Background: There are various therapeutic options for the conservative management of lower back pain (LBP). A combination of two or more treatment options may be more effective in the clinical management of non-specific LBP. In this study, we compared the effects of simultaneous heat massage with conventional physical therapy in patients with subacute LBP. Methods: A single-center randomized controlled trial in which 40 participants with LBP were allocated to one of two groups: a heat massage group (HMG) and physical therapy group (PTG). The HMG received simultaneous heat massage therapy using a mechanical device (CGM MB-1401, Ceragem, Republic of Korea). The PTG received conventional physical therapy. Both groups received 40 min of therapy once daily, five times a week, for a total of four weeks. Changes in serum cortisol, epinephrine (EP), and norepinephrine (NE) were assessed. The outcomes were measured using the pain numeric rating scale (PNRS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the Roland–Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ), the short-form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), the multidimensional fatigue inventory (MFI-20), the Beck depression inventory (BDI), surface EMG (sEMG), and sympathetic skin response (SSR) at baseline (PRE), at 2 (2 W) and 4 weeks (4 W) following the intervention. Results: The serum EP and NE levels in the HMG decreased after treatment. The PNRS, ODI, RMDQ, and SF-MPQ scores improved without significance in both groups. The BDI score showed improvement in the HMG before the PTG. The MFI-20 score improved in both groups, but the results were better in the HMG than in the PTG at 4 W. All the activities of sEMG were significantly decreased in both groups. However, the improvement of the %MVIC in the HMG was better than that in the PTG at 4 W. The SSR latency on sEMG decreased while the amplitude increased in the HMG at 2 W and 4 W, respectively. Conclusions: Following 4 weeks of combined therapies, heat massage was not superior to conventional physical therapy alone. Both treatments were shown to be effective in improving LBP and pain-related disability. However, heat massage was shown to have a better effect on the control of autonomic nerve function and underlying moods.

This study aimed to determine whether the treatment effect differs for patients with stroke who perform robot-assisted upper-extremity rehabilitation by themselves compared to those whose rehabilitation is actively assisted by a therapist. Stroke patients with hemiplegia were randomly divided into two groups and received robot-assisted upper-limb rehabilitation for four weeks. In the experimental group, a therapist actively intervened in the treatment, while in the control group, the therapist only observed. After four weeks of rehabilitation, the manual muscle strength, Brunnstrom stage, Fugl-Meyer assessment of the upper-extremity (FMA-UE), box and block test, and functional independence measure (FIM) showed significant improvement in both groups compared to that before treatment; however, no interval change in spasticity was noted. The post-treatment values showed that the FMA-UE and box and block tests were significantly improved in the experimental group compared to those in the control group. Comparing the changes in the pre- and post-treatment values, the FMA-UE, box and block test, and FIM of the experimental group were significantly improved compared to those in the control group. Our results suggest that active intervention by therapists during robot-assisted upper-limb rehabilitation positively impacts upper-extremity function outcomes in patients with stroke.

Background/Objectives: Plantar fasciitis (PF) is a common condition that causes heel pain. While various conservative treatment modalities for PF exist, no previous studies have investigated the effectiveness of shoe rotation (ShR) in patients with PF pain. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic effectiveness of ShR with that of two conventional treatments for PF—namely, foot orthosis (FO) and physical therapy (PT). Methods: Charts of 42 patients with heel pain were retrospectively reviewed. Participants were allocated to one of three treatment groups: the ShR group, the customized FO group, and the PT group. Pain and functional outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Digital Pain Scale (DPS), Foot Function Index (FFI), Foot Pain and Function Scale (FPFS), and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot Scale (AOFAS-AHS) at baseline and at 4 and 12 weeks after the intervention. Results: The ShR, FO, and PT groups all showed improvements, with statistically significant decreases in VAS, DPS, and FFI scores and significant increases in FPFS and AOFAS-AHS scores over time (p < 0.05). All three interventions resulted in significant improvements from baseline to 4 weeks and further to 12 weeks (p < 0.05). The ShR group exhibited a slightly larger effect on all measurements than the other groups. Conclusions: ShR, FO, and PT contributed to pain reduction and functional improvement, and alternating the shoes alleviated PF pain. These results suggest a new approach to managing PF and serve as a basis for providing convenient treatment for patients with PF.