Search

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Background and Purpose: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs) are the most common causes of disabilities for older adults. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of multimodal interventions including exercise rehabilitation for older adults with chronic MSKDs. Methods: A literature search was conducted up to February 2019 in 5 bibliographical databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared multimodal interventions including exercise rehabilitation with usual medical care or no intervention. Randomized controlled trials were assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analyses were performed and pooled mean differences (MDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated. Results: Sixteen RCTs (n = 2322 participants) were included. One RCT was considered at low risk of bias, 8 had some concerns of bias, and 7 had a high risk of bias. Participants suffered from hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) (n = 12 RCTs), low back pain (LBP) (n = 2 RCTs) and generalized chronic pain (GCP) (n = 2 RCTs). Multimodal interventions were significantly more effective than usual care to decrease pain (visual analog scale, out of 10 points) in the short term, MD: −0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] −1.08 to −0.34, n = 900), and in the long term: MD: −0.52 (95% CI −0.98 to −0.05, n = 575), but these differences are not considered clinically important. In terms of disabilities, multimodal interventions were also significantly more effective than usual care. The SMDs were −0.47 (95% CI −0.61 to −0.34, n = 903) and −0.29 (95% CI −0.46 to −0.13, n = 568) for OA trials in the short and long terms, respectively, and −0.47 (95% CI −0.81 to −0.12, n = 211) for LBP and GCP trials in the short term. The magnitude of these effects may be considered as small to moderate. Conclusion: Multimodal intervention including exercise rehabilitation combined with usual medical care is an efficacious therapeutic option to reduce disabilities in older adults with chronic MSKDs. A significant but not clinically important effect was observed for pain. The most beneficial component of the multimodal interventions in terms of education, exercises, or medication remains to be determined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The purpose of this review was to compare the efficacy of motor control exercises (MCEs) to strengthening exercises for adults with upper- or lower-extremity musculoskeletal disorders (MSKDs). Methods Electronic searches were conducted up to April 2020 in Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL. Randomized controlled trials were identified on the efficacy of MCEs compared to strengthening exercises for adults with upper- or lower-extremity MSKDs. Data were extracted with a standardized form that documented the study characteristics and results. For pain and disability outcomes, pooled mean differences (MDs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated using random-effects inverse variance models. Results Twenty-one randomized controlled trials (n = 1244 participants) were included. Based on moderate-quality evidence, MCEs lead to greater pain (MD = −0.41 out of 10 points; 95% CI = −0.72 to −0.10; n = 626) and disability reductions (SMD = −0.28; 95% CI = −0.43 to −0.13; n = 713) when compared to strengthening exercises in the short term; these differences are not clinically important. When excluding trials on osteoarthritis (OA) participants and evaluating only the trials involving participants with rotator cuff–related shoulder pain, shoulder instability, hip-related groin pain, or patellofemoral pain syndrome, there is moderate quality evidence that MCEs lead to greater pain (MD = −0.74 out of 10 points; 95% CI = −1.22 to −0.26; n = 293) and disability reductions (SMD = −0.40; 95% CI = −0.61 to −0.19; n = 354) than strengthening exercises in the short term; these differences might be clinically important. Conclusions MCEs lead to statistically greater pain and disability reductions when compared to strengthening exercises among adults with MSKDs in the short term, but these effects might be clinically important only in conditions that do not involve OA. Inclusion of new trials might modify these conclusions. Impact These results suggest that MCEs could be prioritized over strengthening exercises for adults with the included non-OA MSKDs; however, results are unclear for OA disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To update and appraise the available evidence with respect to the impact of direct access physiotherapy compared to primary care physician-led usual medical care for patients with musculoskeletal disorders in terms of efficacy, health care utilization and processes, health care costs, patient satisfaction, and compliance. Systematic searches were conducted in five bibliographic databases up to June 2019. Studies presenting quantitative data of any research related to direct access physiotherapy for patients with musculoskeletal disorders were included. Two independent raters reviewed the studies, conducted the methodological quality assessment and a data extraction regarding patient outcomes, adverse events, health care utilization and processes, patient satisfaction, and health care costs. Eighteen studies of weak to moderate quality were included. Five studies found no significant differences in pain reduction between usual primary care physician-led medical care and direct access physiotherapy. Four studies reported better clinical outcomes in patients with direct access in terms of function and quality of life. In terms of health care