Mind-Body Intervention for Diabetic Neuropathy: A Pilot Study on Yoga's Effects on Muscle Strength, Proprioception, Fear of Falling, Pain, and Quality of Life

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of an 8-week yoga intervention on muscle strength, proprioception, pain, concerns about falling, and quality of life in individuals diagnosed with diabetic neuropathy.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental design incorporating a pretest-posttest methodology and a control group was implemented in the present study. A total of 30 patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and neuropathy were recruited and randomly assigned to intervention (n = 15) or non-exercise control (n = 15). Yoga sessions were conducted for a duration of 60 min on three occasions per week, with participants requested to practice at home on other days.

RESULTS

The results showed significant main effects of time on the muscle strength (both flexor and extensor muscles, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.652 and p < .001, ηp2 = 0.539, respectively), proprioception error (p < .001, ηp2 = 0.807), pain intensity (p < .001, ηp2 = 0.538), concerns about falling (p < .001, ηp2 = 0.700), and overall score of quality of life (p < .001, ηp2 = 0.475). Moreover, there were significant group-by-time interactions for all variables (p < .001 for all).

CONCLUSION

The study reveals that yoga intervention can be an effective alternative therapeutic approach to medication for individuals with diabetic neuropathy. Yet, future studies are needed on a larger sample size to strengthen the present understanding of the advantageous impact of yoga intervention in this population.

Joint pressure stimuli increase quadriceps strength and neuromuscular activity in patients with knee osteoarthritis

The study investigated the effects of periarticular knee pressure stimuli on quadriceps strength and neuromuscular activity in subjects with knee osteoarthritis. Twenty-five subjects with knee osteoarthritis and 25 age-matched healthy controls performed maximal voluntary knee extension tasks on an isometric dynamometer. Three different pressure stimuli (no-pressure, 60-mmHg, 120-mmHg) were applied using a sphygmomanometer via the cuff covering the knee joint. Peak torque and root-mean-square peak of rectus femoris (RF), vastus medialis (VM), and vastus lateralis (VL) were collected and normalized for the no-pressure condition (nTorque-peak and nRMS-peak). Normalized Torque-peak increased from no-pressure to 60-mmHg and 120-mmHg in patients, which revealed higher nTorque-peak during 60-mmHg (MD: 10.9%, IC95: 1.8%, 20.1%, p = 0.020) and 120-mmHg (MD: 16.0%, IC95: 4.4%, 27.6%, p = 0.008) conditions than healthy subjects. Moreover, nRMS-peak increased from no-pressure to 60-mmHg for RF, from no-pressure to 120-mmHg for RF, VM and VL, and from 60-mmHg to 120 mm-Hg for VL in patients. Patients revealed higher nRMS-peak of RF and VM during 60-mmHg and 120-mmHg conditions than healthy subjects. Periarticular knee pressure stimuli enhanced quadriceps strength and neuromuscular activity in subjects with knee osteoarthritis. This approach may represent a new strength training modality in patients with neuromuscular activation deficits for knee osteoarthritis.

Adjunctive therapies in addition to land-based exercise therapy for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee

