Release time：2024-02-15 13:38
Source：
Page view：513
Pain management is an important field in modern medicine. In particular, non-invasive therapies have attracted much attention for their safety and effectiveness in the treatment of chronic pain. Ultrasound therapy and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) are two commonly used physical therapy methods, each showing different efficacy in relieving pain and promoting tissue repair. This study aims to compare and analyze these two therapies to explore their advantages and disadvantages in specific pain management situations and provide a scientific basis for future clinical practice.
Theoretical basis and literature review
Ultrasound therapy: Ultrasound therapy uses sound waves with a frequency higher than 20kHz to act on human tissues, promoting blood circulation, reducing inflammation, and accelerating tissue repair through mechanical effects, thermal effects, and cavitation effects. This therapy is widely used in the treatment of chronic pain such as musculoskeletal pain and soft tissue injury (Meng Cuiying, Rehabilitation Department, Zhucheng People's Hospital).
TENS therapy: TENS therapy transmits low-frequency pulse current of a specific frequency to nerve endings through the skin to block the transmission of pain signals to the spinal cord and brain, while promoting the release of endogenous analgesics (such as endorphins) to achieve analgesic effects. TENS has shown good therapeutic effects in the management of various pains such as chronic pelvic pain and muscle spasms (ZHU Rang-li et al.).
Although the two therapies have achieved remarkable results in their respective fields, direct comparative studies on them in different types of pain are still relatively scarce, especially in terms of efficacy differences, mechanisms of action and patient acceptance under specific pain conditions.
Research design
This study adopted a randomized controlled trial design and selected 60 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain as research subjects, who were randomly divided into two groups, 30 people in each group. The first group received ultrasound therapy and the second group received TENS therapy. All treatments were carried out under professional guidance for 4 weeks, 3 times a week, and each treatment lasted 30 minutes.
Data collection methods included: pain visual analogue scale (VAS) before and after treatment, functional activity score, quality of life questionnaire, and adverse reaction records during treatment.
Results Analysis
Pain relief: After treatment, the VAS scores of both groups of patients decreased significantly, but the TENS group showed a faster trend in pain relief, especially in the first two weeks of treatment. However, as the treatment time prolonged, the difference between the two groups gradually narrowed, and the final efficacy was similar.
Functional recovery: In terms of functional activity scores, ultrasound therapy showed a more obvious advantage in promoting muscle strength and joint flexibility recovery, especially at the end of treatment, the degree of functional recovery in the ultrasound group was significantly higher than that in the TENS group.
Quality of life: The results of the quality of life questionnaire showed that both therapies can effectively improve the quality of life of patients, but patients have a higher acceptance of TENS, which may be because the TENS treatment process is relatively more comfortable and without obvious discomfort.
Adverse reactions: No serious adverse reactions were reported in either group, but a few patients in the TENS group reported mild skin irritation at the beginning of treatment, while some patients in the ultrasound group had mild redness and swelling at the treatment site, which did not affect continued treatment.
Conclusion
This study shows that ultrasound therapy and TENS both show good therapeutic effects in the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain, and each has its own advantages. TENS is more advantageous in relieving pain quickly, while ultrasound therapy is better in promoting functional recovery. Patients are more receptive to TENS, probably because the treatment process is more comfortable. Future studies can further explore the combined application of the two therapies, as well as personalized treatment plans for different pain types and patient characteristics, in order to achieve better treatment effects.
Future research directions
Combined therapy research: Explore the possibility of combined application of ultrasound therapy and TENS to exert the synergistic effect of the two and improve the treatment effect.
Personalized treatment plan: Develop personalized treatment plans for different pain types and patient characteristics (such as age, gender, pain site, etc.) to improve the pertinence and effectiveness of treatment.
Long-term efficacy evaluation: Conduct long-term follow-up studies to evaluate the durability of the two therapies in relieving pain and promoting functional recovery, as well as the long-term impact on patients' quality of life.
This study provides a valuable reference for the application of ultrasound therapy and TENS in chronic pain management, but due to the limitations of sample size and research cycle, more high-quality studies are still needed in the future to further verify and expand these findings.