"IONTOPHORESIS vs. PHONOPHORESIS" for Treatment of Subacromial Impingement Syndrome
Condition: Subacromial Impingement Syndrome
MeSH terms: Shoulder Impingement Syndrome; Syndrome; Rotator Cuff Injuries
Study type: Interventional

Summary: 
      The aim of this study was to compare the effects of iontophoresis and phonophoresis
      applications added to conventional treatment on pain, range of motion, disability, and
      functional status in the shoulder region in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome.
    

Detailed description: 
      Randomization: Forty-seven patients were assessed, and 43 completed the study in this
      randomized trial. The participants were divided into two groups (Iontophoresis:22 and
      Phonophoresis:21) using the online randomization software (www.randomizer.org). All patients
      gave written informed consent after being verbally informed about the study.

      Assessment Period: Assessments were conducted twice, at the start and after completion of the
      10-session treatment program.

      Session Period: All treatment programs were delivered five days per week for two weeks. The
      total number of sessions was ten.

      Analysis: The statistical analysis was performed using version 21 of the Statistical Package
      for the Social Sciences (SPSS).To verify normal distribution, the Shapiro-Wilk test and
      histogram curves were utilized. Descriptive statistics for parametric variables included
      mean, standard deviation, and percentage. Since the data exhibited normal distribution,
      independent sample T-tests were used for group comparison while paired sample T-tests were
      used to detect changes within the group. The significance level of p<0.05 was deemed
      acceptable for all analyses. For variables with nominal assessments, data were analyzed
      utilizing Yates Continuity Correction and Fisher's exact chi-square test.

      The post hoc power of the study was calculated using Gpower 3.1.9.1 software. The resting VAS
      scores was taken as reference. In this context, Cohen's effect size was calculated as 1.00.
      When the alpha error was accepted as 5%, and effect size was 1.00, the post hoc power was
      found to be 94.27%.
    

Intervention name(s): Iontophoresis Intervention; Phonophoresis; Conventional Therapy
Intervention type(s): Procedure; Procedure; Procedure
Intervention description(s): Iontophoresis was applied with a Chattanooga Physio (DJO Global, Herentals, Belgium) brand device. The galvanic current mode was selected for the intervention. Intervention area was cleaned to prevent irritation and active electrode pad (cathode-5 cm2) was immersed in 75 mg diclofenac sodium solution. The current intensity of the application for 10 minutes was 0.1-0.2 mA/cm2.; Phonophoresis was performed with a Chattanooga brand ultrasound device (Chattanooga, Intelect Legend Ultrasound, TN, USA). 75 mg gel containing 1% diclofenac sodium was applied to the shoulder area. The ultrasound was conducted continuously for 6 minutes with frequency of 1 MHz and an intensity of 1.5 watts/cm2.; All groups received a treatment program consisting of hot pack, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation and Shoulder girdle exercises for 30 minutes.
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention model: Parallel Assignment
Intervention model description: There were two separate groups in the study. The first group received iontophoresis and the other group received phonophoresis. The effects on treatment outcomes were compared.
Masking: None (Open Label)
Primary purpose: Treatment
Keywords: Iontophoresis; Phonophoresis; Pain; Disability