BACKGROUND

Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside exercise in hip or knee osteoarthritis management, but cumulative evidence for adjuncts to land-based exercise therapy is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of adjunctive therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy compared with placebo adjunctive therapy added to land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy only for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and clinical trials registries up to 10 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis comparing adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy (experimental group) versus placebo adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy (control groups). Exercise had to be identical in both groups. Major outcomes were pain, physical function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life (QOL), radiographic joint structural changes, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We evaluated short-term (6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (12 months onwards) effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 62 trials (60 RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs) totalling 6508 participants. One trial included people with hip osteoarthritis, one hip or knee osteoarthritis and 59 included people with knee osteoarthritis only. Thirty-six trials evaluated electrophysical agents, seven manual therapies, four acupuncture or dry needling, or taping, three psychological therapies, dietary interventions or whole body vibration, two spa or peloid therapy and one foot insoles. Twenty-one trials included a placebo adjunctive therapy. We presented the effects stratified by different adjunctive therapies along with the overall results. We judged most trials to be at risk of bias, including 55% at risk of selection bias, 74% at risk of performance bias and 79% at risk of detection bias. Adverse events were reported in eight (13%) trials. Comparing adjunctive therapies plus land-based exercise therapy against placebo therapies plus exercise up to six months (short-term), we found low-certainty evidence for reduced pain and function, which did not meet our prespecified threshold for a clinically important difference. Mean pain intensity was 5.4 in the placebo group on a 0 to 10 numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (lower scores represent less pain), and 0.77 points lower (0.48 points better to 1.16 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 10% (6% to 15% better) (22 studies; 1428 participants). Mean physical function on the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) 0 to 68 physical function (lower scores represent better function) subscale was 32.5 points in the placebo group and reduced by 5.03 points (2.57 points better to 7.61 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 12% (6% better to 18% better) (20 studies; 1361 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies did not improve QOL (SF-36 0 to 100 scale, higher scores represent better QOL). Placebo group mean QOL was 81.8 points, and 0.75 points worse (4.80 points worse to 3.39 points better) in the placebo adjunctive therapy group; relative improvement 1% (7% worse to 5% better) (two trials; 82 participants). Low-certainty evidence (two trials; 340 participants) indicates adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared to placebo therapies plus exercise (31% versus 13%; risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 21.90). Participant-reported global assessment was not measured in any studies. Compared with land-based exercise therapy, low-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive electrophysical agents alongside exercise produced short-term (0 to 6 months) pain reduction of 0.41 points (0.17 points better to 0.63 points better); mean pain in the exercise-only group was 3.8 points and 0.41 points better in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group (0 to 10 NPRS); relative improvement 7% (3% better to 11% better) (45 studies; 3322 participants). Mean physical function (0 to 68 WOMAC subscale) was 18.2 points in the exercise group and 2.83 points better (1.62 points better to 4.04 points better) in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group; relative improvement 9% (5% better to 13% better) (45 studies; 3323 participants). These results are not clinically important. Mean QOL in the exercise group was 56.1 points and 1.04 points worse in the adjunctive therapies plus exercise therapy group (1.04 points worse to 3.12 points better); relative improvement 2% (2% worse to 5% better) (11 studies; 1483 participants), indicating no benefit (low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise probably result in a slight increase in participant-reported global assessment (short-term), with success reported by 45% in the exercise therapy group and 17% more individuals receiving adjunctive therapies and exercise (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) (5 studies; 840 participants). One study (156 participants) showed little difference in radiographic joint structural changes (0.25 mm less, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.18 mm); 12% relative improvement (6% better to 18% better). Low-certainty evidence (8 trials; 1542 participants) indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared with exercise only (8.6% versus 6.5%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.27).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed no difference in pain, physical function or QOL between adjunctive therapies and placebo adjunctive therapies, or in pain, physical function, QOL or joint structural changes, compared to exercise only. Participant-reported global assessment was not reported for placebo comparisons, but there is probably a slight clinical benefit for adjunctive therapies plus exercise compared with exercise, based on a small number of studies. This may be explained by additional constructs captured in global measures compared with specific measures. Although results indicate no increased adverse events for adjunctive therapies used with exercise, these were poorly reported. Most studies evaluated short-term effects, with limited medium- or long-term evaluation. Due to a preponderance of knee osteoarthritis trials, we urge caution in extrapolating the findings to populations with hip osteoarthritis.

Proprioception is not associated with lower extremity injuries in U21 high-level football players

Football is a contact sport with a significant risk of injury. Although proprioception is well studied in rehabilitation, little is known about the association between proprioception and the occurrence of sport injuries. The purpose of this study was to look into the association between ankle and knee proprioception and lower extremity injuries in young football players. Seventy-three football players from the highest U-21 league in Iran volunteered to participate in this study. Before the start of the 2017-2018 competitive season, joint position sense was measured at 30°, 60° and 90° knee flexion and at 10° and 15° ankle dorsiflexion, and inversion using the Biodex Isokinetic pro 4 system. The teams' medical staff recorded football-related lower extremity injuries. We used mixed effects Cox regression models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs, acknowledging the clustered data structure. Twenty-two players (30.1%) suffered one or more lower extremity injuries during the season. None of the proprioception measures examined was significantly associated with the risk of lower extremity injuries. Based on these results of our sample, joint position sense does not seem to be associated with lower extremity injuries in young male football players.

