The effectiveness of dry heat treatment (fluidotherapy) in patients with distal radius fracture followed conservatively: a single-blinded, randomized controlled clinical study

Cigdem-Karacay, Basak; Horoz, Levent; Ceylan, Ismail; Alkan, Halil

doi:10.1590/1806-9282.20250806

home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next

home Sumário

Original Article • Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras. 71 (11) • 2025 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20250806 linkcopy

The effectiveness of dry heat treatment (fluidotherapy) in patients with distal radius fracture followed conservatively: a single-blinded, randomized controlled clinical study

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

SUMMARY

OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of fluidotherapy has not been investigated in patients with distal radius fracturedistal radius fracture.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of fluidotherapy added to conventional rehabilitation programs on pain, edema, muscle strength, and functionality in conservatively followed distal radius fracture patients.

METHODS: The present randomized controlled, single-blinded study was conducted with 40 distal radius fracture patients who were followed conservatively with a cast. The patients were divided into two groups: the fluidotherapy and conventional rehabilitation groups. In addition to the conventional rehabilitation programs, the patients in the fluidotherapy group received 30 sessions of fluidotherapy for 6 weeks. Rest and activity pain were measured with the Numeric Rating Scale, edema with the Figure 8 method, joint range of motion with goniometry, handgrip strength with a dynamometer, and functionality with the patient-rated wrist evaluation questionnaire. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline, at week 2, and at week 6.

RESULTS: Statistically significant changes were found in the intragroup measurements for all parameters in both groups (p<0.05). In the measurements between the groups, there was a statistical difference in the Numeric Rating Scale rest and range of motion flexion values in the conventional rehabilitation group and in the range of motion pronation parameters in the fluidotherapy group (p<0.05). No difference was found between the groups in the other parameters (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION: Adding fluidotherapy to distal radius fracture rehabilitation had no effect on activity pain, edema, muscle strength, or functionality. Improvement in resting pain among distal radius fracture patients was less with the addition of fluidotherapy. Fluidotherapy was effective only on wrist pronation.

KEYWORDS:
Wrist fractures; Hand; Range of motion; Physical therapy modalities; Edema

		Fluidotherapy group (n=19)		Conventional rehabilitation group (n=21)		t	p
		X	SD	X	SD	t	p
Age (years)		57	15	58	11	-0.44	0.660
Height (cm)		167	9	164	9	1.17	0.246
Weight (kg)		82	16	74	9	2	0.055
		n	(%)	n	(%)	χ²	p-value
Gender	Female	14	73.7	14	66.7	0.23	0.629
Gender	Male	5	26.3	7	33.3	0.23	0.629
Smoking	No	17	89.5	18	85.7	0.12	0.720
Smoking	Yes	2	10.5	3	14.3	0.12	0.720
Dominant hand	Right	17	89.5	16	76.2	1.21	0.270
Dominant hand	Center	2	10.5	5	23.8	1.21	0.270
Operative hand	Right	12	63.2	12	57.1	0.15	0.698
Operative hand	Center	7	36.8	9	42.9	0.15	0.698

			Fluidotherapy group (n=19)		Conventional rehabilitation group (n=21)		Time	Group*time	Pairwise comparisons (week)**	η²
			Fluidotherapy group (n=19)		Conventional rehabilitation group (n=21)		Time	F/p
			X	SD	X	SD	P	F/p
NRS	Rest	Baseline	2.88	2.32	5.71	1.63	0.000	11.36/0.000	0–2, 0–6, 2–6	0.230
		Week 2	1.04	1.36	2.10	1.36
		Week 6	0.25	0.49	0.89	0.53
	Activity	Baseline	5.49	2.44	6.15	2.02	0.000	0.50/0.607	0–2, 0–6, 2–6	0.027
		Week 2	2.16	1.40	2.00	1.21
		Week 6	0.81	1.10	0.84	0.83
ROM	Flexion	Baseline	40	13	36	16	0.000	13.54/0.000	0–2, 0–6, 2–6	0.423
		Week 2	47	10	61	9
		Week 6	54	10	65	7
	Extension	Baseline	33	17	36	12	0.000	1.51/0.234	0–2, 0–6, 2–6	0.076
		Week 2	46	11	55	8
		Week 6	51	11	60	6
	Supination	Baseline	68	22	54	12	0.000	2.12/0.134	0–2, 0–6, 2–6	0.103
		Week 2	82	8	78	8
		Week 6	86	7	82	8
	Pronation	Baseline	67	17	79	9	0.000	3.92/0.028	0–2, 0–6, 2–6	0.175
		Week 2	77	9	85	8
		Week 6	82	9	88	5

		Fluidotherapy group (n=19)		Conventional rehabilitation group (n=21)		Time	Group*time	Pairwise comparisons (week)**	η²
		Fluidotherapy group (n=19)		Conventional rehabilitation group (n=21)		Time	F/p
		X	SD	X	SD	p	F/p
Edema	Baseline	43.9	3.3	42.5	2.3	0.000	1.10/0.342	0–2, 0–6, 2–6	0.056
	Week 2	43.2	3.0	41.7	2.1
	Week 6	43.0	2.9	41.2	2.0
Handgrip strength	Baseline	7.06	4.11	11.90	2.73	0.000	2.56/0.09	0–2, 0–6, 2–6	0.122
	Week 2	12.16	6.32	15.54	3.49
	Week 6	16.88	7.03	18.72	3.61
Total PRWE	Baseline	73.82	15.48	70.35	20.12	0.000	0.66/0.520	0–2, 0–6, 2–6	0.035
	Week 2	42.85	15.56	40.15	18.41
	Week 6	20.72	13.23	21.95	16.26

vertical_align_top show_chart

more_horiz close
- image
- translate
- link
- article
- vertical_align_top
- file_download
- show_chart
- image
- translate
- link
- article

location_on

Associação Médica Brasileira R. São Carlos do Pinhal, 324, 01333-903 São Paulo SP - Brazil, Tel: +55 11 3178-6800, Fax: +55 11 3178-6816 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: ramb@amb.org.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] t: t-test in independent groups; χ²: Chi-square analysis; X: mean; SD: standard deviation.