive-resistive diathermy is not superior to exercise, but can be used as an adjuvant modality in myofascial trigger points treatment.
METHODS: Thirty-six volunteers with active myofascial trigger points were included. Patients were randomly and equally allocated into two groups. Group-1 is the capacitive-resistive diathermy treatment group; Group-2 is the placebo capacitive-resistive diathermy (PG). Visual analog scale (VAS), pain pressure threshold (PPT), neck disability index (NDI), neck range of motion (nROM), Short form-36 (SF-36) were used as outcomes before and after the intervention.
RESULTS: In both groups, VAS, PPT, NDI score significantly improved within the groups (p < 0.05). The CRG showed a statistically significant improvement in nROM for flexion, extension, and rotation (p < 0.05). However, ROM increase in CRG is not superior to PG (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the two groups. We thought positive results in the PG might attributed to doing exercise. As a result, capacitive-resistive diathermy is not superior to exercise, but can be used as an adjuvant modality in myofascial trigger points treatment.
摘要：
背景：肌筋膜疼痛综合征是一种伴有肌肉痉挛的肌肉骨骼疼痛疾病，提到疼痛，刚度,运动范围受限。电容阻性透热疗法通过射频波传递能量来加热深层组织。尽管这种方式用于治疗各种肌肉骨骼疾病，没有关于肌筋膜触发点的具体数据。因此，我们旨在评估电容阻性透热疗法对肌筋膜触发点的有效性.
方法：纳入36名肌筋膜触发点活跃的志愿者。患者随机平均分为两组。第1组是电容-电阻性透热治疗组；第2组是安慰剂电容-电阻性透热（PG）。视觉模拟量表(VAS),疼痛压力阈值（PPT），颈部残疾指数（NDI），颈部运动范围（nROM），在干预前后，使用简短形式-36（SF-36）作为结果。
结果：在两组中，VAS,PPT,NDI评分在组内显著提高(p<0.05)。CRG在屈曲的nROM方面显示出统计学上的显着改善，扩展,和旋转(p<0.05)。然而,CRG的ROM增加并不优于PG(p>0.05)。
结论：两组间无显著差异。我们认为PG的积极结果可能归因于做运动。因此,电容电阻透热疗法并不优于运动，但可以用作肌筋膜触发点治疗的辅助方式。
方法：纳入36名肌筋膜触发点活跃的志愿者。患者随机平均分为两组。第1组是电容-电阻性透热治疗组；第2组是安慰剂电容-电阻性透热（PG）。视觉模拟量表(VAS),疼痛压力阈值（PPT），颈部残疾指数（NDI），颈部运动范围（nROM），在干预前后，使用简短形式-36（SF-36）作为结果。
结果：在两组中，VAS,PPT,NDI评分在组内显著提高(p<0.05)。CRG在屈曲的nROM方面显示出统计学上的显着改善，扩展,和旋转(p<0.05)。然而,CRG的ROM增加并不优于PG(p>0.05)。
结论：两组间无显著差异。我们认为PG的积极结果可能归因于做运动。因此,电容电阻透热疗法并不优于运动，但可以用作肌筋膜触发点治疗的辅助方式。
