English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background and Objectives: The use of electro physical agents for the management of any soft tissue injuries in Physical Therapy practice is very common for an early recovery from the injury. Among that, Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and Phonophoresis are found to be very effective in soft tissue injuries. So the objective of this study is to know the comparative effectiveness of LLLT versus Phonophoresis in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Methods: Convenient sample of 40 patients with lateral epicondylitis were recruited for this study. They were assigned equally either to a laser (n=20) or a Phonophoresis (n=20) group. Laser group received the treatment with Ga-As (904nm) IR semiconductor diode laser. For Phonophoresis group a gel containing 1% sodium diclofenac was used as coupling agent. Each group was treated 3 times a week, for a total of 8 treatments, and was evaluated subjectively and objectively before and at the end of the treatment, by using VAS, pain free grip strength and functional pain scale as variables. Results: Comparison between laser group and Phonophoresis group is done using Mann Whitney U test. Comparison between pre and post is done using Wilcoxon's signed rank sum test. Form selection to the post treatment assessment, a significant decrease in symptoms was found in both laser and phonophoresis groups. But it is concluded that statistically; low level laser therapy was not significantly better than phonophoresis with the results of VAS (P=0.53), FPS (P=0.253), pain free grip strength. (P=0.426). Interpretation and conclusions: The result of this study suggest that low level laser therapy as well as phonophoresis with sodium diclofenac gel as couplant medium gives a good result in the management of lateral epicondylitis. This study concludes that statistically there was no significant difference between Low level laser therapy and Phonophoresis with sodium diclofenac gel as coupling agent in the management of lateral epicondylitis.

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF LOW LEVEL LASER THERAPY VERSUS PHONOPHORESIS IN THE MANAGEMENT OF LATERAL EPICONDYLITIS