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
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
References
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.