Investigating the Effectiveness of Tecar Therapy Versus Conventional Physiotherapy in Alleviating Symptoms of Shoulder Impingement Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial Publisher

Summary: Is TECAR therapy better for shoulder pain? A comparison found both TECAR and standard physiotherapy improved symptoms, with no clear advantage for either. #Physiotherapy #ShoulderPain

Haghighat S ; Khosrawi S ; Behroozinia M
Source: Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran Published:2025

Abstract

Background: Shoulder impingement syndrome is a common clinical condition characterized by pain and reduced shoulder range of motion. As the efficacy of Transfer of Energy Capacitive and Resistive (TECAR) therapy, a form of noninvasive electrothermal therapy, in managing this condition is not yet well-established, this study aims to investigate and compare the effectiveness of TECAR therapy and conventional physiotherapy in improving pain, shoulder disability, and the painless active abduction range of motion in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. Methods: Fifty patients were randomized into two groups. The first group received conventional physiotherapy, which included continuous ultrasound, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, infrared therapy, and hot packs (10 sessions administered on alternate days). The second group underwent TECAR therapy in both resistive and capacitive modes (two sessions per week). Both groups took daily meloxicam and performed exercises for 3 weeks. Outcome measures included the painless active abduction range of motion, assessed using a goniometer, and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. Assessments were conducted at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and at the 3-month follow-up. Results: The between-group comparisons showed no significant differences between the two treatment methods in any outcome measure, either immediately after treatment or at the 3-month follow-up (P > 0.05), indicating comparable effectiveness of the interventions over time. Between-group effect size estimates were small both immediately post-treatment (range: d = 0.24–0.25) and at the 3-month follow-up for pain (d = 0.33), disability (d = 0.33), and range of motion (d = 0.40), further supporting the absence of clinically meaningful differences between groups. Within-group analyses demonstrated that both groups showed significant improvements in all outcome measures from baseline to post-treatment and follow-up (P < 0.001). Conclusion: In conclusion, both TECAR therapy and traditional physiotherapy are effective therapeutic approaches for shoulder impingement syndrome and can be considered equally viable treatment options, with no clear superiority between them. The choice of treatment should therefore depend on the preference of the therapist and the patient. Copyright © Iran University of Medical Sciences. This work has been published under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.