Gelişmiş Arama

Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorÇiftçi, Yıldız Gonca Doğru
dc.contributor.authorTuncay, Figen
dc.contributor.authorKoçak, Fatmanur Aybala
dc.contributor.authorOkçu, Mehmet
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-16T08:10:10Z
dc.date.available2023-03-16T08:10:10Z
dc.date.issued2023en_US
dc.identifier.citationCiftci, Y. G. D., Tuncay, F., Kocak, F. A., & Okcu, M. (2023). Is Low-Dose Dextrose Prolotherapy as Effective as High-Dose Dextrose Prolotherapy in the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis? A Double-Blind, Ultrasound Guided, Randomized Controlled Study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 104(2), 179-187.en_US
dc.identifier.issn00039993
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2022.09.017
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12513/4971
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To investigate the effects of prolotherapy (PrT) on pain, functionality, clinical improvement and to compare the 5% low and 15% high dose dextrose PrT in chronic lateral epicondylitis. Design: A double-blind, parallel groups, randomized controlled study. Settings: Outpatient Clinic. Participants: Sixty patients (N=60), aged 44.30±10.31 years old, with chronic lateral epicondylitis were allocated randomly into 3 groups. Interventions: To Group 1 5% dextrose PrT, to Group 2 15% dextrose PrT, to Group 3 0.9% saline injections were done at 3 times (weeks 0, 3, 6), to the entheses of forearm extensors and annular ligament. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcomes were handgrip strength, visual analog scale-rest (VAS-R), visual analog scale-activity (VAS-A), pressure-pain threshold, and Quick Disability of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (Q-DASH). The secondary outcomes were clinical improvement (Disease Global Assessment Questionnaire), side effects, and complications. Primary outcomes were collected at baseline week 0, week 3, and 12. Secondary outcomes were collected at weeks 3 and 12. Results: In Group 2, VAS-A and VAS-R (at week 3), handgrip strength and pressure-pain threshold (at week 12) were significantly different than other groups (P<.05). In Groups 1 and 2, there was a difference in primary outcomes at week 12 than baseline (P[removed].05). Conclusion: In chronic lateral epicondylitis, 5% and 15% dextrose PrT is more effective in pain, handgrip strength, functionality, and clinical improvement than %0.9 saline. There was no difference in functionality, clinical improvement, side effects, and complications between the PrT groups. 15% dextrose PrT was more effective in handgrip strength and pressure-pain threshold at week 12 and pain at week 3. We recommend 15% dextrose PrT based on this study. © 2022 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicineen_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherW.B. Saundersen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1016/j.apmr.2022.09.017en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectLateral epicondylitisen_US
dc.subjectProlotherapyen_US
dc.subjectRehabilitationen_US
dc.subjectTendinopathyen_US
dc.titleIs Low-Dose Dextrose Prolotherapy as Effective as High-Dose Dextrose Prolotherapy in the Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis? A Double-Blind, Ultrasound Guided, Randomized Controlled Studyen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitationen_US
dc.contributor.departmentMühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesien_US
dc.contributor.authorIDFigen Tuncay / 0000-0002-0886-2006en_US
dc.identifier.volume104en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage179en_US
dc.identifier.endpage187en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster