RESUMEN
La utilización de la terapia de ultrasonidos pulsados de baja intensidad para la cicatrización ósea y el tratamiento de fracturas es considerada cada vez más como una alternativa terapéutica de coste económico moderado y con efectos adversos nulos o mínimos (p. ej. leve reacción al gel conductor).Con todo, existe cierta controversia con relación a su evidencia científica. La presente revisión busca arrojar algo de luz sobre esta controversia y cubrir un espacio de estudio no ocupado por trabajos previos ni actuales sobre la terapia mediante ultrasonidos. Es necesario conocer el impacto real del tratamiento con ultrasonidos pulsados de baja intensidad en pacientes sometidos a osteotomía, así como su aplicabilidad como protocolo poscirugía para mejorar los procesos de recuperación, rehabilitación y, con ello, disminuir los tiempos de incapacidad. (AU)
The use of low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) therapy for bone healing and fracture treatment is increasingly considered as a therapeutic alternative with moderate economic cost and none or minimal adverse effects (e.g., low reaction to the conductive gel).However, there is some controversy regarding its scientific evidence. The present review seeks to shed some light on this controversy and to cover an area of study not occupied by previous or current work on ultrasound therapy. It is necessary to know the real impact of the treatment with low intensity pulsed ultrasound in patients with osteotomy, as well as its applicability as a post-surgery protocol to improve the recovery and rehabilitation processes and, at the end of the day, to reduce the time of disability. (AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Terapia por Ultrasonido , Osteotomía , Fracturas Óseas , TerapéuticaRESUMEN
The use of low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) therapy for bone healing and fracture treatment is increasingly considered as a therapeutic alternative with moderate economic cost and none or minimal adverse effects (e.g., low reaction to the conductive gel). However, there is some controversy regarding its scientific evidence. The present review seeks to shed some light on this controversy and to cover an area of study not occupied by previous or current work on ultrasound therapy. It is necessary to know the real impact of the treatment with low intensity pulsed ultrasound in patients with osteotomy, as well as its applicability as a post-surgery protocol to improve the recovery and rehabilitation processes and, at the end of the day, to reduce the time of disability.
Asunto(s)
Terapia por Ultrasonido , Humanos , Terapia por Ultrasonido/métodos , Osteotomía , Ondas UltrasónicasRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to analyze, which individual characteristics (sociodemographic, attitudinal and political factors) mediates in the choice in Spain in 2022, of a private versus public health care alternative for family doctor, doctor specialist, hospital admissions and emergencies. METHODS: Using the health barometers of the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (CIS), we carried out four logistic regressions (then, average marginal effects [AMEs]) whose dependent variables are the preference for a private choice of family doctor versus a public one, the preference for a private choice of doctor specialist versus a public one; the preference for a private choice of hospital admission versus a public one and the preference for a private choice of emergency admission versus a public one. The dependent variables are binary (1=private; 0=public). The sample consisted of more than 4,500 individuals older than 18years old distributed representatively throughout Spain. RESULTS: The probability of choosing private rather than public is correlated with the age of the individual: those over 50years are less likely to opt for a private alternative (P<.01), as well as by ideology and satisfaction with the way that the national health system (NHS) works. Patients with a conservative ideology are more likely to choose private options (P<.01) and individuals with greater satisfaction with the NHS are less likely to choose private ones (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction with the NHS and patient ideology are the most relevant factors for private versus public choice.