Static or dynamic low-frequency magnetic field? A review of literature

The therapeutic application of magnetic fi elds has experienced signifi cant growth in recent years. A small number of contraindications, as well as the lack of side effects makes both permanent magnets and alternating magnetic fi elds frequently used in physical therapy practice. In a signifi cant number of clinical studies the effi cacy of this physical factor as both an independent method, as well as supporting treatment programs has been confi rmed. In the last few years, a lot of emphasis is put on the fact that all therapeutic methods should have a scientifi c basis and their usage should meet the evidence based medicine criteria (EBM). Therefore, this work will focus on comparison of the use of permanent magnets and alternating low-frequency magnetic fi eld on the basis of the available literature, including mainly, a randomized double-blind trial. Analysis of the available literature on permanent magnet usage has shown clinical effi cacy in many diseases, however, placebo-controlled studies confi rm mainly the analgesic effect in patients after liposuction surgery, with diabetic neuropathy and with chronic pelvic pain. The use of the alternating low-frequency magnetic fi eld also leaves many questions to which scientists have still not found the answer. Randomized double-blind trial proved its therapeutic effi cacy in patients after knee arthroscopy, fractures and delayed bone unions, knee and cervical spine osteoarthritis as well as in case of leg ulceration. Alternating magnetic fi eld application has a wider therapeutic range in comparison to permanent magnets and its effectiveness is much better documented, both in clinical studies as well as randomized double-blind trials. Cite this article as: Głąb G., Dudek J., Klimek K., Skalska-Dulińska B., Chrabota U., Chojak-Fijałka K., Ridan T., Glodzik J. Static or dynamic low-frequency magnetic field? A review of literature. Med Rehabil 2016; 20(2): 31-35.

BEMER Therapy Combined with Physiotherapy in Patients with Musculoskeletal Diseases: A Randomised, Controlled Double Blind Follow-Up Pilot Study

Background. This study evaluates the effect of adjuvant BEMER therapy in patients with knee arthrosis and chronic low back pain in a randomized double blind design. Methods. A total of 50 patients with chronic low back pain and 50 patients with osteoarthritis of knee took part in this study and were randomized into 4 groups. Hospitalized patients received a standardized physiotherapy package for 3 weeks followed by BEMER therapy or placebo. Results. In patients with low back pain, the comparison of the results obtained at the first and second visit showed a significant improvement in resting VAS scores and Fatigue Scale scores. The Oswestry scores and Quality of Life Scale scores showed no change. In patients with knee arthrosis, the comparison of the first and second measurements showed no significant improvement in the abovementioned parameters, while the comparison of the first and third scores revealed a significant improvement in the Fatigue Scale scores and in the vitality test on the Quality of Life Scale. Conclusions. Our study showed that BEMER physical vascular therapy reduced pain and fatigue in the short term in patients with chronic low back pain, while long-term therapy appears to be beneficial in patients with osteoarthritis of knee.

[Evidence-based physiotherapy]

This article on physiotherapy presents some current evidence stating the strengths and weaknesses of the physiotherapeutic procedures. In the area of physiotherapy empirical data obtained during decades were overtaken by evidence from current studies. The author points out the great problem of physiotherapy, namely the heterogeneity of the applied parameters. Knowledge of current evidence may be very important and helpful for the physicians, but the author proposes, from the practical point of view, that physiotherapeutical procedures based on exprience and used for many years should not be entirely neglected. Nowadays physiotherapy plays an important role in the treament of locomotor diseases but its use is increasing in other fields of medicine, as well.

The effects of comprehensive warm-up programs on proprioception, static and dynamic balance on male soccer players

PURPOSE

The study investigated the effects of FIFA 11+ and HarmoKnee, both being popular warm-up programs, on proprioception, and on the static and dynamic balance of professional male soccer players.

METHODS

Under 21 year-old soccer players (n = 36) were divided randomly into 11+, HarmoKnee and control groups. The programs were performed for 2 months (24 sessions). Proprioception was measured bilaterally at 30°, 45° and 60° knee flexion using the Biodex Isokinetic Dynamometer. Static and dynamic balances were evaluated using the stork stand test and Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT), respectively.

RESULTS

The proprioception error of dominant leg significantly decreased from pre- to post-test by 2.8% and 1.7% in the 11+ group at 45° and 60° knee flexion, compared to 3% and 2.1% in the HarmoKnee group. The largest joint positioning error was in the non-dominant leg at 30° knee flexion (mean error value = 5.047), (p<0.05). The static balance with the eyes opened increased in the 11+ by 10.9% and in the HarmoKnee by 6.1% (p<0.05). The static balance with eyes closed significantly increased in the 11+ by 12.4% and in the HarmoKnee by 17.6%. The results indicated that static balance was significantly higher in eyes opened compared to eyes closed (p = 0.000). Significant improvements in SEBT in the 11+ (12.4%) and HarmoKnee (17.6%) groups were also found.

CONCLUSION

Both the 11+ and HarmoKnee programs were proven to be useful warm-up protocols in improving proprioception at 45° and 60° knee flexion as well as static and dynamic balance in professional male soccer players. Data from this research may be helpful in encouraging coaches or trainers to implement the two warm-up programs in their soccer teams.