EFFECT OF RUSSIAN CURRENT ON QUADRICEPS MUSCLE STRENGTH IN SUBJECTS WITH PRIMARY OSTEOARTHRITIS OF KNEE: A RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL

Relevance: OA knee is one of the most common conditions leading functional disabilities seen worldwide. There are different methods to manage osteoarthritis, conservatively, and/or surgically. Physiotherapy treatment, as a part of conservative management, involves reduction of pain, improvement of muscle strength and improvement of functional ability by various approaches like exercise therapy, electrotherapy and manual therapy techniques. Quadriceps muscle weakness is one of the main features seen in OA knee. Russian current stimulation has been successfully used to increase muscle strength in healthy athletes but its effect on quadriceps muscle strength in OA knee has not been studied. Hence the present study was undertaken to know the effect of Russian current stimulation on quadriceps muscle strength in patients with primary OA knee. Participants: 30 subjects (mean age 50.25±6.35 years) diagnosed with primary OA knee were recruited from Out-Patient Department of Physiotherapy of KLES Dr. Prabhakar Kore Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Belgaum. Method: Subjects were randomly allocated into 2 groups namely Group A (n=15) who received Short Wave Diathermy (SWD) and exercises and Group B (n=15) who received SWD, exercises and Russian current stimulation for 10 days. The outcome measures were Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, muscle strength by using Handheld dynamometer, and WOMAC osteoarthritis index for functional disability. Analysis: Within group and between group analysis after intervention was done to assess changes using paired t-test and unpaired t - tests. Result: The VAS scores for group A reduced from 6.8±1.49 (baseline) to1.4±0.91 (post-intervention) and for group B from 6.3±1.29 (baseline) to 1±1.14 (post-intervention). The WOMAC score of group A decreased from 59.7±11.56 (baseline) to 24.1±6.01 (post-intervention) and of group B decreased from 50.4±22.30 (baseline) to 12.5±7.54 (post-intervention). The muscle strength of group A increased from 7.9±0.94 (baseline) to 8.6±0.95 (post-intervention) and of group B it increased from 8.3±0.67 (baseline) to 10.6±0.89 (post-intervention).Group B showed better improvement in muscle strength and function than group A. The intra group and between group comparison was statistically significant with p=