The effects of Tiszasüly and Kolop mud pack therapy on knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority controlled study

27Citations
Citations of this article
58Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The aim of this non-inferiority study was to evaluate and compare the effects of Tiszasüly and Kolop mud pack therapy on pain, function and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis. In this double-blind, randomised, follow-up study, 60 patients with knee osteoarthritis were treated with either Tiszasüly hot mud pack (group 1) or with Kolop hot mud pack (group 2) on 10 occasions for 2 weeks (10 working days). One hundred millimetre visual analogue scale (VAS) for knee pain, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Lequesne Index for physical function and EuroQoL-5D for quality-of-life measurements were recorded at baseline, at the end of treatment (week 2) and 3 months later (week 12). In both groups, all measured parameters improved significantly from the baseline until the end of treatment and during the follow-up period (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the WOMAC, KOOS, EQ-5D and Lequesne Index at any visits. Knee pain improved in both groups at week 2 and week 12; the only significant difference visible between the groups was at the end of the treatment in favour of the Tiszasüly mud pack group (p = 0.009). Tiszasüly and Kolop mud packs both have a favourable effect on knee pain, physical function and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Our results proved non-inferiority of Tiszasüly mud pack.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Király, M., Kővári, E., Hodosi, K., Bálint, P. V., & Bender, T. (2020). The effects of Tiszasüly and Kolop mud pack therapy on knee osteoarthritis: a double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority controlled study. International Journal of Biometeorology, 64(6), 943–950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-019-01764-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free