Introduction:Superficial facial space infections represent a significant amount of the dental problems that present to hospital. Determining whether an odontogenic swelling is a cellulitis or abscess is difficult, but important as both may require different treatments. The use of an ultrasound may aid in differentiating cellulitis and abscess. This study was done to compare the accuracy of clinical examination alone versus ultrasonography (USG) in the diagnosis of cellulitis and abscess in symptomatic patients with a diagnosis of superficial facial space infection.Materials and Methods:Twenty patients (1870 years) diagnosed as superficial facial space infections by clinical and radiographic examinations were included in the study and patients with significant medical conditions were excluded. The provisional clinical diagnosis was made after a thorough history was taken and clinical examination was performed to determine if the swelling was a cellulitis or abscess. Swelling was then evaluated using the ultrasonic transducer which was placed over the swelling to aid the diagnosis which was again recorded. An incision and drainage procedure was performed after the administration of local anesthesia. The success of the ultrasound intervention versus clinical examination was based on whether frank exudation was detected during incision and drainage of such swellings.Results:The statistical analysis found that USG is a valuable diagnostic aid for detection of abscess or cellulitis in head and neck facial space infections.Interpretation and Conclusion:The findings of this prospective analysis indicate that there was statistical difference between clinical examination alone and USG in making the correct diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, negative predictive, and accuracy were not similar for all methods tested. From the results of this study, ultrasound is recommended as an adjunct to clinical examination in differentiating between cellulitis and abscess.
Objective: To compare the effectiveness of bent leg raise technique and neurodynamics in patients with low back pain that radiates up to the knee. Methods: The pre-test post-test control group study was conducted at Department of Physical therapy, Maqsood Medical Complex and General Hospital Peshawar from February to July 2019. Patients with radiating low back pain of both genders aged 18-60 years were included in the study. Patients were divided into Group-A and Group-B. Group-A patients received Mulligan bent leg raise technique while Group-B patients received neurodynamics. Both groups received five sessions per week, for four weeks. Numeric pain rating scale, Oswestry disability index and goniometer was used to assess pain, functional disability and straight leg raise range before and after the interventions. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results: Thirty-two participants with mean age of 38.81±9.94 years, participated in the study. There were no significant differences (P-value >0.05) between the two groups at baseline. Post-treatment, within Group-Analysis showed that all three variables (pain, functional disability and straight leg raise range) significantly (P<0.05) improved in both groups. However, post treatment between Group-Analysis showed that there were no significant differences (P>0.05) between the two groups. Conclusion: Both neurodynamics and bent leg raise technique significantly improved pain, functional disability and straight leg raise range in patients with low back pain that radiates up to the knee. However, there were no significant differences between the groups who received either neurodynamics or bent leg raise technique. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.1.4010 How to cite this:Adnan M, Arsh A, Ali B, Ahmad S. Effectiveness of bent leg raise technique and neurodynamics in patients with radiating low back pain. Pak J Med Sci. 2022;38(1):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.1.4010 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
To compare the effects of neck exercises (McKenzie extension and isometric exercises) in the management of non-specific neck pain and range of motion in patients with neck pain. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in physiotherapy departments of Dr. Akbar Niazi Teaching Hospital, Islamabad. Forty consecutive patients with acute to sub-acute cases of neck pain (<3 month) were enrolled. Based on lottery method two groups (n=20 in each group) were differentiated, Group-I (control) received isometric neck exercises and group-II (treatment) received McKenzie extension exercises for 4-weeks along with hot packs therapy. Neck pain was measured using numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). All patients were nd th tested on baseline, at 2 and 4 week. RESULTS: Mean age of the sample was 33.85±4.80 and 33.50±5.20 years in group-I and group-II respectively. Male to female ratio was 4:1 in both groups. 2 Mean body mass index was 24.54±1.50kg/m. NPRS at baseline was 5.80±0.41 in group-I while 6.10±0.64 in group-II (p-value=0.001). NPRS decreased to 3.75±0.72 in group-I and 3.00±0.73 in group-II after 4-weeks (p-value=0.001). Neck flexion (degrees) at baseline was 31±2.05 in group-I and 35.75±1.83 in group-II (p-value=0.001) while after 4weeks increased to 35.50±4.26 in group-I and 40±4.29 in group-II (p-value=0.002). Neck extension (degrees) at baseline was 44±2.05 in group-I and 40.75±1.83 in group-II (p-value=0.001) while after 4-weeks increased to 48.5±4.01 in group-I and 45±4.29 in group-II (p-value=0.011). CONCLUSION: McKenzie exercises are more significant and show more improvement in reduction of pain and associated symptoms of neck and increased movements quicker than isometric exercises.
Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) and Interferential Current (IF) in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain. Material and Methods: This quasi experimental study was performed in Khyber Teaching Hospital and Khyber Medical University Peshawar from August 2015 to January 2016. All patients were assessed before and after TENS and IF therapy using Visual Analogue Scale 0-10 (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Thirty patients were divided into two groups. TENS (group I) & IF (group II). In group I, patients received 10 minutes session with heat therapy (hot pack) and 20 minutes session with TENS. In group II, the patients received 10 minutes session with heat therapy (hot pack) and 20 minutes session with IF current. Results: Mean age of participants was 34.85±4.80 and 33.50±5.20 years in group I and group II. The mean of pain before treatment in group I was 6.47±.29 and that of group II was 5.60±.33 in which the minimum pain on VAS was 4 and maximum pain was 8. A pair T test was done to identify the difference between pre and post treatment score on VAS in the intervention. The p values shows .000 which is less than .05 indicate that there is significant difference present between pre and post treatment pain on VAS. The pair T test for disability percentage on ODI was done to identify the difference between pre and post treatment in the interventions. The p value was less than .05 which shows that there is significant difference and reduction of disability percentage on ODI. Conclusion: The study concluded that both the treatment methods TENS and IF are effective in decreasing pain intensity and disability in low back pain patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.