Deep heating therapy via microwave diathermy relieves pain and improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Deep heating therapy (DHT) has shown to improve pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in the short term. Benefits of superficial heating therapy (SHT) are controversial. Long-term effects of both heating modalities have not yet been investigated. AIM: To compare the effects of DHT and SHT in patients with symptomatic knee OA, and to determine the long-term effects of heat therapy. DESIGN: Double-blind randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Outpatient clinic of Geriatrics and Physiatrics, University Hospital. POPULATION: Fifty-four patients with radiologically established diagnosis of moderate knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade II or III) and pain lasting for at least three weeks. METHODS: DHT: local microwave diathermy (three 30-min sessions a week for four weeks); SHT: application of hot packs (three 30-min sessions a week for four weeks). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) index for the assessment of joint pain, stiffness and physical function limitations. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: British Medical Research Council (BMRC) rating scale for the evaluation of muscle strength, and a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain assessment. Follow up: 24 weeks for all outcome measures; 12 months for the primary outcome. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analyses showed a treatment effect in favor of DHT for all outcome measures. No clinically relevant changes were observed in the SHT group. Benefits of DHT were maintained over 12 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: DHT via localized microwave diathermy improves pain, muscle strength and physical function in patients affected by knee OA, with benefits maintained over the long term. No clinically relevant improvements were observed in patients who underwent SHT. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: DHT via microwave diathermy delivered three times a week for four weeks significantly improves pain and function in patients affected by moderate knee OA, with benefits retained for at least 12 months. No clinically relevant changes are observed in knee OA patients treated with SHT.

A systematic review of conservative treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of conservative therapy in carpal tunnel syndrome. DATA SOURCES: A computer-aided search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Collaboration was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from January 1985 to May 2006. REVIEW METHODS: RCTs were included if: (1) the patients, with clinically and electrophysiologically confirmed carpal tunnel syndrome, had not previously undergone surgical release, (2) the efficacy of one or more conservative treatment options was evaluated, (3) the study was designed as a randomized controlled trial. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and performed data extraction using a standardized form. In order to assess the methodological quality, the criteria list of the Cochrane Back Review Group for systematic reviews was applied. The different treatment methods were grouped (local injections, oral therapies, physical therapies, therapeutic exercises and splints). RESULTS: Thirty-three RCTs were included in the review. The studies were analysed to determine the strength of the available evidence for the efficacy of the treatment. Our review shows that: (1) locally injected steroids produce a significant but temporary improvement, (2) vitamin B6 is ineffective, (3) steroids are better than non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and diuretics, but they can produce side-effects, (4) ultrasound is effective while laser therapy shows variable results, (5) exercise therapy is not effective, (6) splints are effective, especially if used full-time. CONCLUSION: There is: (1) strong evidence (level 1) on efficacy of local and oral steroids; (2) moderate evidence (level 2) that vitamin B6 is ineffective and splints are effective and (3) limited or conflicting evidence (level 3) that NSAIDs, diuretics, yoga, laser and ultrasound are effective whereas exercise therapy and botulinum toxin B injection are ineffective.

Treating myopia with acoustic biofeedback: a prospective study on the evolution of visual acuity and psychological distress.

OBJECTIVE: The effects of a visual training technique on changes in myopia, visual acuity, and psychological distress were studied in a controlled prospective study. METHOD: A group of 33 female students with myopia < or = 3.50 diopters (D) underwent visual training using an acoustic biofeedback technique. A group of 22 female students with myopia and a group of 27 students with emmetropia formed the two control groups, matched for school, age, sex, and refractive error. Manifest and cycloplegic refraction, visual acuity, personality profile (CPI), and psychological distress (SCL-90) were measured at the baseline (T0), at 10 weeks (T1), and after 12 months (T2). RESULTS: At T2, myopia significantly progressed both in the treated and in the untreated students with myopia. Visual acuity improved only in the treated myopia group (despite refraction objectively being worse). No differences were found among the personality profiles in the three groups. All items indicative of psychological suffering improved in the group treated for myopia whose visual acuity was ameliorated. CONCLUSIONS: The visual training technique led to no improvement in objective measures of visual acuity, but did lead to an improvement in one relatively subjective measure of visual acuity and a parallel improvement in psychological conditions. The students with myopia who were treated consequently had a greater sense of general well-being.

Seasonal rhinitis and azelastine: long- or short-term treatment?

BACKGROUND: Azelastine is a topical antihistamine, clinically demonstrated to be effective in allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the clinical efficacy and the antiallergic activity of azelastine nasal spray, administered 0.56 mg per day, 0.28 mg per day, or on demand over a 3-month period during natural allergen exposure, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled fashion. METHODS: Thirty patients, sensitized to grass or Parietaria pollen, were allocated to three treatment groups: those receiving the standard dosage (0.14 mg/nostril two times a day), half the dosage (0.07 mg/nostril two times a day), or placebo daily for 3 months. All patients were allowed to take additional doses of azelastine when needed. Evaluation parameters were as follows: clinical symptoms recorded on a diary card, number of additional, on-demand azelastine puffs, nasal inflammatory cell count, intercellular adhesion molecule-1 expression on nasal epithelial cells, and pollen count. RESULTS: This study showed the following: (1) the half dose (0.28 mg/day) and the standard dose (0.56 mg/day) were equally effective in reducing clinical symptoms (p = NS), although the standard dosage required fewer additional puffs during times of peak pollen counts (p < 0.05); (2) both dosages were able to reduce the allergic inflammation (p < 0.05 vs placebo); and (3) on-demand use achieved acceptable clinical control but did not significantly reduce allergic inflammation. CONCLUSION: Continuous treatment was more effective than on-demand use as assessed by both clinical evaluation and antiinflammatory action.