Thermotherapy vs. Cryotherapy

The debate between the applications of thermotherapy (hot) versus cryotherapy (cold) in the treatment of patients in the acute inflammatory phase following injury continues to wage on in the realm of professional healthcare and rehabilitation. For many athletic trainers, whether to use heat or cold therapy is often a personal choice, although cold therapy seems to be more effective for acute pain (Itoh & Lee, 2007). However, for many patients/clients concerned with the effectiveness of a specific treatment coupled with the rate of recovery, hard evidence derived from reliable and consistent research in support of one modality as the most effective, is in high demand.

While both hot and cold treatments may be used to alleviate pain and inflammation, the various physical and chemical aspects of these two treatments have vitally different effects on the human body in regards to treatment of inflammation (Itoh & Lee, 2007). In general, temperature alterations have four main effects on surface body tissues, including pain relief (analgesia), muscle relaxation, blood vessel alterations, and connective tissue effects (Wnorowski, 2011). When treating a patient, it is important to know both the effects of the medium or modality being used on the body, as well as the consequences that it will bring to bear in relation to the physiological effects the body is already experiencing due to the mechanism of injury. The inflammatory response is divided into acute inflammation, which occurs over seconds, minutes, hours, and days, and chronic inflammation, which occurs over longer times. During the acute stage of inflammation, the arterioles in the body region that experienced the injury dilate, allowing increased blood flow to the area. As blood rushes to the site of injury, the area swells as additional fluid accumulates in the interstitial spaces of the region, a condition known as edema. The four cardinal signs of an acute inflammatory response are: pain, heat,...