Medical Journal of The Islamic Republic of Iran (MJIRI)
Iran University of Medical Sciences
Fri, Jan 30, 2026
[Archive]
Volume 39, Issue 1 (1-2025)
Med J Islam Repub Iran 2025 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Haghighat S, Khosrawi S, Behroozinia M. Investigating the Effectiveness of TECAR Therapy Versus Conventional Physiotherapy in Alleviating Symptoms of Shoulder Impingement Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2025; 39 (1) :1460-1466
URL: http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir/article-1-9756-en.html
URL: http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir/article-1-9756-en.html
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran , maryambehroozynia@yahoo.com
Abstract: (8 Views)
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.
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.
Type of Study: Original Research |
Subject:
Physical Medecine& Rehabilitaion
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
