MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty surviving patients with expandable endoprosthesis from 2006 till 2015 were scored using Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) outcomes instrument and reviewed retrospectively for range of motion of respected joints, limb length discrepancy, number of surgeries performed, complications and oncological outcomes. Patients with less than 2 years of follow-up were excluded from this study.
RESULTS: Forty-five percentage patients reached skeletal maturity with initial growing endoprosthesis and 25% of patients were revised to adult modular prosthesis. One hundred fifty-seven surgeries were performed over the 9-year period. The average MSTS score was 90.83%. The mortality rate was 10% within 5 years due to advanced disease. Infection and implant failure rate was 15% each. The event-free survival was 50% and overall survival rate was 90%.
CONCLUSION: There is no single best option for reconstruction in skeletally immature. This study demonstrates a favourable functional and survival outcome of paediatric patients with expandable endoprosthesis. The excellent MSTS functional scores reflect that patients were satisfied and adjusted well to activities of daily living following surgery despite the complications.
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to investigate the effect of physiotherapy interventions on brain neuroplasticity by evaluating the brain plasticity regeneration, balance and functional ability.
METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 64 stroke patients from three hospitals in the Surakarta region, Indonesia. Control groups (n = 32) received conventional physiotherapy and intervention groups (n = 32) received neurorestoration protocol, which both lasted for seven days. Efficacy of the interventions were measured on brain-derived neurotropic factor serum analysis, Berg Balance Scale and Barthel Index, respectively.
RESULTS: Both groups showed improvements in all parameters but only balance and functional performance had a statistically significant outcome.
CONCLUSION: Neurorestoration protocol that combined several established physiotherapy interventions was effective in improving balance and functional ability of stroke patients in only a seven days period.
METHODS: This study included PD patients along with their caregivers and was undertaken at the Malaysian Parkinson's Disease Association from June 2016 to November 2016. Clinical features of PD patients were assessed using the Movement Disorder Society revised Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale; the Hoehn and Yahr stage and the Schwab and England Activities of Daily Living Scale were used to assess the severity and the ability of PD patients respectively. QoL of PD patients was measured using the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39). The revised version of the Zarit Burden Interview assessed caregiver burden.
RESULTS: At least one of the clinical features affected PD patients' QoL, and at least one of the QoL domains affected the caregivers' burden. Clinical features "saliva and drooling" and "dyskinesia" explained 29% of variance in QoL of PD patients. The QoL domains "stigma," along with "emotional well-being" explained 48.6% of variance in caregivers' burden.
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical features "saliva and drooling" and "dyskinesia" impacted the QoL of PD patients, and the QoL domains "stigma" and "emotional well-being" of PD patients impacted their caregivers' burden.
AIM: The aim of this study was to classify the primary outcomes used in Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) into the ICF domains of functioning; to describe the differences in primary outcomes in reviews related to rehabilitation intervention and non-rehabilitation intervention; and to describe the trend of outcome selections according year of publication.
DESIGN: Methodological paper.
POPULATION: Adult stroke population.
METHODS: We analyzed the primary outcomes used in the CSRs published by the Cochrane Stroke Review Group up to December 2017. The primary outcomes were extracted and classified into the ICF domains of functioning (body functions, body structures and activity and participation).
RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-four papers with 216 primary outcomes were included in this analysis. Less than half (102/216, 47.2%) of the outcomes could be classified into the ICF domains of functioning. For the outcomes that could be classified into the ICF domains, the majority (72/102, 70.5%) were in the activity and participation domain, followed by body functions (26/102, 25.5%) and body structures (4/102, 4.0%). Of the outcomes that could not be classified into the ICF domains (N.=114), death (81/114, 71.1%) and recurrent stroke (21/114,18.4%) formed the majority of the outcome. There were 75 CSRs on rehabilitation related interventions; the majority of the outcomes (75/97, 77.3%) used in rehabilitation related CSRs could be classified into the ICF framework with more than half (49/75, 65.3%) in the activity and participation domain.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the primary outcomes selected by the Cochrane Stroke Review Group in their CSRs could not be classified into the ICF domains of functioning. Death and recurrence of vascular events remains the major outcome of interest. In rehabilitation related interventions, activity and participation domain is the functioning domain most commonly used.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The systematic use of patients-centered ICF-based outcomes in CSRs could help the application of evidence in clinical decision making.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of animal-assisted therapy for people with dementia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 5 September 2019. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of major healthcare databases, trial registries, and grey literature sources. We also searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ISI Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO's trial registry portal.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials, and randomised cross-over trials that compared AAT versus no AAT, AAT using live animals versus alternatives such as robots or toys, or AAT versus any other active intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of Cochrane Dementia. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs from 10 reports. All nine studies were conducted in Europe and the US. Six studies were parallel-group, individually randomised RCTs; one was a randomised cross-over trial; and two were cluster-RCTs that were possibly related where randomisation took place at the level of the day care and nursing home. We identified two ongoing trials from trial registries. There were three comparisons: AAT versus no AAT (standard care or various non-animal-related activities), AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, and AAT using live animals versus the use of a soft animal toy. The studies evaluated 305 participants with dementia. One study used horses and the remainder used dogs as the therapy animal. The duration of the intervention ranged from six weeks to six months, and the therapy sessions lasted between 10 and 90 minutes each, with a frequency ranging from one session every two weeks to two sessions per week. There was a wide variety of instruments used to measure the outcomes. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and unclear risk of selection bias. Our certainty about the results for all major outcomes was very low to moderate. Comparing AAT versus no AAT, participants who received AAT may be slightly less depressed after the intervention (MD -2.87, 95% CI -5.24 to -0.50; 2 studies, 83 participants; low-certainty evidence), but they did not appear to have improved quality of life (MD 0.45, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.18; 3 studies, 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in all other major outcomes, including social functioning (MD -0.40, 95% CI -3.41 to 2.61; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence), problematic behaviour (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.30; 3 studies, 142 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), agitation (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.10; 3 studies, 143 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (MD 4.65, 95% CI -16.05 to 25.35; 1 study, 37 participants; low-certainty evidence), and self-care ability (MD 2.20, 95% CI -1.23 to 5.63; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on adverse events. Comparing AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, one study (68 participants) found mixed effects on social function, with longer duration of physical contact but shorter duration of talking in participants who received AAT using live animals versus robotic animals (median: 93 seconds with live versus 28 seconds with robotic for physical contact; 164 seconds with live versus 206 seconds with robotic for talk directed at a person; 263 seconds with live versus 307 seconds with robotic for talk in total). Another study showed no clear differences between groups in behaviour measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD -6.96, 95% CI -14.58 to 0.66; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence) or quality of life (MD -2.42, 95% CI -5.71 to 0.87; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on the other outcomes. Comparing AAT using live animals versus a soft toy cat, one study (64 participants) evaluated only social functioning, in the form of duration of contact and talking. The data were expressed as median and interquartile ranges. Duration of contact was slightly longer in participants in the AAT group and duration of talking slightly longer in those exposed to the toy cat. This was low-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that AAT may slightly reduce depressive symptoms in people with dementia. We found no clear evidence that AAT affects other outcomes in this population, with our certainty in the evidence ranging from very-low to moderate depending on the outcome. We found no evidence on safety or effects on the animals. Therefore, clear conclusions cannot yet be drawn about the overall benefits and risks of AAT in people with dementia. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to improve the certainty of the evidence. In view of the difficulty in achieving blinding of participants and personnel in such trials, future RCTs should work on blinding outcome assessors, document allocation methods clearly, and include major patient-important outcomes such as affect, emotional and social functioning, quality of life, adverse events, and outcomes for animals.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study included data from 344 older (173 inpatients and 171 outpatients) patients, aged 60 years and above, through validated questionnaires. Medication appropriateness was assessed via Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) tool, whereas Beers and Screening Tool of Older Person's Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing (STOPP) criteria were used to evaluate PIMs and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), respectively. The Drug Burden Index (DBI) and polypharmacy, as well as PROs, included Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI), Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (Katz ADL) and Older People's Quality of Life (OPQOL) were also evaluated.
