To compare the effectiveness of Doctor Tecar TherapyTM with that of laser therapy in the management of low back pain (LBP), a total of 60 patients with LBP were enrolled. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: a Tecar group (experimental group, 30 subjects), and a laser group (control group, 30 subjects). All the subjects received 10 sessions of therapy: one each day from Monday to Friday and the same again the following week. All the subjects were evaluated for pain (VAS) and disability (Roland and Morris score and Oswestry score) at baseline (T0), and 2 weeks (T1), 1 month (T2) and 2 months (T3) after the end of treatment. The pain and disability presented a trend to improvement over time in both groups. This improvement was statistically significant at all follow-ups (FUs) in the Tecar group but only at T1 for the Laser group (p less than 0.01). Comparing the two methods, there emerged a significant difference in favour of the Tecar group at T2 and T3 (p less than 0.01). The results show that Tecar therapy determined significant improvement already by the end of the treatment. Moreover, at the first and second month FUs, the Tecar therapy showed statistically better results than laser therapy.
Short term efficacy of capacitive-resistive diathermy therapy in patients with low back pain: a prospective randomized controlled trial
MACCAGNANO, GIUSEPPE;
2017-01-01
Abstract
To compare the effectiveness of Doctor Tecar TherapyTM with that of laser therapy in the management of low back pain (LBP), a total of 60 patients with LBP were enrolled. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: a Tecar group (experimental group, 30 subjects), and a laser group (control group, 30 subjects). All the subjects received 10 sessions of therapy: one each day from Monday to Friday and the same again the following week. All the subjects were evaluated for pain (VAS) and disability (Roland and Morris score and Oswestry score) at baseline (T0), and 2 weeks (T1), 1 month (T2) and 2 months (T3) after the end of treatment. The pain and disability presented a trend to improvement over time in both groups. This improvement was statistically significant at all follow-ups (FUs) in the Tecar group but only at T1 for the Laser group (p less than 0.01). Comparing the two methods, there emerged a significant difference in favour of the Tecar group at T2 and T3 (p less than 0.01). The results show that Tecar therapy determined significant improvement already by the end of the treatment. Moreover, at the first and second month FUs, the Tecar therapy showed statistically better results than laser therapy.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
