Preliminary study on effects of a hand-made natural sand hot pack on skin temperature changes compared with the standard hot pack

Main Article Content

Piyanee Sriya

Abstract

 


Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of the in-house glass sand hot pack compared with the standard hot pack for therapeutic use by measuring the outcome of time target of skin temperature.


Material and method: A total of 60 healthy male subjects, aged 20-22 years old, were enrolled in the study. Subjects applied a standard hot pack on the right thigh and a glass sand hot pack on the left thigh. Skin temperature was recorded every 4 minutes for duration of 28 min on both sides.


Results: The average skin temperature using either the glass sand hot pack or standard hot pack was not significantly different (p>0.05) at 0, 20, 24, and 28 min. However, the results showed a significant difference of temperature on skin reaching 40°C using the glass sand hot pack at 4, 8, 12, and 16 min which was  the range of therapeutic temperature (40-45°C), compared with those of the standard one.


Conclusion: The future use of the glass sand hot pack as a natural therapeutic material at home or in the rehabilitation clinics is promising since its application could achieve the therapeutic temperature of 40°C for 20 min.

Article Details

Section
นิพนธ์ต้นฉบับ (Original Article)

References

1. Poesin D, Carpenter PH, Féchoz C, Gasparini S. Effect of mud pack treatment on skin microcirculation. Joint Bone spine. 2004;70(5):367-70.
2. Litch S. History of Therapeutic. Heat and cold. In: Lehmann JF, editor. Therapeutic Heat and cold, 3rd ed. Baltimore: William & Wilkins, 1982. p. 1-12.
3. Michelle H. Physical agents in rehabilitation from research to practice. 2nd ed. Saunders; 2003. p. 158-69.
4. Robertson VJ, Ward AR, Jung P. The Effect of Heat on Tissue Extensibility: A Comparison of Deep and Superficial Heating. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(4):819-25.
5. Knight CA, Rutledge CR, Cox ME, Acosta M, Hall SJ. Effect of Superficial Heat, Deep Heat and Active Exercise Warm-up on the Extensibility of the Plantar Flexors. Phys Ther. 2001;81(6):1206-14.
6. Petrofsky J, Bains G, Prowse M, Gunda S, Berk L, Raju C, et al. Does skin moisture influence the blood flow response to local heat? A re-evaluation of the Pennes model. J Med Eng Technol. 2009;33(7):532-7.
7. Hecox B. Clinical effects of thermal modalities. In: Hecox B, Mehreteab TA, Weisberg J eds. Physical agents. Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1994: 94–123.
8. Rennie S, Michlovitz SL. Therapetic heat. In: Bellew JW, Michlovitz SL, Nolan Jr TP, editors. Michlovitz's Modalities for Therapeutic Intervention. Philadephia: F.A. Davis Company; 2016. p. 61-84.
9. Lehman JF, deLateur BJ. Ultrasound, Shortwave, Microwave, Superficial heat and cold in the treatment of pain. In Wall PD, Melzack R. editors. Textbook of Pain Edinburgh: Churchchill Living Stone; 1984, p. 717-74.
10. Davis P, Gaborski T, Pardo J, Patcha P, Whitman K. The effects of topical heating for therapeutic uses [Internet]. Cornell University; 2004 [cited 2020 Jun 5]. Available from: http://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/210.
11. Okada K, Yamaguchi T, Minowa K, Inoue N. The influence of hot pack therapy on the blood flow in masseter muscles. J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32(7):480-6.
12. Leek JC. Principle of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Orlando: Grune and Stralton; 1982, p. 275-350.
13. Strax TE, Grabois M, Gonzalez P, Escaldi SV, Reyna M, Cuccurullo SJ. Physical modalities. In: Cuccurullo SJ, editor. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Board Review. New York: Demos Medical Publishing; 2004. p. 621-639.
14. Leung MSF, Cheing GLY. Effects of deep and superficial heating in the management of frozen shoulder. J Rehabil Med. 2008;40(2):145-50.
15. Nadler SF, Steiner DJ, Erasala GN, Hengehold DA, Hinkle RT, Goodale MB, et al. Continuous low-level heat wrap therapy provides more efficacy than Ibuprofen and acetaminophen for acute low back pain. Spine. 2002;27:1012-17.