вверх
отправить
поиск
админ
главная
Предыдущее
|
Re: Трохантерит
Андрианов Антон 22 Январь 2007, 21:10
|
Речь идет, скорее всего, о двух заболеваниях, сопровождающихся болевым синдромом в области большого вертела- истинном трохантерном бурсите\сумка эта непостянная и при операциях в этой зоне не у всех выражена\, также об энтезопатии большого вертела, чаще двухстороннем поражении у женщин после 40 с избытком массы тела. Об энтезопатиях лучше читать Беленького в Consilium-medicum или RMJ. Лечиться должны эти больные у ортопеда, т.к. и УВТ и стероидные блокады - наше дело.
|
|
|
Ответить
|
Re: Трохантерит
Зинчук 23 Январь 2007, 10:51
|
"УВТ и стероидные блокады - наше дело"
Коллега, извините за не знание, расшифруйте аббревиатуру УВТ.
По поводу блокад абсолютно согласен.
|
[
Ответить ]
|
Re: Трохантерит
Отправитель: Андрианов Антон 24 Январь 2007, 08:58
|
Ударно-волновая терапия УВТ. Неплохой метод лечения околосуставных заболеваний мягких тканей.
|
[
Ответить ]
|
Re: Трохантерит
Отправитель: Зинчук 24 Январь 2007, 10:56
|
спасибо за инфу. Вы пробовали применять? Каков результат? При п/л переартрозе применяли?
|
[
Ответить ]
|
Re: Трохантерит
Отправитель: Антон Андрианов 24 Январь 2007, 20:49
|
Чтобы не уходить от темы ТРОХАНТЕРИТ, по плече-лопаточным болевым синдромам было бурное обсуждение в прошлом году, см архив. Если есть вопросы по УВТ, то пишите мне на agasfer2003@nm.ru, отвечу с удовольствием.
|
[
Ответить ]
|
Re: Трохантерит
Отправитель: Alexander Chelnokov 24 Январь 2007, 22:59
|
АА> Ударно-волновая терапия УВТ. Неплохой метод лечения околосуставных
АА> заболеваний мягких тканей.
Удивительное дело - хотя убедительных и общепризнанных подтверждений пользы shock-wave therapy нет и сейчас (см. ниже публикации о недавних испытаниях), в России эти очень недешевые аппараты уверенно покупают уже лет 6-7.
========================================================
lin J Sport Med. 2005 Sep;15(5):401-2.
Low-dose extracorporeal shock wave therapy for previously untreated lateral
epicondylitis.
Lebrun CM.
University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in the treatment of previously untreated lateral epicondylitis. DESIGN: Randomized double-blind (patient and outcome assessor)
controlled trial with power to show a clinically important difference in success rate between groups at the 0.05 level. Block randomization was stratified by unilateral or bilateral epicondylitis. SETTING: Community study at the University of Calgary. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were recruited by poster advertisements in physicians' offices, fitness and sports centers, and postsecondary education institutions, and by e-mail to faculty and staff at those institutions. Inclusion criteria were tendern essover the lateral epicondyle and common extensor origin tendons that worsened with resisted wrist extension and hand grip and with elbow extension, forearm pronation, and wrist palmar flexion; presence of lateral epicondylitis for > or =3 weeks and <1 year; willingness to discontinue bracing; and age > or =18 years. Participants (mean age, 46 years; mean duration of symptoms, 21 weeks; 62% men) were informed that the purpose of the study was to compare 2 different treatment protocols.
INTERVENTION: After telephone screening eligible persons were examined by 1 physician. All 60 participants were taught a single forearm extensor stretch (4 repetitions held for 20 seconds, 4 times per day). Persons in the active ESWT were assigned to 3 treatments, 1 per week for 3 weeks. In each session, 2000 pulses of 0.03 to 0.17 mJ/mm2, depending on the participant's pain tolerance, were administered. The sham treatment group was administered the lowest dose buffered by an air pad, on the same schedule. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was treatment success or failure. Success was defined as > or =50% relief of pain overall from baseline, measured on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, with a maximum pain score of 4.0 cm, and no use of pain medication for lateral epicondylitis for 2 weeks before the 8-week evaluation. Bilaterally affected patients had to fulfill the success criteria for both arms. Change in quality of life and pain-free grip strength were also evaluated. Analysis was by
intention to treat, including 4 patients (7%) lost to follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: The proportions of treatment successes in the sham ESWT and the active ESWT were 31% and 39% (P = 0.533). Mean differences pretreatment to posttreatment in
median overall pain scores for the more painful elbow were a reduction of 0.9 cm (SD, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1-1.8) for the sham ESWT group compared with a reduction of 1.5 cm (SD, 0.5; CI, 0.5-2.4) for the active treatment group. Changes in pain-free grip strength and minimal changes for both groups in quality of life did not differ between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose ESWT did not have a clinically important effect in reducing pain, improving quality of life, or increasing pain-free grip strength in middle-aged patients with previously untreated unilateral or bilateral lateral epicondylitis.
========================================================
Другой пример:
========================================================
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Nov;440:199-204.
Shock wave therapy for chronic Achilles tendon pain: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.
Costa ML, Shepstone L, Donell ST, Thomas TL.
The Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK. mattcosta@hotmail.com
Shock wave therapy has been used for treatment of several soft tissue disorders that are characterized by chronic pain. We sought to determine if shock wave therapy reduces chronic Achilles tendon pain. Forty-nine patients were enrolled in a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. Each patient was treated
once a month for 3 months. The primary outcome measure was a reduction in Achilles tendon pain during walking. At the end of the trial, we found no difference in pain relief between the shock wave therapy group and the control group. There were two patients (62 years and 65 years) with tendon ruptures in the treatment group, suggesting caution when treating older patients.
These results provide no support for the use of shock wave therapy for treatment of patients with chronic Achilles tendon pain.
However, the confidence intervals include the potential for a clinically relevant treatment effect.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level I (systematic review of Level I RCTs-and study results were homogenous). See the Guidelines
for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
========================================================
|
[
Ответить ]
|
Re: Трохантерит
Отправитель: Зинчук 25 Январь 2007, 12:57
|
Мда...
|
[
Ответить ]
|
|
( Ответить )
|
|
