Search

Allied health professionals require an understanding of anatomy for purposes such as planning radiotherapy, or treating muscle imbalance. In practice, they will rarely see the structure they are treating, but seeing it during their education is invaluable. To reveal deep structures in the human body, neighbouring structures are unavoidably removed as a donated human body is dissected. Academic and clinical staff approached the challenge for students’ understanding of the male reproductive and urinary system, which is indeed disrupted by dissection. An existing radiotherapy planning instrument Virtual Environment for Radiotherapy Training was used to create videos of real patients’ internal structures. Structures difficult to see in dis-section, models and images were transformed from magnetic resonance and computerised tomography scans into videos that appeared three-dimensional, for use by students learning anatomy. Qualitative evaluation of these anatomy videos suggested that they can be accessed at students’ convenience and can be customised with captions, pauses or quizzes. Quantitative evaluation suggested that offering assessment-related incentives may not result in all students choosing to access the videos, but that those who did performed better on both labelling and short answer explanations of related content on immediate and short-term testing Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Therapeutic gloves are widely used to manage arthritis patients’ hand symptoms and improve their hand function, but patients’ experience and perception towards the gloves are poorly understood. This research sought to gain insight into patients’ experience of wearing therapeutic gloves, their perceptions of the gloves and their preference in terms of glove design. Thirty arthritis patients who used therapeutic gloves as part of their rehabilitation treatment were surveyed. Adherence in wearing was good with 80% of the participants wore the gloves up to 8 hours a day. Most respondents found therapeutic gloves were soft to the skin and believed that they were effective. Problems identified included gloves leaving marks on the skin and itchy hands after gloves removal. The key characteristics identified by participants on gloves design will facilitate manufacturers and clinicians to improve the existing gloves in order to enhance its functions, comfort and users’ needs. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Background Non-surgical treatment, including ergonomic positioning or equipment, are sometimes offered to people experiencing mild to moderate symptoms from carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). The effectiveness and duration of benefit from ergonomic positioning or equipment interventions for treating CTS are unknown. Objectives To assess the effects of ergonomic positioning or equipment compared with no treatment, a placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (14 June 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2011, Issue 2, in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2011), EMBASE (1980 to June 2011), CINAHL Plus (1937 to June 2011), and AMED (1985 to June 2011). We also reviewed the reference lists of randomised or quasi-randomised trials identified from the electronic search. Selection criteria Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing ergonomic positioning or equipment with no treatment, placebo or another non-surgical intervention in people with CTS. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the primary and secondary outcomes. We pooled results of clinically and statistically homogeneous trials, where possible, to provide estimates of the effect of ergonomic positioning or equipment. Main results We included two trials (105 participants) comparing ergonomic versus placebo keyboards. Neither trial assessed the primary outcome (short-term overall improvement) or adverse effects of interventions. In one small trial (25 participants) an ergonomic keyboard significantly reduced pain after 12 weeks (MD -2.40; 95% CI -4.45 to -0.35) but not six weeks (MD -0.20; 95% CI -1.51 to 1.11). In this same study, there was no difference between ergonomic and standard keyboards in hand function at six or 12 weeks or palm-wrist sensory latency at 12 weeks. The second trial (80 participants) reported no significant difference in pain severity after six months when using either of the three ergonomic keyboards versus a standard keyboard. No trials comparing (i) ergonomic positioning or equipment with no treatment, (ii) ergonomic positioning or equipment with another non-surgical treatment, or (iii) different ergonomic positioning or equipment regimes, were found. Authors' conclusions There is insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to determine whether ergonomic positioning or equipment is beneficial or harmful for treating carpal tunnel syndrome.