RESULTS: Overall, inpatients received significantly higher medications (6.90 ± 2.70 vs 4.49 ± 3.20) than outpatients. A significantly higher proportion of inpatients received at least one PIM (65% vs 57%) or PIP (57.4% vs 17.0%) and higher mean MAI score (1.76 ± 1.08 and 1.10 ± 0.34) and DBI score (2.67 ± 1.28 vs 1.49 ± 1.17) than outpatients. Inpatients had significantly higher total OPQOL (118.53 vs 79.95) and GFI score (5.44 vs 3.78) than outpatients. We only found significant correlations between GFI and DBI and total OPQOL and the number of PIMs.
CONCLUSIONS: Proportions of PIMs and DBI exposure were significantly higher in an inpatient setting. No significant correlations between exposures to inappropriate medications or drug burden and PROs were observed.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 65 stroke survivors with UL dysfunction (mean (SD) age = 64.83 (8.05) years, mean (SD) post-stroke duration 41.62 (35.24) months) who attended community-based rehabilitation program. Upper limb functionality was assessed using the UL items of Stroke Specific Quality of Life Scale (SSQOL), the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Scale and the Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test (JTHFT). The stroke survivors' performance in completing JTHFT using their affected dominant hand was compared with standard norms.
RESULTS: The three most affected UL daily living tasks were writing (64.7%, n=42), opening a jar (63.1%, n=41) and putting on socks (58.5%, n=38). As for IADL, the mean (SD) score of Lawton scale was 3.26 (2.41), with more than 50% unable to handle finance, do the laundry and prepare meals for themselves. Performances of stroke survivors were much slower than normal population in all tasks of JTHFT (p<0.05), with largest speed difference demonstrated for 'stacking objects' task (mean difference 43.24 secs (p=0.003) and 24.57 (p<0.001) in males and females, respectively.
CONCLUSION: UL functions are significantly impaired among stroke survivors despite undergoing rehabilitation. Rehabilitation professionals should prioritize highly problematic tasks when retraining UL for greater post-stroke functionality.
Patients and methods: This cross-sectional study included 167 SLE patients (21 males, 146 females; mean age 38.2±9.8 years; range, 20 to 60 years) recruited from the outpatient Rheumatology and Nephrology clinics. Face-to-face interviews were conducted to record patients' socio- demographics (age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, and occupation) and SLE disease characteristics (system involvement, age onset, and presence of organ damage). Disease activity was assessed using the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index-2000 (SLEDAI-2K). Short form 36 (SF-36) was used to determine health-related quality of life (HRQoL) while Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire was used to assess the four domains of absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work productivity, and non-work related ADL impairment. Univariate analyses and multivariable regression analysis examined the association of demographic variables, SLE disease characteristics, and activity with reduced HRQoL and WPAI scores.
Results: The majority of the patients were Malays (59.3%), followed by Chinese (34.7%) and Indian (3.6%) patients. More than two-thirds of the patients reported some degree of impairment in their work productivity and ADL due to the disease. The absenteeism rate was 10.4% in the past one week and their indirect costs were 2,875.17 Malaysian ringgits (US $701.22) in the past seven days. Significant predictors of higher work productivity and ADL impairment scores were higher disease activity, more frequent SLE flares, lupus nephritis, and hematological involvement of SLE. Patients with higher work productivity and ADL impairment scores were also strongly associated with poor QoL. No ethnic disparities of work productivity and ADL impairment were found.
Conclusion: Systemic lupus erythematosus significantly affected the overall productivity in work and non-work related activity in our Malaysian multi-ethnic cohort and both impairments were significantly associated with poor QoL.