ABSTRACT
Background and objectives: Frozen shoulder is a common musculoskeletal condition. