We have located links that may give you full text access.
Ultrasonographic Evaluation for the Effect of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy on Gastrocnemius Muscle Spasticity in Patients With Chronic Stroke.
PM & R : the Journal of Injury, Function, and Rehabilitation 2018 August 25
BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) has been suggested as a useful treatment for spasticity in patients with stroke. To date, most studies have used clinical or biomechanical assessments to determine the effects of treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of a single session of ESWT through ultrasonographic assessment on spasticity in patients with chronic stroke.
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Rehabilitation center.
PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen patients with chronic stroke.
METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to an ESWT group (n = 9) or control group (n = 9). In the ESWT group, a single session of ESWT was given in the medial head of the gastrocnemius muscle of the spastic side at 4 Hz, 2000 shots with intensity of stimulation using energy of 0.1 mJ/mm2 . Sham stimulation was provided by only making sound without putting the device into contact with the skin in the control group. The clinical trial registration number of this study is KCT0002582.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were evaluated prior to the treatment, 30 minutes, 1 week, and 4 weeks after treatment. Clinical measures included Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), passive range of motion (PROM), and Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA). As the primary outcome measure, the ultrasonographic measures were Achilles tendon length (ATL), muscle fascicle length (MFL), muscle thickness (MT), and pennation angle (PA).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 2 groups for any demographic or baseline measures. At all follow-up evaluations, improvement was shown in MAS as well as changes from baseline of ultrasonographic measures in the ESWT group compared to the control group. In the case of ultrasonographic measures, the difference between the group was greatest at 4 weeks. At follow-up of 4 weeks, between-group difference was 0.66 points (P = .04) on MAS scores, 5.45 points (P = .004) on ATL scores, 4.95 points (P = .002) on MFL scores, 1.83 points (P < .001) on MT scores, and 3.73 points (P < .001) on PA scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Some ultrasonographic measures of spasticity as well as MAS were improved after a single session of ESWT. Future studies with larger numbers of subjects compared with other spasticity metrics are necessary to further evaluate the treatment effect of ESWT.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of a single session of ESWT through ultrasonographic assessment on spasticity in patients with chronic stroke.
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Rehabilitation center.
PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen patients with chronic stroke.
METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to an ESWT group (n = 9) or control group (n = 9). In the ESWT group, a single session of ESWT was given in the medial head of the gastrocnemius muscle of the spastic side at 4 Hz, 2000 shots with intensity of stimulation using energy of 0.1 mJ/mm2 . Sham stimulation was provided by only making sound without putting the device into contact with the skin in the control group. The clinical trial registration number of this study is KCT0002582.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were evaluated prior to the treatment, 30 minutes, 1 week, and 4 weeks after treatment. Clinical measures included Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), passive range of motion (PROM), and Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA). As the primary outcome measure, the ultrasonographic measures were Achilles tendon length (ATL), muscle fascicle length (MFL), muscle thickness (MT), and pennation angle (PA).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the 2 groups for any demographic or baseline measures. At all follow-up evaluations, improvement was shown in MAS as well as changes from baseline of ultrasonographic measures in the ESWT group compared to the control group. In the case of ultrasonographic measures, the difference between the group was greatest at 4 weeks. At follow-up of 4 weeks, between-group difference was 0.66 points (P = .04) on MAS scores, 5.45 points (P = .004) on ATL scores, 4.95 points (P = .002) on MFL scores, 1.83 points (P < .001) on MT scores, and 3.73 points (P < .001) on PA scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Some ultrasonographic measures of spasticity as well as MAS were improved after a single session of ESWT. Future studies with larger numbers of subjects compared with other spasticity metrics are necessary to further evaluate the treatment effect of ESWT.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app