Motor learning outcomes of handrim wheelchair propulsion during active spinal cord injury rehabilitation in comparison with experienced wheelchair users

Purpose: To investigate changes in wheelchair propulsion technique and mechanical efficiency across first five weeks of active inpatient spinal cord injury rehabilitation and to compare the outcomes at discharge with experienced wheelchair users with spinal cord injury. Methods: Eight individuals with recent spinal cord injury performed six weekly submaximal exercise tests. The first and last measurement additionally contained a wheelchair circuit and peak graded exercise test. Fifteen experienced individuals performed all above-mentioned tests on one occasion. Results: Mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique did not change during the five weeks of inpatient rehabilitation. Peak power output during peak graded test and performance time on the wheelchair circuit improved between the first and the last week. No difference in propulsion technique, peak power output, and performance time was found between the persons with a recent injury and the experienced group. Mechanical efficiency was higher after the correction for the difference in relative power output in the experienced group. Conclusion: The group with a recent injury did not improve mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique over the period of active rehabilitation, despite significant improvements on the wheelchair circuit and in work capacity. The only significant difference between the groups was found in mechanical efficiency. Implications for rehabilitation The lack of time-dependent changes in mechanical efficiency and propulsion technique in the group with a recent spinal cord injury, combined with the lack of differences in technique, work capacity and on the wheelchair circuit between the groups, suggest that important adaptations of motor learning may happen even earlier in rehabilitation and emphasize that the group in active rehabilitation was relatively skilled. Standardized observational analyses of handrim wheelchair propulsion abilities during early spinal cord injury rehabilitation provide detailed understanding of wheelchair technique, skill as well as wheelchair propulsion capacity. Measurement of external power output is critical to interpretation of gross efficiency, propulsion technique, and capacity. Wheelchair quality and body weight - next to wheelchair fitness and skill - require careful consideration both in early rehabilitation as well as in the chronic phase of spinal cord injury

Does mixing inhaler devices lead to unchecked inhaler technique errors in patients with COPD?:Findings from the cross-sectional observational MISMATCH study

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be prescribed multiple inhalers that require different techniques for optimal performance. Mixing devices has been associated with poorer COPD outcomes suggesting that it leads to inappropriate inhaler technique. However, empirical evidence is lacking.AIMS: Compare the nature and frequency of dry powder inhaler (DPI) technique errors in patients with COPD using (1) a single DPI or (2) mixed-devices (a DPI and pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI)).METHODS: Data from the PIFotal study-a cross-sectional study on Peak Inspiratory Flow in patients with COPD using a DPI as maintenance therapy, capturing data from 1434 patients on demographic characteristics, COPD health status and inhaler technique-were used to select 291 patients using mixed-devices. Frequency matching based on country of residence and DPI device type was used to select 291 patients using a DPI-only for comparison. Predetermined checklists were used for the evaluation of DPI video recordings and complemented with additional errors that were observed in ≥10%. Error proportions were calculated for the (1) individual and total number of errors, (2) number of critical errors and (3) number of pMDI-related errors.RESULTS: The study sample contained 582 patients (mean (SD) age 69.6 (9.4) years, 47.1% female). DPI technique errors were common, but not significantly different between the groups. The majority of patients made at least one critical error (DPI-only: 90.7% vs mixed-devices: 92.8%). Proportions of total, 'pMDI-related' and critical errors did not significantly differ between the groups.CONCLUSION: The nature and frequency of inhaler technique errors did not substantially differ between patients prescribed with a single DPI and mixed-devices. Currently, 'pMDI-related errors' in DPI use are not accounted for in existing checklists.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ENCEPP/EUPAS48776.</p

Does mixing inhaler devices lead to unchecked inhaler technique errors in patients with COPD?:Findings from the cross-sectional observational MISMATCH study

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be prescribed multiple inhalers that require different techniques for optimal performance. Mixing devices has been associated with poorer COPD outcomes suggesting that it leads to inappropriate inhaler technique. However, empirical evidence is lacking.AIMS: Compare the nature and frequency of dry powder inhaler (DPI) technique errors in patients with COPD using (1) a single DPI or (2) mixed-devices (a DPI and pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI)).METHODS: Data from the PIFotal study-a cross-sectional study on Peak Inspiratory Flow in patients with COPD using a DPI as maintenance therapy, capturing data from 1434 patients on demographic characteristics, COPD health status and inhaler technique-were used to select 291 patients using mixed-devices. Frequency matching based on country of residence and DPI device type was used to select 291 patients using a DPI-only for comparison. Predetermined checklists were used for the evaluation of DPI video recordings and complemented with additional errors that were observed in ≥10%. Error proportions were calculated for the (1) individual and total number of errors, (2) number of critical errors and (3) number of pMDI-related errors.RESULTS: The study sample contained 582 patients (mean (SD) age 69.6 (9.4) years, 47.1% female). DPI technique errors were common, but not significantly different between the groups. The majority of patients made at least one critical error (DPI-only: 90.7% vs mixed-devices: 92.8%). Proportions of total, 'pMDI-related' and critical errors did not significantly differ between the groups.CONCLUSION: The nature and frequency of inhaler technique errors did not substantially differ between patients prescribed with a single DPI and mixed-devices. Currently, 'pMDI-related errors' in DPI use are not accounted for in existing checklists.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ENCEPP/EUPAS48776.</p

