METHODS: Electronic database and hand search of English literature in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, and clinical trial.gov, with author clarification were performed. The selection criteria were randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing MOPs with conventional treatment involving both extraction and nonextraction. Cochrane's risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach were used for quality assessment. Studies were analyzed with chi-square-based Q statistic methods, I2 index, fixed-effects, and random-effects model. Quantitative analysis was done on homogenous studies using Review Manager.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included for the qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis of 2 homogenous studies indicated insignificant effect with MOPs (0.01 mm less OTM; 95% CI, 0.13-0.11; P = 0.83). No difference (P >0.05) was found in anchorage loss, root resorption, gingival recession, and pain.
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of 2 low-risk of bias studies showed no effect with single application MOPs over a short observation period; however, the overall evidence was low. The quality of evidence for MOP side effects ranged from high to low. Future studies are suggested to investigate repeated MOPs effect over the entire treatment duration for different models of OTM and its related biological changes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CDR42019118642.
METHODS: This was a single-center, open-label study on patients undergoing bronchoscopy, randomized into the control and interventional (VR) groups. The control group received standard care during FB. The interventional group was given a VR device during FB showing nature videos with soothing instrumental music. Pain, breathlessness, and cough were evaluated using a 10 cm visual analogue scale administered before and after FB. Anxiety was assessed using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Satisfaction questionnaire (5-point Likert scale) was given to participants post FB.
RESULTS: Eighty participants enrolled, 40 in each arm. Median (IQR) satisfaction score in the VR group was 5.0 (3.0-5.0), and in the control group was 4.0 (3.0-5.0); (p pain was not significantly different (p = 0.290).
CONCLUSION: VR used during FB led to better participants' satisfaction and tolerability (breathlessness and cough). There was a significantly lower anxiety score in the VR group.
PURPOSE: To identify types of orthoses (including relative motion), effectiveness, and outcome measurements used to non-surgically manage adult and pediatric trigger finger.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review.
METHODS: The study was undertaken according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 Statement and registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registry, number CRD42022322515. Two independent authors electronically and manually searched, and screened 4 databases; selected articles following pre-set eligibility criteria; assessed the quality of the evidence using the Structured Effectiveness for Quality Evaluation of Study; and extracted the data.
RESULTS: Of the 11 articles included, 2 involved pediatric trigger finger and 9 adult trigger finger. Orthoses for pediatric trigger finger positioned finger(s), hand, and/or wrist of children in neutral extension. In adults, a single joint was immobilized by the orthosis, blocking either the metacarpophalangeal joint or the proximal or distal interphalangeal joint. All studies reported positive results with statistically significant improvements and medium to large effect size to almost every outcome measure, including the Number of Triggering Events in Ten Active Fist 1.37, Frequency of Triggering from 2.07 to 2.54, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Outcome Measure from 0.46 to 1.88, Visual Analogue Pain Scale from 0.92 to 2.00, and Numeric Rating Pain Scale from 0.49 to 1.31. Severity tools and patient-rated outcome measures were used with the validity and reliability of some unknown.
CONCLUSIONS: Orthoses are effective for non-surgical management of pediatric and adult trigger finger using various orthotic options. Although used in practice, evidence for the use of relative motion orthosis is absent. High-quality studies based on sound research questions and design using reliable and valid outcome measures are needed.
STUDY DESIGN: A parallel-group, single-blinded randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: Eighty adults with KOA were randomly allocated to experimental (n=40) and control (n=40) groups. All participants underwent their usual physiotherapy care weekly for eight weeks. The experimental group received a structured HBE+EDU program to their usual care, while the control group performed home stretching exercises to equate treatment time. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for the disability level, visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, and timed up-and-go test (TUG) for mobility were measured pre-post intervention.
RESULTS: After eight weeks, the experimental group demonstrated significant improvements in the KOOS (all subscales), pain VAS, and TUG scores compared to baseline (P<0.001); meanwhile, only KOOS (activities of daily living and sports subscales) was significant in the control group. Relative to the control, the experimental group presented higher improvements (P<0.001) by 22.2%, 44.1%, and 15.7% for KOOS, pain VAS, and TUG, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Integrating the HBE+EDU program into usual KOA rehabilitation could reduce pain and disability, while it improved functional mobility. The finding of this study suggests a combination of a structured HBE and EDU program to be considered as part of mainstream KOA management.