Objective To observe the efficacy differences between electroacupuncture （EA） and physiotherapy （PT） on the proprioception of athletes with functional ankle instability （FAI）. Methods Fifty athletes with FAI wer...Objective To observe the efficacy differences between electroacupuncture （EA） and physiotherapy （PT） on the proprioception of athletes with functional ankle instability （FAI）. Methods Fifty athletes with FAI were randomly divided into an EA group and a PT group. The EA group was treated with EA at Jiexi （解溪 ST 41）, Kunlun （昆仑 BL 60）, Qjuxu （丘墟 GB 40） and Ashi points, and the PT group was treated with low frequency electrical stimulation and infrared radiation at medial malleolus and lateral malleolus, thrice each week for consecutive 8 weeks. The joint position sense： active （JPSA）, joint position sense： passive （JPSP） and Kinaesthesia （KT） were assessed at the ankle by use of Biodex System isokinetic dynamometer to test the proprioception before and after the treatment. Results In the EA group, JPSA of 11.09°±3.1° and JPSP of 9.67°±2.8° before the treatment were reduced to 9.14°±4.0° and 6.89°±3.3° respectively after the treatment, and there were statistically significant differences in comparison between pre- and post-treatment （all P〈0.05）. Comparison between the EA group and the PT group, there were significant differences in JPSA and JPSP （all P〈0.05）, no significant difference in KT （P〉0.05）. There were no significant differences in the indices of JPSA, JPSP and KT in the PT group after the treatment than those before the treatment （all P〉0.05）. Conclusion EA can effectively improve the proprioception of athletes with FAI and achieve a better efficacy as compared with the conventional physiotherapy.展开更多
基金Supported by Shanghai Sports Bureau Sciences Program:09 TF 019
文摘Objective To observe the efficacy differences between electroacupuncture （EA） and physiotherapy （PT） on the proprioception of athletes with functional ankle instability （FAI）. Methods Fifty athletes with FAI were randomly divided into an EA group and a PT group. The EA group was treated with EA at Jiexi （解溪 ST 41）, Kunlun （昆仑 BL 60）, Qjuxu （丘墟 GB 40） and Ashi points, and the PT group was treated with low frequency electrical stimulation and infrared radiation at medial malleolus and lateral malleolus, thrice each week for consecutive 8 weeks. The joint position sense： active （JPSA）, joint position sense： passive （JPSP） and Kinaesthesia （KT） were assessed at the ankle by use of Biodex System isokinetic dynamometer to test the proprioception before and after the treatment. Results In the EA group, JPSA of 11.09°±3.1° and JPSP of 9.67°±2.8° before the treatment were reduced to 9.14°±4.0° and 6.89°±3.3° respectively after the treatment, and there were statistically significant differences in comparison between pre- and post-treatment （all P〈0.05）. Comparison between the EA group and the PT group, there were significant differences in JPSA and JPSP （all P〈0.05）, no significant difference in KT （P〉0.05）. There were no significant differences in the indices of JPSA, JPSP and KT in the PT group after the treatment than those before the treatment （all P〉0.05）. Conclusion EA can effectively improve the proprioception of athletes with FAI and achieve a better efficacy as compared with the conventional physiotherapy.
