Physiotherapy Post Lumbar Discectomy: Prospective Feasibility and Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial

Objectives To evaluate: acceptability and feasibility of trial procedures; distribution of scores on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ, planned primary outcome); and efficient working of trial components. Design and Setting A feasibility and external pilot randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN33808269, assigned 10/12/2012) was conducted across 2 UK secondary care outpatient physiotherapy departments associated with regional spinal surgery centres. Participants Consecutive consenting patients aged >18 years; post primary, single level, lumbar discectomy. Interventions Participants were randomised to either 1:1 physiotherapy outpatient management including patient leaflet, or patient leaflet alone. Main Outcome Measures Blinded assessments were made at 4 weeks post surgery (baseline) and 12 weeks post baseline (proposed primary end point). Secondary outcomes included: Global Perceived Effect, back/leg pain, straight leg raise, return to work/function, quality of life, fear avoidance, range of movement, medication, re-operation. Results At discharge, 110 (44%) eligible patients gave consent to be contacted. 59 (54%) patients were recruited. Loss to follow up was 39% at 12 weeks, with one site contributing 83% losses. Mean (SD) RMDQ was 10.07 (5.58) leaflet and 10.52 (5.94) physiotherapy/leaflet at baseline; and 5.37 (4.91) leaflet and 5.53 (4.49) physiotherapy/leaflet at 12 weeks. 5.1% zero scores at 12 weeks illustrated no floor effect. Sensitivity to change was assessed at 12 weeks with mean (SD) change -4.53 (6.41), 95%CI -7.61 to -1.44 for leaflet; and -6.18 (5.59), 95%CI -9.01 to -3.30 for physiotherapy/leaflet. RMDQ mean difference (95%CI) between change from baseline to twelve weeks was 1.65(-2.46 to 5.75). Mean difference (95%CI) between groups at 12 weeks was -0.16 (-3.36 to 3.04). Participant adherence with treatment was good. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions Both interventions were acceptable, and it is promising that they both demonstrated a trend in reducing disability in this population. A randomised controlled trial, using a different trial design, is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of combining the interventions into a stepped care intervention and comparing to a no intervention arm. Findings will guide design changes for an adequately powered randomised controlled trial, using RMDQ as the primary outcome

Poststroke Physical Activity Levels No Higher in Rehabilitation than in the Acute Hospital

BACKGROUND: Returning to physical activity is a common goal for stroke survivors undergoing rehabilitation, and higher levels of activity have been linked to better gait and greater independence in activities of daily living. Our aim was to determine if inpatient rehabilitation settings promoted higher levels of physical activity in stroke survivors than an acute stroke unit setting. METHODS: Stroke survivors were recruited from the inpatient rehabilitation wards of 4 different hospitals in southern Sweden and from the acute stroke unit at Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm. Participants were observed for 1 minute every 10 minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. At each observation, the person's highest level of physical activity, location, and other people present were recorded. RESULTS: We collected data from 190 stroke survivors (104 rehabilitation, 86 acute). Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no significant difference between the groups in the amount of time spent in moderate-to-high physical activity (rehabilitation median 24%, acute median 23%; adjusted P = .74). Compared to those in the acute setting, participants in the rehabilitation setting spent less time lying in bed, more time sitting supported out of bed, less time in their bedroom, and more time with a therapist (all adjusted P < .001). CONCLUSION: In the context of stroke, the inpatient rehabilitation environment does not appear to promote higher levels of physical activity than the acute hospital environment

The effect of 3 different exercise approaches on neck muscle endurance, kinesiophobia, exercise compliance, and patient satisfaction in chronic whiplash

Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 3 different exercise approaches on neck muscle endurance (NME), kinesiophobia, exercise compliance, and patient satisfaction in patients with chronic whiplash. Methods This prospective randomized clinical trial included 216 individuals with chronic whiplash. Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 exercise interventions: neck-specific exercise (NSE), NSE combined with a behavioral approach (NSEB), or prescribed physical activity (PPA). Measures of ventral and dorsal NME (endurance time in seconds), perceived pain after NME testing, kinesiophobia, exercise compliance, and patient satisfaction were recorded at baseline and at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Results Compared with individuals in the prescribed physical activity group, participants in the NSE and NSEB groups exhibited greater gains in dorsal NME (P =.003), greater reductions in pain after NME testing (P =.03), and more satisfaction with treatment (P .07). Conclusion Among patients with chronic whiplash, a neck-specific exercise intervention (with or without a behavioral approach) appears to improve NME. Participants were more satisfied with intervention including neck-specific exercises than with the prescription of general exercise

Classification criteria for cervical radiculopathy: An international e-Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Establishing a set of uniform classification criteria (CC) for cervical radiculopathy (CR) is required to aid future recruitment of homogenous populations to clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To establish expert informed consensus on CC for CR. DESIGN: A pre-defined four round e-Delphi study in accordance with the guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies. METHODS: Individuals with a background in physiotherapy who had authored two or more peer-reviewed publications on CR were invited to participate. The initial round asked opinions on CC for CR. Content analysis was performed on round one output and a list of discrete items were generated forming the round two survey. In rounds two to four, participants were asked to rate the level of importance of each item on a six-point Likert scale. Data were analysed descriptively using median, interquartile range and percentage agreement. Items reaching pre-defined consensus criteria were carried forward to the next round. Items remaining after the fourth round constituted expert consensus on CC for CR. RESULTS: Twelve participants participated with one drop out. The final round identified one inclusion CC and 12 exclusion CC. The inclusion CC that remained achieved 82% agreement and was a cluster criterion consisting of radicular pain with arm pain worse than neck pain; paraesthesia or numbness and/or weakness and/or altered reflex; MRI confirmed nerve root compression compatible with clinical findings. CONCLUSIONS: The CC identified can be used to inform eligibility criteria for future CR trials although caution should be practiced as consensus on measurement tools requires further investigation