RESUMO
Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is a common inner ear disorder, characterized by brief episodes of vertigo caused by changes in head position. The condition can cause significant functional impairment and reduced quality of life. BPPV is especially common among diabetic patients. The Epley-canalith repositioning procedure (CRP) and vestibular rehabilitation therapy (VRT) are two commonly used interventions for the treatment of BPPV. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of Epley-canalith repositioning procedure (ECRP) and Vestibular Rehabilitation (VR) therapy in the management of vertigo among Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus patients. A total of 30 subjects with Type 2 diabetes mellitus, aged between 40 and 65 years, were randomly allocated to either the ECRP or VR therapy groups using a lottery method, and then underwent Epley-canalith repositioning procedure or vestibular rehabilitation therapy, respectively. The outcomes measured by the study were Vertigo Symptom Scale-Short Form (VSS-sf) score and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) score, assessed pre-treatment (pre) and 4 weeks post-treatment (post). The results demonstrated that both ECRP and VR therapy led to improvements in VSS-sf and BBS scores. However, VR therapy was found to be more effective, resulting in a 13.6% higher improvement in VSS-sf scores (p = 0.03) and a 5.1% higher improvement in BBS scores (p = 0.51) compared to ECRP. Both Epley-canalith repositioning procedure and vestibular rehabilitation therapy are effective in managing BPPV in diabetic patients. Although the differences in BBS scores are not statistically significant, VRT demonstrated a trend towards greater improvement. Vestibular rehabilitation therapy can be used by clinicians as another rehabilitation technique for improving vertigo, postural stability, and activity of daily living in diabetic patients with BPPV.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pronated foot is a deformity with various degrees of physical impact. Patients with a pronated foot experience issues such as foot pain, ankle pain, heel pain, shin splints, impaired balance, plantar fasciitis, etc. Objective: The study intended to compare the effectiveness of IASTM (instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization) and static stretching on ankle flexibility, foot posture, foot function, and balance in patients with a flexible pronated foot. METHODS: Seventy-two participants between the ages of 18-25 years with a flexible pronated foot were included and allocated into three groups: Control, stretching, and IASTM group using single-blinded randomization. Range of motion (ROM) measuring ankle flexibility, foot posture index (FPI), foot function index (FFI), and dynamic balance was measured at baseline and after 4 weeks of intervention. Soft tissue mobilization was applied on to the IASTM group, while the stretching group was directed in static stretching of the gastrocnemius-soleus complex, tibialis anterior, and Achilles tendon in addition to the foot exercises. The control group received only foot exercises for 4 weeks. RESULTS: The result shows the significant improvement of the right dominant foot in ROM plantar flexion, (F = 3.94, p = 0.03), dorsiflexion (F = 3.15, p = 0.05), inversion (F = 8.54, p = 0.001) and eversion (F = 5.93, p = 0.005), FFI (control vs. IASTM, mean difference (MD) = 5.9, p < 0.001), FPI (right foot, control vs. IASTM MD = 0.88, p = 0.004), and in dynamic balance of the right-leg stance (anterior, pre vs. post = 88.55 ± 2.28 vs. 94.65 ± 2.28; anteromedial, pre vs. post = 80.65 ± 2.3 vs. 85.55 ± 2.93; posterior, pre vs. post = 83 ± 3.52 vs. 87 ± 2.99 and lateral, pre vs. post = 73.2 ± 5.02 vs. 78.05 ± 4.29) in the IASTM group. The FFI was increased remarkably in the stretching group as compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Myofascial release technique, i.e., IASTM with foot exercises, significantly improves flexibility, foot posture, foot function, and dynamic balance as compared to stretching, making it a choice of treatment for patients with a flexible pronated foot.
