000			03254cam a2200337 a 4500
003			EG-GiCUC
005			20250223031720.0
008			170507s2016 ua dh f m 000 0 eng d
040			_aEG-GiCUC _beng _cEG-GiCUC
041	0		_aeng
049			_aDeposite
097			_aM.Sc
099			_aCai01.21.09.M.Sc.2016.He.E
100	0		_aHeba-Allah Samy Said Ahmed
245	1	0	_aEffect of continuous versus pulsed ultrasound on myofascial pain syndrome / _cHeba-Allah Samy Said Ahmed ; Supervised Awatef Mohamed Labib , Olfat Ibrahim Ali
246	1	5	_aتأثير الموجات فوق الصوتية المستمرة مقابل المتقطعة في الألم الليفي العضلي
260			_aCairo : _bHeba-Allah Samy Said Ahmed , _c2016
300			_a104 P. : _bcharts , facsimiles ; _c25cm
502			_aThesis (M.Sc.) - Cairo University - Faculty of Physical Therapy - Department of Basic Science
520			_aBackground: Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a complex pain syndrome characterized with trigger points (TrPs) in skeletal muscles. Ultrasound (US) therapy is one of the main devices used in physical therapy, for the treatment of TrPs in MPS. Purpose: This study aimed to compare between continuous, pulsed (1:1 &1:4) and sham ultrasound in subjects with myofascial trigger points in the upper fibers of trapezius muscle. Subjects: Sixty subjects (37 males and 23 females) with active trigger points on the upper fibers of trapezius, aged 18 to 30 years participated in the study. Methods: Subjects were randomly divided into four equal groups, including Group A was treated with continuous ultrasound (3MHz, 1W/cm²), Group B was treated with pulsed ultrasound (3MHz, 1W/cm², 1:1 ratio), Group C was treated with pulsed ultrasound (3MHz, 1W/cm², 1:4 ratio), and Group D, the control group, was treated with sham ultrasound. All treatments applied 5 minutes 5 days per week for 2 weeks. Pressure pain threshold (PPT) was assessed with pressure algometer, pain severity was assessed with visual analog scale (VAS) and quality of life was evaluated with Nottingham health profile (NHP). All evaluations were performed before and after 10 sessions of treatment. Results: There was a significant difference between group (A) and other groups according to PPT as p value (p<0.05). There was a significant difference between group (A) and (C) & (D) according to VAS and NHP as p value (p<0.05). There was a significant difference between group (B) and other groups according to PPT as p value (P<0.05) and no significant difference according to VAS and NHP. There was no significant difference between group (C) and (D) according to PPT, VAS and NHP. Conclusion: Continuous and pulsed (1:1) ultrasound are more effective than pulsed (1:4) and sham ultrasound in the treatment of myofascial pain syndrome. Continuous ultrasound show more improvement than pulsed ultrasound
530			_aIssued also as CD
653		4	_aMyofascial pain syndrome
653		4	_aTrigger points
653		4	_aUltrasound
700	0		_aAwatef Mohamed Labib , _eSupervisor
700	0		_aOlfat Ibrahim Ali , _eSupervisor
856			_uhttp://172.23.153.220/th.pdf
905			_aEnas _eCataloger
905			_aNazla _eRevisor
942			_2ddc _cTH
999			_c60803 _d60803