4.7 Article

Effects of radial extracorporeal shockwave therapy on spasticity of upper-limb agonist/antagonist muscles in patients affected by stroke: a randomized, single-blind clinical trial

期刊

AGE AND AGEING
卷 49, 期 2, 页码 246-252

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afz159

关键词

spasticity; radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT); stroke; rehabilitation; older people

资金

  1. Shanghai Science and Technology Commission [:15411970300]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: the effects of radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (rESWT) were assessed on agonist/antagonist muscles in stroke patients with elbow spasticity, the duration of effects and influence on function. Methods: patients were randomly assigned into groups: control (A, n = 25), rESWT on agonist muscles (B, n = 27) and rESWT on antagonist muscles (C, n = 30) groups. Conventional physical therapy was given to three groups for 3 weeks, six times a week, and besides, rESWT was given at 4-day intervals for five consecutive treatments, B received rESWT on agonist muscles and C received rESWT on antagonist muscles. The primary outcome was Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) scores. Modified Tardieu Scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Fugl-Meyer Assessment and swelling scale (SS) scores were secondary outcomes. Indicators were assessed at baseline, after five treatments and after 4 weeks follow-up. Results: the rate of treatment was determined by changes in MAS, which was 16.0 (A), 70.4 (B) and 63.3% (C) after rESWT treatments, and was 24.0 (A), 74.1 (B) and 66.7% (C) after 4 weeks follow-up. Improvements were achieved for R1 (P < 0.01), R2 (P < 0.01) and VAS (P < 0.01) after five rESWT interventions. At 4 weeks, significant improvements were achieved for R1 (P < 0.01) and VAS (P < 0.01). Conclusions: rESWT is an effective therapy for spasticity after stroke, with lasting effects on both agonist and antagonist muscles after 4 weeks. rESWT relieved pain but had no effect on active function or swelling of the upper limbs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据