The effect of post-discharge telephone intervention on rehabilitation following total hip replacement surgery

Digital Health Interventions for Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Digital health solutions can provide populations with musculoskeletal pain with high-reach, low-cost, easily accessible, and scalable patient education and self-management interventions that meet the time and resource restrictions.

Objective

The main objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of digital health interventions for people with musculoskeletal pain conditions (ie, low back pain, neck pain, shoulder pain, knee pain, elbow pain, ankle pain, and whiplash).

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. We searched PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from 1974 to August 2021) and selected randomized controlled trials of digital health interventions in the target population of patients with musculoskeletal pain with a minimum follow-up of 1 month. A total of 2 researchers independently screened and extracted the data.

Results

A total of 56 eligible studies were included covering 9359 participants, with a mean follow-up of 25 (SD 15.48) weeks. In moderate-quality evidence, digital health interventions had a small effect on pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.32), disability (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.25), quality of life (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.36), emotional functioning (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.12-0.35), and self-management (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.05-0.24).

Conclusions

Moderate-quality evidence supports the conclusion that digital health interventions are effective in reducing pain and improving functioning and self-management of musculoskeletal pain conditions. Low-quality evidence indicates that digital health interventions can improve the quality of life and global treatment. Little research has been conducted on the influence of digital health on expenses, knowledge, overall improvement, range of motion, muscle strength, and implementation fidelity.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO CRD42022307504; https://tinyurl.com/2cd25hus

Telerehabilitation for Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Focused Review of Technologies and Teleservices

Background

Telerehabilitation programs are designed with the aim of improving the quality of services as well as overcoming existing limitations in terms of resource management and accessibility of services. This review will collect recent studies investigating telerehabilitation programs for patients with knee osteoarthritis while focusing on the technologies and services provided in the programs.

Objective

The main objective of this review is to identify and discuss the modes of service delivery and technologies in telerehabilitation programs for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The gaps, strengths, and weaknesses of programs will be discussed individually.

Methods

Studies published in English since 2000 were retrieved from the EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and PsycINFO databases. The search words “telerehabilitation,” “telehealth,” “telemedicine,” “teletherapy,” and “ehealth” were combined with “knee” and “rehabilitation” to generate a data set of studies for screening and review. The final group of studies reviewed here includes those that implemented teletreatment for patients for at least 2 weeks of rehabilitation.

Results

In total, 1198 studies were screened, and the full text of 154 studies was reviewed. Of these, 38 studies were included, and data were extracted accordingly. Four modes of telerehabilitation service delivery were identified: phone-based, video-based, sensor-based, and expert system–based telerehabilitation. The intervention services provided in the studies included information, training, communication, monitoring, and tracking. Video-based telerehabilitation programs were frequently used. Among the identified services, information and educational material were introduced in only one-quarter of the studies.

Conclusions

Video-based telerehabilitation programs can be considered the best alternative solution to conventional treatment. This study shows that, in recent years, sensor-based solutions have also become more popular due to rapid developments in sensor technology. Nevertheless, communication and human-generated feedback remain as important as monitoring and intervention services.

Evidence of Benefit of Telerehabitation After Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

In addition to traditional physiotherapy, studies based on telerehabilitation programs have published the results of effectiveness, validity, noninferiority, and important advantages in some neurological, cognitive, and musculoskeletal disorders, providing an opportunity to define new social policies and interventions.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effects of telerehabilitation after surgical procedures on orthopedic conditions as well as to describe how interventions are designed and to determine whether telerehabilitation is comparable with conventional methods of delivery. This systematic review summarizes the levels of evidence and grades of recommendation regarding telerehabilitation intervention (synchronous or asynchronous provided via the telerehabilitation medium, either in conjunction with, or in isolation of, other treatment interventions) after surgical procedures on orthopedic conditions.

METHODS

Study quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scores and grade of recommendation following the recommendation of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

RESULTS

We found 3 studies with PEDro scores between 6 and 8, which is considered as level 1 evidence (good; 20% [3/15]), 4 studies with a score of 5, which is considered as level 2 evidence (acceptable; 27% [4/15]), and the remaining 8 studies had scores of 4 or less, which is considered (poor; 53% [8/15]). A total of 1316 participants received telerehabilitation intervention in the selected studies, where knee and hip replacement were 75% of all the studies. Strong and moderate grades of evidence (grade of recommendation A-B) were found in knee and hip replacement interventions. Studies on the upper limb were 25% of the studies, but only 1 study presented a moderate grade of evidence (grade of recommendation B) and the rest were of poor methodological quality with weak evidence (grade of recommendation C).

CONCLUSIONS

Conclusive evidence on the efficacy of telerehabilitation for treatment after an orthopedic surgery, regardless of pathology, was not obtained. We found strong evidence in favor of telerehabilitation in patients following total knee and hip arthroplasty and limited evidence in the upper limb interventions (moderate and weak evidence). Future research needs to be more extensive and conclusive. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first attempt at evaluating the quality of telerehabilitation intervention research after surgical procedures on orthopedic conditions in a systematic review. Clinical messages and future research recommendations are included in the review.

Real-time telerehabilitation for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions is effective and comparable to standard practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of treatment delivered via real-time telerehabilitation for the management of musculoskeletal conditions, and to determine if real-time telerehabilitation is comparable to conventional methods of delivery within this population.

DATA SOURCES

Six databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PEDro, psycINFO, CINAHL) were searched from inception to November 2015 for literature which reported on the outcomes of real-time telerehabilitation for musculoskeletal conditions.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers screened 5913 abstracts where 13 studies ( n = 1520) met the eligibility criteria. Methodological quality was assessed using the Downs & Black 'Checklist for Measuring Quality' tool. Results were pooled for meta-analysis based upon primary outcome measures and reported as standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Aggregate results suggest that telerehabilitation is effective in the improvement of physical function (SMD 1.63, 95%CI 0.92-2.33, I²=93%), whilst being slightly more favourable (SMD 0.44, 95%CI 0.19-0.69, I²=58%) than the control cohort following intervention. Sub-group analyses reveals that telerehabilitation in addition to usual care is more favourable (SMD 0.64, 95%CI 0.43-0.85, I²=10%) than usual care alone, whilst treatment delivered solely via telerehabilitation is equivalent to face-to-face intervention (SMD MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.10-0.37, I² = 0%) for the improvement of physical function. The improvement of pain was also seen to be comparable between cohorts (SMD 0.66, 95%CI -0.27-1.60, I²=96%) following intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time telerehabilitation appears to be effective and comparable to conventional methods of healthcare delivery for the improvement of physical function and pain in a variety of musculoskeletal conditions.