Open AccessRandomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the ultrasound‐guided galvanic electrolysis technique (USGET) versus conventional electro‐physiotherapeutic treatment on patellar tendinopathy
Author(s) -
Abat F.,
SánchezSánchez J. L.,
MartínNogueras A. M.,
CalvoArenillas J. I.,
Yajeya J.,
MéndezSánchez R.,
Monllau J. C.,
Gelber P. E.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of experimental orthopaedics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.597
H-Index - 18
ISSN - 2197-1153
DOI - 10.1186/s40634-016-0070-4
Subject(s) - medicine , randomized controlled trial , tendinopathy , subgroup analysis , physical therapy , ultrasound , eccentric training , eccentric exercise , athletes , eccentric , surgery , tendon , meta analysis , radiology , physics , quantum mechanics , muscle damage
Background Patellar tendinopathy has a high prevalence rate among athletes. Different therapeutic options can be found in the current literature, but none of them has been clearly established as the gold standard. The purpose of this study is to compare, in a randomized controlled trial, the clinical efficacy of eccentric exercise combined with either an ultrasound‐guided galvanic electrolysis technique (USGET) or conventional electrophysiotherapy to treat patellar tendinopathy. Methods Sixty patients diagnosed with patellar tendinopathy were randomized into two groups. Group 1 ( n = 30) received electrophysiotherapy treatment consisting of ultrasound, laser and interferential current techniques. Group 2 ( n = 30) received USGET. Both groups did the same standardized eccentric exercise program. Periodic assessments of the subjects were carried out with the Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment‐Patella (VISA‐P) score. An analysis of means and a survival study were performed. Results There were statistically significant differences in the VISA‐P between the baseline and final follow‐up in each treatment group. Group 1 (conventional electrophysiotherapy) went from 52.5 ± 18.8 to 61.9 ± 13.7 (in VISA‐P < 90 subgroup) and from 69.1 ± 9.1 to 95.2 ± 2.5 (in VISA‐P > 90 subgroup). Group 2 (USGET) went from 51.4 ± 17.9 to 63.3 ± 14.3 (in VISA‐P < 90 subgroup) and from 66.3 ± 13.1 to 97.1 ± 1.7 (in VISA‐P > 90 subgroup). There were statistically significant correlations between the baseline and final score in the VISA‐P > 90 subjects upon completing the study but no statistically significant correlations between subjects with VISA‐P < 90. The mean number of sessions applied was 22.6 ± 2.5 in Group 1 and 3.2 ± 0.9 in Group 2. The success probability in Group 1 was 36.1% versus 72.4% in Group 2. The difference was statistically significant. Conclusion The results obtained with the combination of USGET and eccentric exercise reported better outcomes than with the conventional electrophysiotherapy techniques in the treatment of patellar tendinopathy.