{"title":"重复性外周磁刺激治疗轻中度腕管综合征的疗效:一项随机对照试验","authors":"Thong Phonghanyudh, Kanintat Senchantichai, Natchaya Kaewma, Chanwit Phongamwong","doi":"10.33192/smj.v75i7.262387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of active repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) compared to sham rPMS on symptoms severity and functional status among patients with mild to moderate carpal tunnel syndrome.\nMaterials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to either intervention (active rPMS) or control (sham rPMS) groups. Both groups received rPMS (A20 mode of OPTIMUS Pro) for 10 min, once a week for four weeks (four sessions). Symptom severity scales (SSS) and functional status scales (FSS) of Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire were measured at baseline (before session one) and at the end of treatment (after session four). The relative changes in SSS and FSS scores were calculated as a clinical outcome.\nResults: Forty-two participants were enrolled and randomly allocated to either the intervention (n = 21) or control group (n = 21). There were no statistically significant differences in the median (interquartile range) of relative changes in SSS [0.05 (0.15) vs 0 (0.27), P = 0.41] or FSS [0 (0.25) vs 0 (0.11), P = 0.97] between the intervention and control groups.\nConclusion: Active rPMS did not improve clinical outcome compared to sham rPMS among patients with mild to moderate CTS. A greater number of subjects and treatment sessions might be required for the future study.","PeriodicalId":37270,"journal":{"name":"Siriraj Medical Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation for Treatment of Mild to Moderate Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial\",\"authors\":\"Thong Phonghanyudh, Kanintat Senchantichai, Natchaya Kaewma, Chanwit Phongamwong\",\"doi\":\"10.33192/smj.v75i7.262387\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of active repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) compared to sham rPMS on symptoms severity and functional status among patients with mild to moderate carpal tunnel syndrome.\\nMaterials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to either intervention (active rPMS) or control (sham rPMS) groups. Both groups received rPMS (A20 mode of OPTIMUS Pro) for 10 min, once a week for four weeks (four sessions). Symptom severity scales (SSS) and functional status scales (FSS) of Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire were measured at baseline (before session one) and at the end of treatment (after session four). The relative changes in SSS and FSS scores were calculated as a clinical outcome.\\nResults: Forty-two participants were enrolled and randomly allocated to either the intervention (n = 21) or control group (n = 21). There were no statistically significant differences in the median (interquartile range) of relative changes in SSS [0.05 (0.15) vs 0 (0.27), P = 0.41] or FSS [0 (0.25) vs 0 (0.11), P = 0.97] between the intervention and control groups.\\nConclusion: Active rPMS did not improve clinical outcome compared to sham rPMS among patients with mild to moderate CTS. A greater number of subjects and treatment sessions might be required for the future study.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Siriraj Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Siriraj Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33192/smj.v75i7.262387\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Siriraj Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33192/smj.v75i7.262387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究旨在评价主动重复外周磁刺激(rPMS)与假rPMS对轻至中度腕管综合征患者症状严重程度和功能状态的影响。材料与方法:采用随机对照试验。参与者被随机分配(1:1)到干预组(积极rPMS)或对照组(假rPMS)组。两组均接受rPMS (OPTIMUS Pro的A20模式)治疗,每次10分钟,每周1次,共4周(4次)。在基线(第一阶段前)和治疗结束(第四阶段后)分别测量波士顿腕管问卷症状严重程度量表(SSS)和功能状态量表(FSS)。计算SSS和FSS评分的相对变化作为临床结果。结果:42名参与者被纳入并随机分配到干预组(n = 21)和对照组(n = 21)。干预组与对照组SSS相对变化的中位数(四分位数范围)[0.05 (0.15)vs 0 (0.27), P = 0.41]和FSS [0 (0.25) vs 0 (0.11), P = 0.97]差异均无统计学意义。结论:在轻中度CTS患者中,与假rPMS相比,主动rPMS并没有改善临床结果。未来的研究可能需要更多的受试者和治疗疗程。
Effectiveness of Repetitive Peripheral Magnetic Stimulation for Treatment of Mild to Moderate Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of active repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation (rPMS) compared to sham rPMS on symptoms severity and functional status among patients with mild to moderate carpal tunnel syndrome.
Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to either intervention (active rPMS) or control (sham rPMS) groups. Both groups received rPMS (A20 mode of OPTIMUS Pro) for 10 min, once a week for four weeks (four sessions). Symptom severity scales (SSS) and functional status scales (FSS) of Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire were measured at baseline (before session one) and at the end of treatment (after session four). The relative changes in SSS and FSS scores were calculated as a clinical outcome.
Results: Forty-two participants were enrolled and randomly allocated to either the intervention (n = 21) or control group (n = 21). There were no statistically significant differences in the median (interquartile range) of relative changes in SSS [0.05 (0.15) vs 0 (0.27), P = 0.41] or FSS [0 (0.25) vs 0 (0.11), P = 0.97] between the intervention and control groups.
Conclusion: Active rPMS did not improve clinical outcome compared to sham rPMS among patients with mild to moderate CTS. A greater number of subjects and treatment sessions might be required for the future study.