![]() Recent systematic reviews have highlighted that people with knee osteoarthritis have facilitated temporal summation of pain, impaired conditioned pain modulation, and heat and pressure hyperalgesia compared with pain-free subjects. QST involves assessing sensory responses to different forms of physical stimuli (e.g., mechanical, electrical, and/or thermal) and allows an understanding of the mechanisms involved in chronic musculoskeletal pain. Therefore, it is important that researchers and health care practitioners treating patients with painful knee disorders improve their understanding behind the mechanism or driver for the pain experience in these populations and not focus on just one potential contributor.Ī variety of quantitative sensory testing (QST) methods to evaluate pain mechanisms and understand individual nociceptive profiles have been developed. Pain is multifactorial and has numerous contributors, with strong acceptance in the medical community and research of a biopsychosocial model for assessment and management. In fact, recent evidence suggests that patients with low-grade radiological osteoarthritis but high pain intensities seem to be very pain sensitive and at higher risk of chronic postoperative pain following surgery. Recent research indicates that symptoms in people with painful knee disorders correlate poorly with the presence or severity of pathology on radiographical findings. Moreover, knee pain affects psychosocial status and may lead to reduced quality of life. The knee joint is the second most common site of pain in adults and is a common cause of physical disability, affecting millions of people around the world. This investigation should be considered a starting point for future research on this technology.Hyperalgesia, Knee Pain, Osteoarthritis, Quantitative Sensory Testing Introduction Conclusion: The results suggest that a vibration roller may increase an individual’s tolerance to pain greater than a nonvibration roller. A significant difference was found between the vibration roller and control group ( P < .001) and nonvibration roller and control group ( P < .001). For knee ROM, there was no significant difference between the vibration and nonvibration roller ( P = .31). There was also a significant difference between the nonvibration roller and control ( P < .001). Between groups, there was a significant difference in PPT between the vibration and nonvibration roller ( P = .03) and vibration roller and control ( P < .001). For knee flexion ROM, the vibration roller demonstrated the greatest increase in ROM (7°, P < .001), followed by the nonvibration roller (5°, P < .001) and control (2°, P < .001). Results: The vibration roller demonstrated the greatest increase in PPT (180 kPa, P < .001), followed by the nonvibration roller (112 kPa, P < .001) and control (61 kPa, P < .001). Statistical analysis included parametric and nonparametric tests to measure changes among groups. Dependent variables included prone knee-flexion ROM and PPT measures. Each roller intervention lasted a total of 2 minutes. Methods: Forty-five recreationally active adults were randomly allocated to one of 3 groups: vibration roller, nonvibration roller, and control. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a vibration roller and nonvibration roller intervention on prone knee-flexion passive range of motion (ROM) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the quadriceps musculature. Of interest, is the therapeutic effects of such RM devices. Recently, manufacturers have merged the science of vibration therapy and RM with the development of vibration rollers. Background: Roller massage (RM) has become a common intervention among health and fitness professionals.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |