Low Back Pain in People With Lower Limb Amputation: A Cross-Sectional Study

Study Design. A cross-sectional study based on an online questionnaire.Objective. The aim was to investigate the prevalence and intensity of low back pain (LBP) in people with lower limb amputation (LLA) and to analyze the association factors that can influence the genesis of LBP.Summary of Background Data. It is still unclear whether LBP is more prevalent in the amputated population than in its nonamputated counterpart. Given the multifactorial nature of LBP, it is necessary to explore possible factors that can influence its presence and intensity, to build a solid background to define a better rehabilitation pathway for the management of these people.Methods. The online questionnaire included six sections: informed consent of the study, demographic information, comorbid conditions, history of LLA, history of LBP, and acceptance of the amputation.Results. Between March and June 2021, 239 participants [mean age (SD): 49.2 (11.5); female 11%] completed the survey (response rate: 32%). From the results of this study, LBP in LLA showed a prevalence of 82% postamputation and 70% in the last year. A logistic regression with a backward method showed that participants who had problems in the not affected leg presented 1.58 (95% confidence interval: 0.70; 2.45) times higher odds to have LBP after the amputation.Conclusion. This study shows that the prevalence of LBP in lower limb amputees appears to be higher than in the general population, with similar levels of pain intensity and frequency. The highest percentage of people with a sedentary lifestyle not practicing any kind of sports emphasizes the importance of educating this population on the importance of physical activity. New strategies to invest in the education of this population in terms of physical activity are needed

Real and perceived feet orientation under fatiguing and non-fatiguing conditions in an immersive virtual reality environment

Lower limbs position sense is a complex yet poorly understood mechanism, influenced by many factors. Hence, we investigated the position sense of lower limbs through feet orientation with the use of Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR). Participants had to indicate how they perceived the real orientation of their feet by orientating a virtual representation of the feet that was shown in an IVR scenario. We calculated the angle between the two virtual feet (α-VR) after a high-knee step-in-place task. Simultaneously, we recorded the real angle between the two feet (α-R) (T1). Hence, we assessed whether the acute fatigue impacted the position sense. The same procedure was repeated after inducing muscle fatigue (T2) and after 10 min from T2 (T3). Finally, we also recorded the time needed to confirm the perceived position before and after the acute fatigue protocol. Thirty healthy adults (27.5 ± 3.8: 57% women, 43% men) were immersed in an IVR scenario with a representation of two feet. We found a mean difference between α-VR and α-R of 20.89° [95% CI: 14.67°, 27.10°] in T1, 16.76° [9.57°, 23.94°] in T2, and 16.34° [10.00°, 22.68°] in T3. Participants spent 12.59, 17.50 and 17.95 s confirming the perceived position of their feet at T1, T2, T3, respectively. Participants indicated their feet as forwarding parallel though divergent, showing a mismatch in the perceived position of feet. Fatigue seemed not to have an impact on position sense but delayed the time to accomplish this task

AI is a viable alternative to high throughput screening: a 318-target study

: High throughput screening (HTS) is routinely used to identify bioactive small molecules. This requires physical compounds, which limits coverage of accessible chemical space. Computational approaches combined with vast on-demand chemical libraries can access far greater chemical space, provided that the predictive accuracy is sufficient to identify useful molecules. Through the largest and most diverse virtual HTS campaign reported to date, comprising 318 individual projects, we demonstrate that our AtomNet® convolutional neural network successfully finds novel hits across every major therapeutic area and protein class. We address historical limitations of computational screening by demonstrating success for target proteins without known binders, high-quality X-ray crystal structures, or manual cherry-picking of compounds. We show that the molecules selected by the AtomNet® model are novel drug-like scaffolds rather than minor modifications to known bioactive compounds. Our empirical results suggest that computational methods can substantially replace HTS as the first step of small-molecule drug discovery

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.

PurposeTo investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.Materials and methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.ResultsEleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a ‘low’ RoB, one had ‘some concerns’, while nine were at a ‘high’ RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.ConclusionsIn line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.</div

Sensitivity analysis.

PurposeTo investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.Materials and methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.ResultsEleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a ‘low’ RoB, one had ‘some concerns’, while nine were at a ‘high’ RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.ConclusionsIn line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.</div

Primary outcome (pad test) of the studies included.

Primary outcome (pad test) of the studies included.</p

Secondary outcome (health-related quality of life) of the studies included.

Secondary outcome (health-related quality of life) of the studies included.</p

Database research strings.

PurposeTo investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.Materials and methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.ResultsEleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a ‘low’ RoB, one had ‘some concerns’, while nine were at a ‘high’ RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.ConclusionsIn line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.</div

GRADE approach assessment.

PurposeTo investigate the role of pelvic floor devices (e.g., biofeedback, electrical stimulation, magnetic stimulation, or their combination) as adjunctive treatments in pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) in stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.Materials and methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective non-randomised studies investigating the effectiveness of pelvic floor devices as an adjunctive treatment for SUI symptoms assessed with weight pad-test or standardised questionnaires. To assess the risk of bias (RoB) and overall certainty of evidence, the RoB 2.0 or the ROBINS-I, and the GRADE approach were used.ResultsEleven RCTs met our eligibility criteria. One was at a ‘low’ RoB, one had ‘some concerns’, while nine were at a ‘high’ RoB. Two meta-analyses were conducted to analyse the pooled results of six RCTs included. Specifically, two RCTs reported at week 4 with a 1h pad test a mean difference of 0.64 (95% CI = [-13.09, 14.36]), and four RCTs reported at week 12 with a 24h pad test a mean difference of -47.75 (95% CI = [-104.18, 8.69]). The heterogeneity was high in both analyses (I2 = 80.0%; I2 = 80.6%). The overall level of certainty was very low.ConclusionsIn line with our results, we cannot conclude whether pelvic floor devices add any value as adjunctive treatment in the management of SUI after radical prostatectomy. Future studies require more comprehensive and standardised approaches to understand whether these devices are effective.</div