Does interferential current provide additional benefit to orthopedic rehabilitation for the patients with proximal humeral fractures? A randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 80% of all proximal humeral fractures (PHFs) are non-displaced or minimally displaced fractures, which can be treated with conservative treatment. This study investigated the effect of interferential current (IFC) added to orthopedic rehabilitation on shoulder function, pain, and disability in patients with PHF. METHODS: This study was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled conducted in physical medicine and rehabilitation outpatient clinic. Thirty-five patients were randomly separated into the IFC group (n = 18) and the sham group (n = 17). The orthopedic rehabilitation program was applied to all patients by the same physiotherapist three times a week for four weeks. Patients in the IFC group received the intervention for 20 minutes 3 times a week before the exercise. The same pads were performed for the sham group, but no electrical stimulation was applied. Constant-Murley score (CMS) for shoulder function, visual analog scale (VAS) activity pain, disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score, and paracetamol intake were recorded post-treatment, at 6 weeks and 18 weeks post-treatment. RESULTS: The demographic and fracture characteristics were not different between the groups. Significant differences were observed in the IFC and sham group in intragroup comparisons of total CMS, VAS activity pain, DASH score, and paracetamol intake over time (p < 0.001). Significant improvement over time was valid for all pairwise comparisons in both groups. However, no significant differences were detected between the IFC and sham group. CONCLUSION: IFC added to orthopedic rehabilitation could not appear to be an electrotherapy modality that could potentially benefit shoulder function and disability in patients with PHF.

Is interferential current effective in the management of pain, range of motion, and edema following total knee arthroplasty surgery? A randomized double-blind controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of interferential current implementation following total knee arthroplasty surgery. DESIGN: Double-blind randomized controlled study. SETTING: Orthopedics and traumatology in-patient clinic. PARTICIPANTS: From an initial enrollment of 132 patients, 113 who met the study inclusion criteria were randomly separated into two groups: the interferential current group ( n = 57) and the sham current group ( n = 56). A total of 98 patients completed the study: 49 in the interferential current group and 49 in the sham group. INTERVENTION: Patients in the interferential current group received interferential current treatment for 30 minutes, twice a day for five days postoperatively. For the patients in the sham interferential current treatment group, the same pads were applied to the patients for the same time periods but no electrical stimulation was applied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were assessed in respect of pain, range of motion (ROM), edema, and the amount of paracetamol used at baseline and on the 5th and 30th days after surgery. RESULTS: No significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of pain, ROM, and edema at days 0, 5, and 30. At the end of the 5th day, the amount of paracetamol used was significantly lower in the interferential current group ( P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this study, both groups showed significant improvements in pain, ROM, and edema with no significant difference between the groups. Although there was a significant difference in paracetamol intake of the two groups, this cannot be argued as showing the effectiveness of interferential current.