| Objective : The purpose of this study is to explore the difference between the rehabilitation effects of routine physical therapy combined with sensorimotor training and routine physical therapy for patients with sacroiliac joint disorders.Therefore,to recommend a more targeted and feasible physical therapy plan for patients with sacroiliac joint disorders,which can significantly improve their symptoms and functions.Method:This study included 30 patients who met the criteria for sacroiliac joint disorders,including 17 male subjects and 13 female subjects.The 30 subjects were randomly assigned and evenly divided into two groups which an experimental group and a control group.The two groups of subjects were treated with conventional physical therapy schemes,and muscle energy technology treatments that were suitable for the subjects were given according to the diagnostic classification.The treatment frequency was 3 times per week,with 4 groups per time.In addition to receiving the above treatment,the experimental group also need to receive additional treatment that sensorimotor training treatment.The duration of such treatment was three times a week,with each treatment lasting 25 minutes.Both groups received a 4-week intervention.Before,after,and at the end of the second month after the intervention,the subjects were evaluated for their visual analogue scale(VAS),the modified Oswestry disability index(MODI),and statistical positive probability at each time point.In addition,it is also necessary to specifically analyze the results obtained based on different typing and physical diagnostic tests.Two factors were used to repeatedly measure variance to analyze and determine whether there were differences between their subjective evaluation indicators at the three time points before and after intervention in the two groups as a whole,and to determine whether there were differences between their subjective evaluation indicators at the three time points before and after intervention in the two different types of the experimental group.Using the independent sample t test scheme,based on the same time point,judge the various indicators between the two groups to determine whether there is a difference.Similarly,at the same time point,judge whether there are differences in the various indicators of the two different types in the experimental group.Whether there are differences in various indicators before and after the internal intervention in the analysis group is determined by analyzing the single factor repeated measurement variance and paired sample t-test.The changes in the positive rate of sacroiliac joint disorders were conducted in three stages that before,after,and at the end of the second month after the intervention,and Fisher’s exact probability method and chart analysis were used to analyze these changes.Bidirectional disorder R×Table C exact probability method and chart analysis method are used to analyze the changes in the results of different physical diagnostic tests.Research results:(1)VAS score:Before intervention,there was no significant difference between the two groups(p=0.745).In the experimental group,there was a significant improvement in the first time after intervention compared to before intervention(p=0.000).Similarly,the control group also showed significant improvement compared to before intervention(p=0.001),and at the first time after intervention,there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group(p=0.051).At the end of the second month after intervention,the experimental group still had a significant improvement compared to before intervention(p=0.000),but compared to the first time period after intervention,there was no statistical significance(p=0.751).Compared with the control group before the intervention,there was still a significant improvement(p=0.000),but compared with the first time period after the intervention,there was a significant deterioration(p=0.012).This time,there was a statistically significant difference between the groups(p=0.002).(2)MODI index:Before intervention,there was no significant difference between the two groups(p=0.062).In the experimental group,there was a significant improvement in the first time after intervention compared to before intervention(p=0.001).Similarly,the control group also showed significant improvement compared to before intervention(p=0.000),and at the first time after intervention,there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group(p=0.595).At the end of the second month after intervention,the experimental group still had a significant improvement compared to before intervention(p=0.003),but compared to the first time period after intervention,there was no statistical significance(p=0.872).Compared with the control group before the intervention,there was still a significant improvement(p=0.001),but compared with the first time period after the intervention,there was a significant deterioration(p=0.012).This time,there was a statistically significant difference between the groups(p=0.001).(3)During the first period after intervention,the number of patients with positive dysfunction in sacroiliac joint disorders decreased significantly,with only 5 patients,and the positive rate decreased to 33.3%.However,there was improvement at the end of the second month after intervention,which the number of positive cases in the experimental group was well controlled,only decreasing to 4 cases,with a percentage of 26.7.On the contrary,the control group showed a significant increase,reaching 14 cases,accounting for 93.3%.Compared with the control group,the experimental group had statistical significance(p=0.000).At the end of the second month after intervention,only one person in the control group successfully transitioned from positive to negative compared to before intervention.The results of these three physical tests are shown as follows: the trend of change in the standing posture forward flexion test and the Gillet test are very similar,and the probability of turning negative after intervention is also relatively high.However,at the end of the second month after intervention,all subjects in the experimental group have no change,but only one person in the control group has not changed,and all others have turned positive again.Compared to the Thigh Thrust test,there were no significant changes in the results of the experimental group and the control group based on each time point.(4)Results between different subtypes: Among the specific subtypes in the experimental group,there was no significant difference in the overall variation of VAS scores among different subtypes(p=0.602),no significant difference after intervention(p=0.433),and no significant difference at the end of the second month after intervention(p=0.247);There was no significant difference in the overall variation of the MODI index among different subtypes(p=0.203),no significant difference after intervention(p=0.187),and no significant difference at the end of the second month after intervention(p=0.151);In the specific different types of the control group,there was a significant difference in the overall range of changes in VAS scores among different types(p=0.010),a significant difference in the difference between VAS scores before and after intervention among different types(p=0.002),and a significant difference in the difference between VAS scores at the end of the second month after intervention and after intervention among different types(p=0.029);There was a significant difference in the overall change amplitude of the MODI index among different subtypes(p=0.000),and there was a significant difference in the difference between the MODI index after intervention and before intervention among different subtypes(p=0.012).Conclusions:(1)Both routine physical therapy combined with sensorimotor training and routine physical therapy can improve pain symptoms and functional limitations in patients with sacroiliac joint disorders after intervention.(2)Pain symptoms and functional limitations in patients with sacroiliac joint disorders can be effectively controlled through routine physical therapy combined with sensorimotor training during long-term follow-up.(3)In the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint disorders by physical testing,after routine physical therapy or a combination of routine physical therapy and kinesthetic perception training,the results of the provocation test are less likely to change compared to the joint surface physiological movement test.(4)Routine physical therapy has a significant difference in the efficacy of different types of sacroiliac joint disorders(single type is better than combined type),while sensorimotor training,based on routine physical therapy,can better maintain the longterm rehabilitation effect,while there is no significant difference in the efficacy of different types of sacroiliac joint disorders. |
PDF Full Text Request