Development of a tool to detect small airways dysfunction in asthma clinical practice

BACKGROUND: Small airways dysfunction (SAD) in asthma is difficult to measure and a gold standard is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a simple tool including items of the Small Airways Dysfunction Tool (SADT) questionnaire, basic patient characteristics and respiratory tests available depending on the clinical setting to predict SAD in asthma. METHODS: This study was based on the data of the multinational ATLANTIS (Assessment of Small Airways Involvement in Asthma) study including the earlier developed SADT questionnaire. Key SADT items together with clinical information were now used to build logistic regression models to predict SAD group (less likely or more likely to have SAD). Diagnostic ability of the models was expressed as area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and positive likelihood ratio (LR+). RESULTS: SADT item 8, "I sometimes wheeze when I am sitting or lying quietly", and the patient characteristics age, age at asthma diagnosis and body mass index could reasonably well detect SAD (AUC 0.74, LR+ 2.3). The diagnostic ability increased by adding spirometry (percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s: AUC 0.87, LR+ 5.0) and oscillometry (resistance difference between 5 and 20 Hz and reactance area: AUC 0.96, LR+ 12.8). CONCLUSIONS: If access to respiratory tests is limited (e.g. primary care in many countries), patients with SAD could reasonably well be identified by asking about wheezing at rest and a few patient characteristics. In (advanced) hospital settings patients with SAD could be identified with considerably higher accuracy using spirometry and oscillometry

Does mixing inhaler devices lead to unchecked inhaler technique errors in patients with COPD?:Findings from the cross-sectional observational MISMATCH study

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be prescribed multiple inhalers that require different techniques for optimal performance. Mixing devices has been associated with poorer COPD outcomes suggesting that it leads to inappropriate inhaler technique. However, empirical evidence is lacking.AIMS: Compare the nature and frequency of dry powder inhaler (DPI) technique errors in patients with COPD using (1) a single DPI or (2) mixed-devices (a DPI and pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI)).METHODS: Data from the PIFotal study-a cross-sectional study on Peak Inspiratory Flow in patients with COPD using a DPI as maintenance therapy, capturing data from 1434 patients on demographic characteristics, COPD health status and inhaler technique-were used to select 291 patients using mixed-devices. Frequency matching based on country of residence and DPI device type was used to select 291 patients using a DPI-only for comparison. Predetermined checklists were used for the evaluation of DPI video recordings and complemented with additional errors that were observed in ≥10%. Error proportions were calculated for the (1) individual and total number of errors, (2) number of critical errors and (3) number of pMDI-related errors.RESULTS: The study sample contained 582 patients (mean (SD) age 69.6 (9.4) years, 47.1% female). DPI technique errors were common, but not significantly different between the groups. The majority of patients made at least one critical error (DPI-only: 90.7% vs mixed-devices: 92.8%). Proportions of total, 'pMDI-related' and critical errors did not significantly differ between the groups.CONCLUSION: The nature and frequency of inhaler technique errors did not substantially differ between patients prescribed with a single DPI and mixed-devices. Currently, 'pMDI-related errors' in DPI use are not accounted for in existing checklists.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ENCEPP/EUPAS48776.</p

Handrim wheelchair propulsion technique in individuals with spinal cord injury with and without shoulder pain - a cross-sectional comparison

OBJECTIVE: To compare handrim wheelchair propulsion technique between individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) with and without shoulder pain. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study including 38 experienced handrim wheelchair users with SCI. Participants were divided in a 'shoulder pain' (n = 15) and 'no-shoulder pain' (n = 23) group using the Local Musculoskeletal Discomfort scale. Kinetic and spatiotemporal aspects of handrim wheelchair propulsion during submaximal exercise on a motor-driven treadmill were analyzed. Data were collected using a measurement wheel instrumented with 3D force sensors. RESULTS: After correction for confounders (time since injury and body height), linear regression analyses showed the pain group had a 0.30 s (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1) shorter cycle time, 0.22 s (95% CI, -0.4 to -0.1) shorter recovery time, 15.6° (95% CI, -27.4 to -3.8) smaller contact angle and 8% (95% CI, -15 to 0) lower variability in the work per push compared to the no-pain group. Other parameters did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that individuals with SCI who experience shoulder pain propel their handrim wheelchair kinematically different from individuals with SCI without shoulder pain. This difference in propulsion technique might be a pain-avoiding mechanism aimed at decreasing shoulder range of motion