PubMed · 15414294
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M B RAY. 1950. Electrotherapy.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15414294/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) energy treatment is increasingly offered before invasive surgical procedures for selected patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: Thirty-two patients undergoing the Stretta procedure were prospectively evaluated with upper endoscopy, manometry, 24-hour pH testing, SF-36 surveys, and GERD-specific questionnaires (GERD HRQL). RESULTS: Significant clinical improvement was observed in 91% of patients (29/32). Mean heartburn and GERD HRQL scores decreased (p = 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively), and physical SF-36 increased (p = 0.05). At a minimum follow-up of 12 months, median esophageal acid exposure decreased (p = 0.79) and was normalized in eight patients. Median lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure was unchanged. Esophagitis healed in six of eight patients, but two patients with nonerosive disease developed asymptomatic grade A esophagitis during follow-up. At 12 months, 56% of patients were off proton pump inhibits. Morbidity was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: RF delivery to LES is safe and significantly improves symptoms and quality of life in selected GERD patients.
BACKGROUND: Neck disorders are common, disabling and costly. The effectiveness of electrotherapy as a physiotherapy option has remained unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether electrotherapy, either alone or in combination with other treatments, relieves pain, or improves function/disability, patient satisfaction, and global perceived effect in adults with mechanical neck disorders (MND). SEARCH STRATEGY: Computer-assisted searches of bibliographic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and ICL, without language restrictions, from their beginning to March 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or controlled clinical trials with quasi-randomisation (alternate allocation, case record numbers, dates of birth, etc.), in any language, investigating the effects of electrotherapy as a treatment for MND. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two authors independently conducted citation identification, study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment. Using a random-effects model, relative risk, and standardized mean differences were calculated. The reasonableness of combining studies was assessed on clinical and statistical grounds. Due to heterogeneity, pooled effect measures were not calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen comparisons (525 people with MND), in 11 publications, were included in this review. The analysis was limited by underpowered low quality trials, paucity of literature, and heterogeneity of treatment subtypes. The results for the electrotherapy subtypes are: Limited evidence of benefit: low or high frequency pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) compared to placebo, provides immediate post treatment pain relief only for chronic MND, acute whiplash (WAD) Unclear or conflicting evidence: direct and modulated Galvanic current compared to other treatments for pain in acute, subacute, chronic occipital headache iontophoresis compared to other treatments for pain, RTW, and self-assessment of overall outcome in acute, subacute WAD TENS compared to placebo for pain in acute WAD, chronic MND PEMF compared to placebo for medium or long term effect on pain, patient assessment of improvement, ADL in acute WAD, chronic MND Limited evidence of no benefit: diadynamic current compared to placebo for reduction of trigger point tenderness in chronic MND with radicular findings, cervicogenic headache permanent magnets compared to a placebo for pain in chronic MND electric muscle stimulation compared to a sham control for pain in chronic MND. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We can not make any definitive statements on electrotherapy for MND. The current evidence on Galvanic current (direct or pulsed), iontophoresis, TENS, EMS, PEMF and permanent magnets is either lacking, limited, or conflicting. Possible new trials on these interventions should have larger patient samples and include more precise standardization and description of all treatment characteristics.
Motor improvements in chronic stroke recovery accrue from coupled protocols of bilateral movements and active neuromuscular stimulation. This experiment investigated coupled protocols and within-limb transfer between distal and proximal joint combinations. The leading question focused on within-limb transfer of coupled protocols on distal joints to a bimanual aiming task that involved proximal joints. Twenty-six volunteers completed one of three motor recovery protocols according to group assignments: (1) coupled bilateral involved concurrent wrist/finger movements on the unimpaired limb coupled with active stimulation on the impaired limb; (2) unilateral/active stimulation involved neuromuscular electromyogram-triggered stimulation on the impaired wrist/fingers; and (3) no protocol (control group). During the pretest and posttest, subjects performed transverse plane target aiming movements (29 cm) with vision available. The coupled bilateral group showed positive intralimb transfer post-treatment when both arms moved simultaneously. During the posttest, the coupled bilateral group displayed improved movement time, higher peak limb velocity, less variability in peak velocity, and less percentage of total movement time in the deceleration phase than during the pretest. The evidence confirms that within-limb transfer from distal joint training to proximal joint combinations is viable and generalizable in chronic stroke rehabilitation. Moreover, these intralimb transfer findings extend the evidence favoring motor improvements for coupled bilateral protocols during chronic stroke.