Clinical Report: Land-Based Versus Pool-Based Exercise for People Awaiting Joint Replacement Surgery of the Hip or Knee: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Individuals with either knee or hip osteoarthritis are at risk of experiencing pain and developing functional limitations (Bennell 2005). In many cases, to alleviate pain and improve one's quality of life, an individual may require a total joint replacement. Despite advances in surgical technique and joint replacement hardware, surgical procedures are not without risk. Conservative treatments, including therapeutic exercise programmes, may improve a patient's status while avoiding the potential risks associated with surgery (pain, medication utilisation, long bouts of rehabilitation, and/ or death). Researchers have demonstrated that some patients may experience improvements in pain and functional abilities after participating in either land-based or aquatic-based exercise programmes (Maurer et al 1999, Hinman et al 2007). However, according to Gill et al (2009), there is paucity of literature addressing post-exercise outcomes in individuals who are scheduled for either hip or knee joint replacement surgery. Aim: To assess self-reported and performance-based functional measures in individuals (who were scheduled to have either a hip or knee joint replacement) after the completion of either a land-based or pool-based exercise programme. Methods: The authors implemented a randomised controlled trial, allocating subjects to either the land-based (n=40) or pool-based (n=42) exercise programme, stratified by the involved joint. Subjects were recruited from a waiting list of patients who were scheduled for either a knee replacement or hip replacement. Each exercise session was performed for one hour over a total period of 12 sessions (2 times a week for 6 weeks). In addition, the authors instructed the subjects to exercise 3 days a week at home (for 30 minutes each session) performing a combination of walking, stationary bicycling, and/or other exercises they performed in class. Self-reported function (as measured by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), performance-based outcomes (50-foot timed walk and 30-second chair stand test), and psychosocial status (SF-36 MCS) measures were collected prior to treatment, at the end of the 6-week training session, and finally two months later. These data were collected by a blinded assessor. Additionally, daily pre- and post-exercise pain levels were recorded during each session. Results: The authors reported that both pool-based and land-based exercise programmes were effective in reducing pain and increasing function in patients with a diagnosis of either knee or hip arthritis. However, there were no differences between groups for WOMAC pain (p = .614), WOMAC function (p = .739), 50-foot timed walk test p = .173), the 30-second chair stand test (p = .179), or the SF-36 MCS (p = .205). Those who participated in the land-based programme experienced improvements in pain at both assessment periods (p = .000; .015) whereas the participants in the pool-based programme only demonstrated improvements at the first assessment (p = .011; .431). Both groups demonstrated significant functional improvements at the first testing session for performance-based tests as well as demonstrating significant improvement in WOMAC function scores and the 30-second chair stand test at the final assessment session. Those who participated in the pool-based programme experienced a significantly lower daily pain score (p = .005) when compared to those in the land-based programme. Conclusion: The authors report that both training programmes may lead to positive functional outcomes in individuals who are awaiting a joint replacement surgery. In addition, the authors report that those who participated in the pool programme may tolerate the treatment with less post-exercise pain.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».