Search

To translate and culturally adapt the shoulder instability-return to sport after injury (SI-RSI) scale into Turkish (SI-RSI-Tr) and examine the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of athletes following a traumatic shoulder instability. The SI-RSI was translated into Turkish using Beaton guidelines. Sixty-nine patients with shoulder instability completed the translated SI-RSI, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Walch-Duplay Scores. We analysed the internal consistency, agreement, reliability, and validity of the SI-RSI-Tr. The SI-RSI-Tr demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92), test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.95), and feasibility with no ceiling or floor effect. SI-RSI-Tr correlated with WOSI total score (r = −0.824, p < 0.001), its subscales: WOSI-physical (r = −0.683, p < 0.001), WOSI-sports (r = −0.832, p < 0.001), WOSI-lifestyle (r = −0.739, p < 0.001), and WOSI-emotions (r = −0.734, p < 0.001) respectively), Walch-Duplay (r = 0.840, p < 0.001) and TSK (r = −0.828, p < 0.001) scores. The Turkish SI-RSI is a reliable, internally consistent, and valid tool for athletes with shoulder instability. Researchers and clinicians could safely use the SIRSI-Tr to evaluate the shoulder-specific psychological factors on return to sports following an episode of shoulder instability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective There is no consensus about the optimal frequency of patient visits during the rehabilitation program after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). This study aimed to investigate the short- and long-term effects of high-frequency (HF) and low-frequency (LF) visits of the patients in the first 12 weeks of rehabilitation after ARCR. Methods This was a quasi-randomized study with 2 parallel groups. Forty-seven patients with ARCR were included in 2 different patient visit frequency protocols (HF = 23, LF = 24) in 12 weeks of postoperative rehabilitation. Patients in the HF group visited the clinic twice a week, whereas patients in the LF group visited once every 2 weeks for the first 6 weeks and once a week for the following 6 weeks. Both groups performed the same exercise protocol. Outcome measurements were pain and range of motion measured at baseline; at the 3rd, 5th, 8th, 12th, and 24th weeks; and at 1-year follow-up. Shoulder function was assessed at the 12th and 24th weeks and at 1-year follow-up with an American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. Results There was a significant group × time interaction in pain intensity during the activity between the groups. The activity pain intensity was higher in the LF group (4.2 points) at 8 weeks post surgery than in the HF group (2.7 points) (mean difference: 1.5 points, P  < .05), whereas it was similar in both groups at other time periods. The interaction term was not significant between the groups for pain intensity during rest and night through the 1-year follow-up. No group × time interactions were observed in shoulder range of motion and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score over the postoperative period. Conclusion Both rehabilitation programs at different visit frequencies after ARCR showed similar clinical results in the long term. A supervised, controlled rehabilitation program with LF visits in the first 12 weeks after surgery can be sufficient to achieve optimal clinical results and reduce rehabilitation-related costs after ARCR. Impact This study highlights that LF treatment protocols under the supervision of the therapist can be adopted after the arthroscopic rotator cuff repair to achieve successful results while decreasing the treatment costs. Physical therapists should plan the treatment sessions efficiently for the compliance of the patients to the exercise treatment. Lay Summary If you are a patient with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, a supervised, controlled rehabilitation program with low-frequency visits in the first 12 weeks after surgery could help you achieve the best outcome and help lower the costs of rehabilitation. A total of 3 visits in the first 6 weeks might be sufficient (once every 2 weeks). More frequent visits (1–2 visits a week) should happen 6 to 12 weeks after the surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prehospital administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) to injured patients is increasing worldwide. However, optimal TXA dose and need of a second infusion on hospital arrival remain undetermined. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the second in-hospital dose of TXA in injured patients receiving 1 g of TXA in the prehospital setting. We hypothesized that a second in-hospital dose of TXA improves survival of trauma patients. Methods: A prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized, clinical trial included adult trauma patients receiving 1 g of TXA in the prehospital settings. Patients were then blindly randomized to Group I (second 1-g TXA) and Group II (placebo) on hospital arrival. The primary outcome was 24-h (early) and 28-day (late) mortality. Secondary outcomes were thromboembolic events, blood transfusions, hospital length of stay (HLOS) and organs failure (MOF). Results: A total of 220 patients were enrolled, 110 in each group. The TXA and placebo groups had a similar early [OR 1.000 (0.062–16.192); p = 0.47] and late mortality [OR 0.476 (95% CI 0.157–1.442), p = 0.18].The cause of death (n = 15) was traumatic brain injury (TBI) in 12 patients and MOF in 3 patients. The need for blood transfusions in the first 24 h, number of transfused blood units, HLOS, thromboembolic events and multiorgan failure were comparable in the TXA and placebo groups. In seriously injured patients (injury severity score > 24), the MTP activation was higher in the placebo group (31.3% vs 11.10%, p = 0.13), whereas pulmonary embolism (6.9% vs 2.9%, p = 0.44) and late mortality (27.6% vs 14.3%, p = 0.17) were higher in the TXA group but did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: The second TXA dose did not change the mortality rate, need for blood transfusion, thromboembolic complications, organ failure and HLOS compared to a single prehospital dose and thus its routine administration should be revisited in larger and multicenter studies. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03846973. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]