Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of a myofascial release (MR) protocol applied with a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) conductive glove.
METHODS: Eighty individuals with neck myofascial syndrome were randomly divided into 4 groups: (1) MR protocol with a TENS conductive glove (MR+TENS), (2) MR protocol without TENS (MR), (3) conventional TENS protocol (TENS), and (4) placebo TENS (control). All participants attended 6 sessions over a period of 3 weeks. The following measures were evaluated at baseline, at the third week, and at the 1-month follow-up: Pain with the visual analog scale (VAS pain), upper trapezius pressure pain threshold (PPT) with pressure algometry, cervical range of motion (ROM) with goniometry, and disability with the neck disability index (NDI). A 2-way ANOVA with repeated measurements was applied.
RESULTS: Significant changes between the 3 intervention groups and the control group were noted in the VAS and the NDI scores (P < .05) with the MR+TENS group exhibiting the biggest difference. Additionally, MR significantly increased PPT compared to TENS, and even further when applied with the conductive glove (P < .05). Regarding lateral flexion ROM, MR was equally effective either alone or in combination with the glove compared to TENS (P < .05). In contrast, TENS did not appear to affect neck PPT and ROM (P > .05). Finally, no difference between the groups was detected in cervical rotation ROM (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The MR protocol appears to be more effective in dealing with pain, disability, and lateral flexion ROM than conventional TENS. A TENS conductive glove significantly improves the effects of MR, possibly due to the combined mechanical and electrical stimulation of the muscle.
METHODS: Eighty individuals with neck myofascial syndrome were randomly divided into 4 groups: (1) MR protocol with a TENS conductive glove (MR+TENS), (2) MR protocol without TENS (MR), (3) conventional TENS protocol (TENS), and (4) placebo TENS (control). All participants attended 6 sessions over a period of 3 weeks. The following measures were evaluated at baseline, at the third week, and at the 1-month follow-up: Pain with the visual analog scale (VAS pain), upper trapezius pressure pain threshold (PPT) with pressure algometry, cervical range of motion (ROM) with goniometry, and disability with the neck disability index (NDI). A 2-way ANOVA with repeated measurements was applied.
RESULTS: Significant changes between the 3 intervention groups and the control group were noted in the VAS and the NDI scores (P < .05) with the MR+TENS group exhibiting the biggest difference. Additionally, MR significantly increased PPT compared to TENS, and even further when applied with the conductive glove (P < .05). Regarding lateral flexion ROM, MR was equally effective either alone or in combination with the glove compared to TENS (P < .05). In contrast, TENS did not appear to affect neck PPT and ROM (P > .05). Finally, no difference between the groups was detected in cervical rotation ROM (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The MR protocol appears to be more effective in dealing with pain, disability, and lateral flexion ROM than conventional TENS. A TENS conductive glove significantly improves the effects of MR, possibly due to the combined mechanical and electrical stimulation of the muscle.
摘要：
目的：本研究的目的是评估与经皮电神经刺激（TENS）导电手套一起应用的肌筋膜释放（MR）方案的功效。
方法：将80例颈部肌筋膜综合征患者随机分为4组：（1）使用TENS导电手套（MRTENS）的MR方案，（2）无TENS的MR协议（MR），(3)常规TENS协议(TENS),和（4）安慰剂TENS（对照）。所有参与者在3周内参加了6次会议。在基线时评估了以下措施，第三周,和1个月的随访：疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS疼痛），上斜方肌压力痛阈值（PPT）与压力测量，颈椎活动范围（ROM）与测角，和残疾与颈部残疾指数（NDI）。应用具有重复测量的双向ANOVA。
结果：3个干预组与对照组的VAS和NDI评分有显著变化（P<0.05），其中MR+TENS组差异最大。此外,与TENS相比，MR显著增加PPT，并且甚至当与导电手套一起应用时(P<.05)。关于侧屈ROM，与TENS相比，MR单独或与手套联合使用同样有效（P<0.05）。相比之下,TENS似乎不影响颈部PPT和ROM(P>.05)。最后,两组间宫颈旋转ROM无差异(P>.05)。
结论：MR方案似乎在处理疼痛方面更有效，残疾,和横向屈曲ROM比传统的TENS。TENS导电手套显着改善了MR的效果，可能是由于肌肉的机械和电刺激相结合。
方法：将80例颈部肌筋膜综合征患者随机分为4组：（1）使用TENS导电手套（MRTENS）的MR方案，（2）无TENS的MR协议（MR），(3)常规TENS协议(TENS),和（4）安慰剂TENS（对照）。所有参与者在3周内参加了6次会议。在基线时评估了以下措施，第三周,和1个月的随访：疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS疼痛），上斜方肌压力痛阈值（PPT）与压力测量，颈椎活动范围（ROM）与测角，和残疾与颈部残疾指数（NDI）。应用具有重复测量的双向ANOVA。
结果：3个干预组与对照组的VAS和NDI评分有显著变化（P<0.05），其中MR+TENS组差异最大。此外,与TENS相比，MR显著增加PPT，并且甚至当与导电手套一起应用时(P<.05)。关于侧屈ROM，与TENS相比，MR单独或与手套联合使用同样有效（P<0.05）。相比之下,TENS似乎不影响颈部PPT和ROM(P>.05)。最后,两组间宫颈旋转ROM无差异(P>.05)。
结论：MR方案似乎在处理疼痛方面更有效，残疾,和横向屈曲ROM比传统的TENS。TENS导电手套显着改善了MR的效果，可能是由于肌肉的机械和电刺激相结合。