costs, four studies demonstrated that costs were lower with direct access and one study reported similar costs between both types of care. Emerging evidence of weak to moderate quality suggest that direct access physiotherapy could provide better outcomes in terms of disability, quality of life, and healthcare costs compared to primary physician-led medical care for patients with musculoskeletal disorders but not for pain outcomes. These conclusions could be modified when higher quality trials are published. Direct access physiotherapy for patients with musculoskeletal disorders appears as a promising model to improve efficiency of care and reduce health care costs, but more methodologically sound studies are required to formally conclude. #CRD42018095604 Emerging evidence of weak to moderate quality indicates that direct access physiotherapy could provide better outcomes in terms of disability, quality of life and healthcare costs compared to primary physician led usual medical care for musculoskeletal disorders patients. Direct access physiotherapy may lead to increased access to care and a more efficient use of health care resources. Direct access physiotherapy does not appear to improve pain outcomes compared to primary care physician-led usual medical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The study's aim was to gain insights into factors influencing sustainable return to work following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Design: A descriptive multiple-case design was used. A case was defined as a worker's following TKA work disability situation. Settings: The cases came from public hospitals in urban and semi-urban areas in Quebec (Canada) and involved mostly non-work-related TKAs. Subjects: Workers had to be between 6 and 12 months post-TKA, have physical/manual jobs and currently employed. Their rehabilitation professionals and workplace representatives (employer and/or union) were also recruited, based on the work disability paradigm. Main measures: Semi-structured interviews, questionnaires on pain, physical work demands (workers only), and observation of the work activities of those workers back at work were used. Cases were compared and categorized for worker-perceived levels of difficulty in returning to or staying at work: little or no difficulty (n = 8); some difficulty (n = 5); not back at work due to excessive difficulty with their knee (n = 4). Results: A total of 17 cases were constituted. In only one case, the worker benefitted from an interdisciplinary work rehabilitation approach. Results highlight the interplay among these factors: (1) the workers' perceptions of their residual symptoms and ability to manage them, (2) the interaction between work adjustments and tools offered by the employers and the workers' own strategies, and (3) perceptions of the workers' physical capacities. Conclusion: Workers' who face high levels of work demands/difficulties and who have limited access to work adjustments and tools should be referred for work rehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Cervical radiculopathy is a common form of neck pain and has been shown to lead to severe disability. Clinical rehabilitation approaches for cervical radiculopathies commonly include exercise and manual therapy interventions targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen, but evidence regarding their effectiveness is scarce. The primary objective of this randomised clinical trial is to compare, in terms of pain and disability, a rehabilitation program targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen to a conventional rehabilitation program, for patients presenting acute or subacute cervical radiculopathies. The hypothesis is that the rehabilitation program targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen will be significantly more effective in reducing pain and disability than the conventional rehabilitation program. Methods/Design This study is a double-blind (participants and evaluators blinded) randomised clinical trial that will allow the comparison of patients with a cervical radiculopathy randomly assigned to one of two groups: one group will receive a 4-week rehabilitation program targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen, and the second group will receive a 4-week conventional rehabilitation program. Thirty-six subjects with cervical radiculopathy will be recruited from participating medical and physiotherapy clinics and will be evaluated at baseline, at the end of the 4-week program and four weeks following the end of the program. The primary outcome measure will be the validated Neck Disability Index questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures will include the short version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, a numerical pain rating scale, cervicothoracic mobility and patients' perceived global rating of change. During the 4-week rehabilitation program, each participant will take part in eight physiotherapy treatment sessions (2 session/week) and will perform a home exercise program. A mixed-model, 2-way ANOVA will be used to analyze the effects of the rehabilitation programs. Discussion Control trials are needed to define ideal intervention approaches in rehabilitation for this population. This randomised clinical trial will be the first study that directly compares a rehabilitation program targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen to a conventional rehabilitation program for patients with cervical radiculopathy. The results of this study may help to establish best clinical practice guidelines for this patient population. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01500044