Data Insights on the Risks of Local Heat and Massage in Gouty Arthritis Treatment.

Shivam Mehra, Kamal Mehra, Nindiya Kapoor Mehra, Sachin Yashwant Kale, Bharat Veer Manchanda
{"title":"Data Insights on the Risks of Local Heat and Massage in Gouty Arthritis Treatment.","authors":"Shivam Mehra, Kamal Mehra, Nindiya Kapoor Mehra, Sachin Yashwant Kale, Bharat Veer Manchanda","doi":"10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i01.5194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Gouty arthritis is a common inflammatory condition caused by the deposition of uric acid crystals in the joints, leading to intense pain, swelling, and functional impairment. Thermal therapies, including hot and cold fomentation, are often used as adjunctive treatments for managing inflammation and pain in various musculoskeletal conditions. However, the efficacy of these therapies in acute gout remains underexplored. This study aims to compare the effects of hot fomentation versus cold fomentation in patients experiencing acute gout flares, assessing pain reduction, swelling, joint mobility, and overall patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 2,400 patients diagnosed with acute gouty arthritis, divided into two equal groups: Group A received hot fomentation (38°C-42°C) and Group B received cold fomentation (5°C-10°C). Both interventions were applied twice daily for 20 min over 5 days, alongside standard gout care. Pain intensity was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS), while joint circumference, range of motion, and patient satisfaction were recorded at baseline, day 3, and day 5. Statistical analyses compared outcomes between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cold fomentation significantly reduced pain intensity (VAS score reduction of 68% by day 5) compared to hot fomentation (26% reduction, P < 0.001). Joint swelling decreased by 25% in the cold group versus 5% in the hot group, with cold therapy also leading to greater improvements in joint mobility (average increase of 15° vs. 5°, P < 0.01). Notably, 35% of patients in the hot fomentation group experienced flare-ups, compared to only 2% in the cold fomentation group (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was also higher in the cold group, with 85% of participants reporting satisfaction versus 30% in the hot group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrates that cold fomentation is significantly more effective than hot fomentation in managing acute gouty arthritis. Cold therapy provided superior pain relief, reduced swelling, improved joint mobility, and minimized the risk of symptom exacerbation. In contrast, hot fomentation often worsened symptoms, making it unsuitable for acute gout management. These findings suggest that cold fomentation should be the preferred thermal therapy for gout flare-ups, while heat applications should be avoided.</p>","PeriodicalId":16647,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"260-265"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11723740/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13107/jocr.2025.v15.i01.5194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Gouty arthritis is a common inflammatory condition caused by the deposition of uric acid crystals in the joints, leading to intense pain, swelling, and functional impairment. Thermal therapies, including hot and cold fomentation, are often used as adjunctive treatments for managing inflammation and pain in various musculoskeletal conditions. However, the efficacy of these therapies in acute gout remains underexplored. This study aims to compare the effects of hot fomentation versus cold fomentation in patients experiencing acute gout flares, assessing pain reduction, swelling, joint mobility, and overall patient satisfaction.

Materials and methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 2,400 patients diagnosed with acute gouty arthritis, divided into two equal groups: Group A received hot fomentation (38°C-42°C) and Group B received cold fomentation (5°C-10°C). Both interventions were applied twice daily for 20 min over 5 days, alongside standard gout care. Pain intensity was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS), while joint circumference, range of motion, and patient satisfaction were recorded at baseline, day 3, and day 5. Statistical analyses compared outcomes between the two groups.

Results: Cold fomentation significantly reduced pain intensity (VAS score reduction of 68% by day 5) compared to hot fomentation (26% reduction, P < 0.001). Joint swelling decreased by 25% in the cold group versus 5% in the hot group, with cold therapy also leading to greater improvements in joint mobility (average increase of 15° vs. 5°, P < 0.01). Notably, 35% of patients in the hot fomentation group experienced flare-ups, compared to only 2% in the cold fomentation group (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was also higher in the cold group, with 85% of participants reporting satisfaction versus 30% in the hot group.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that cold fomentation is significantly more effective than hot fomentation in managing acute gouty arthritis. Cold therapy provided superior pain relief, reduced swelling, improved joint mobility, and minimized the risk of symptom exacerbation. In contrast, hot fomentation often worsened symptoms, making it unsuitable for acute gout management. These findings suggest that cold fomentation should be the preferred thermal therapy for gout flare-ups, while heat applications should be avoided.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
局部热敷和按摩治疗痛风性关节炎风险的数据见解。
简介痛风性关节炎是一种常见的炎症,由尿酸盐结晶沉积在关节中引起,导致剧烈疼痛、肿胀和功能障碍。热疗法(包括冷热熏蒸)经常被用作治疗各种肌肉骨骼炎症和疼痛的辅助疗法。然而,这些疗法对急性痛风的疗效仍未得到充分探索。本研究旨在比较热熏蒸和冷熏蒸对痛风急性发作患者的效果,评估疼痛减轻、肿胀、关节活动度和患者总体满意度:一项随机对照试验将 2400 名急性痛风性关节炎患者分为两组:A组接受热敷(38°C-42°C),B组接受冷敷(5°C-10°C)。两种疗法均在标准痛风治疗的同时进行,每天两次,每次 20 分钟,持续 5 天。疼痛强度采用视觉模拟量表(VAS)进行测量,而关节周长、活动范围和患者满意度则分别在基线、第3天和第5天进行记录。统计分析比较了两组的结果:结果:与热敷(减少 26%,P < 0.001)相比,冷敷能明显减轻疼痛强度(第 5 天 VAS 评分减少 68%)。冷敷组的关节肿胀减少了 25%,而热敷组仅减少了 5%,冷敷疗法还大大改善了关节活动度(平均增加 15° 对 5°,P < 0.01)。值得注意的是,热敷组有 35% 的患者病情复发,而冷敷组仅有 2% 的患者病情复发(P < 0.001)。冷敷组患者的满意度也更高,85%的参与者表示满意,而热敷组只有 30%:本研究表明,在治疗急性痛风性关节炎方面,冷疗法的效果明显优于热疗法。冷疗法能有效缓解疼痛、减轻肿胀、改善关节活动度,并将症状加重的风险降至最低。相比之下,热敷往往会加重症状,因此不适合用于急性痛风的治疗。这些研究结果表明,痛风发作时应首选冷热敷疗法,而应避免热敷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
128
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
Management of a Rare Combined Osseoligamentous Knee Injury: Tibial Plateau Fracture with High-Grade Posterior Cruciate Ligament Tear Treated by Arthroscopic Reconstruction and Osteosynthesis - A Case Report. Unusual Presentation of Spinal Osteoid Osteoma: A Case Report. A Rare Case of C5-C6 Bilateral Facetal Dislocation with Central Cord Syndrome Managed by Staged Stabilization. A Rare Case of Chronic Pan-Diaphyseal Osteomyelitis of the Fibula in a Child Treated by Near Total Fibulectomy: A Case Report. Arthroscopic Management of a Bucket-Handle Acetabular Labral Tear in a Pediatric Patient: A Rare Case Report with Associated Fleck Sign.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1