Search

ObjectiveTo compare the short-term, mid-term and long-term effects between three interventions (education only, education and strengthening exercises, education and motor control exercises) for rotator cuff-related shoulder pain (RCRSP) on symptoms and function.Methods123 adults presenting with RCRSP took part in a 12-week intervention. They were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 intervention groups. Symptoms and function were evaluated at baseline and at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks and 24 weeks using the Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) (primary outcome) and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC). Linear mixed modelling was used to compare the effects of the three programmes on the outcomes.ResultsAfter 24 weeks, between-group differences were −2.1 (-7.7 to 3.5) (motor control vs education), 1.2 (-4.9 to 7.4) (strengthening vs education) and −3.3 (-9.5 to 2.8) (motor control vs strengthening) for theQuickDASH and 9.3 (1.5 to 17.1) (motor control vs education), 1.3 (−7.6 to 10.2) (strengthening vs education) and 8.0 (−0.5 to 16.5) (motor control vs strengthening) for the WORC. There was a significant group-by-time interaction (p=0.04) withQuickDASH, but follow-up analyses did not reveal any clinically meaningful between-group differences. There was no significant group-by-time interaction (p=0.39) for the WORC. Between-group differences never exceeded the minimal clinically important difference ofQuickDASH or WORC.ConclusionIn people with RCRSP, the addition of motor control or strengthening exercises to education did not lead to larger improvements in symptoms and function compared with education alone. Further research should investigate the value of providing stepped care by identifying individuals who may only need education and those who would benefit from the addition of motor control or strengthening exercises.Trial registration numberNCT03892603.

IntroductionApproximately 33% of people who contracted COVID-19 still experience symptoms 12 weeks after infection onset. This persistence of symptoms is now considered a syndrome itself called ‘long COVID’. Evidence regarding long COVID and its cognitive and physical impacts is growing, but the literature is currently lacking objectively measured data to guide towards adapted healthcare trajectories. The objectives are to describe the physical and cognitive impairments experienced by individuals living with long COVID using self-reported and clinical objective measures, and to compare the evolution over time of the physical and cognitive state between adults living with long COVID (at least one physical or cognitive COVID-19 symptom for more than 12 weeks following infection; long COVID group), people who developed COVID-19 but did not experience persistent symptoms (short COVID group) and people who did not develop COVID-19 (control group).Methods and analysisIn this longitudinal cohort study, 120 participants will be recruited in each group. Variables will be collected through three evaluation sessions over 6 months (baseline, 3 months, 6 months). Variables include self-administered questionnaires on health-related quality of life, comorbidity, sleep, pain, anxiety, depressive symptoms, fatigue and cognitive function, as well as objective measures of cognitive (attention, memory, executive functioning) and physical (grip strength, balance, gait speed, gait endurance, VO2, frailty) functions. Activity, heart rate and sleep will be monitored with a fitness tracker watch for 7 days following evaluation sessions. Maximum-likelihood analyses of variance (ANOVAs) will be used to compare data at baseline between groups. Repeated measures ANOVAs will be used to compare the longitudinal performance variations across groups of the self-reported and clinical variables.Ethics and disseminationEthics committees of the CIUSSS de la Capitale-Nationale and CIUSSS de l’Est-de-l’Île-de-Montréal approved the project. Results will be disseminated through clinical and community platforms as well as through peer-reviewed manuscripts and international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT05216536.

ObjectivesThe rising prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders increases pressure on primary care services. In France, patients with musculoskeletal disorders are referred to physiotherapist (PT) by family physician (FP). To improve access to musculoskeletal care, a new model of task sharing and shifting is implemented between FPs and PTs for patients with acute low back pain. This new model enables French PTs to expand their usual scope of practice by receiving patients as first-contact practitioner, diagnosing low back pain, prescribing sick leave and analgesic medication. The aim of this study is to investigate the acceptability of FPs and PTs regarding this new model.DesignA cross-sectional survey design was used. Acceptability was measured using a questionnaire on the perception of the model and the perception of PTs’ skills to manage low back pain. Descriptive analyses were performed to compare results among participants.SettingFrench FPs and PTs working in multidisciplinary primary healthcare centres were invited to complete an online survey.ParticipantsA total of 174 respondents completed the survey (81 FPs and 85 PTs).ResultsA majority of participants had a positive perception of the task sharing and shifting model. A majority of the participants were mostly or totally favourable towards the implementation of the model (FPs: n=46, 82% and PTs: n=40, 82%). The perceived level of competencies of PTs to manage acute low back pain was high. The confidence level of FPs was higher than that of PTs regarding PTs’ ability to adequately diagnose low back pain, refer patient to physiotherapy and prescribe sick leave or analgesic medication.ConclusionBased on this limited sample of participants, there appears to be good acceptability of the task sharing and shifting model for acute low back pain. Additional studies are needed to better determine the factors affecting the acceptability of such a model.

BackgroundRotator cuff calcific tendinopathy is characterised by the deposition of hydroxyapatite crystals in one of the rotator cuff tendons and can be managed by ultrasound-guided lavage. However, evidence regarding the efficacy of ultrasound-guided lavage for rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy remains inconclusive. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to update the available evidence on the efficacy of ultrasound-guided lavage in adults with rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy.MethodsA literature search was conducted up to April 2018 in four bibliographic databases to identify randomised control trials that compared ultrasound-guided lavage alone with other interventions to treat rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy. Randomised control trials were assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Meta-analyses and/or qualitative synthesis of the evidence were performed.ResultsThree randomised control trials were included. Pooled results for pain (n=226) indicated that ultrasound-guided lavage may significantly decrease pain when compared with shockwave therapy, with a mean difference of −1.98 out of 10 points (95% CI −2.52 to −1.45) in the short term and of −1.84 (95% CI −2.63 to −1.04) in the long term. Based on one trial (n=25), ultrasound-guided lavage significantly improved function when compared with shockwave therapy (pConclusionFor individuals with rotator cuff calcific tendinopathy, low-quality evidence suggests that ultrasound-guided lavage is more effective than shockwave therapy or a corticosteroid injection alone. Future trials could modify the present conclusions.Trial registration numberCRD42018095858.

Introduction Chronic lateral epicondylosis (CLE) of the elbow is a prevalent condition among middle-aged people with no consensus on optimal care management but for which surgery is generally accepted as a second intention treatment. Among conservative treatment options, ultrasound (US)-guided fenestration has shown encouraging results that should be explored before surgery is considered. The primary objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of US-guided fenestration with open-release surgery in patients with failure to improve following a minimum 6 months of conservative treatment. Methods and analysis This study protocol entails a two-arm, single-blinded, randomised, controlled design. Sixty-four eligible patients with clinically confirmed CLE will be assigned to either US-guided fenestration or open-release surgery. Fisher’s exact test will be used to compare the proportion of patients reporting a change of 11/100 points or more in the Patient Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation score at 6 months, according to an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary analyses will compare the two treatment groups in terms of pain and disability, functional limitations at work, pain-free grip strength, medication burden, patients’ global impression of change and level of satisfaction at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months, using mixed linear models for repeated measures or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Finally, recursive partitioning analyses will investigate US and elastography parameters as predictors of treatment success at 6 and 12 months. This data will contribute to evidence-based treatment guidelines for CLE and explore the value of imaging biomarkers to improve risk stratification plans and assist clinicians. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the Research Ethics Board of our institution on 23 March 2016 (REB 15.327). In case of important protocol modifications, a new version of the protocol with appropriate amendments will be submitted to the REB for approval. Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at local, national and international conferences. Trial registration number NCT02710682.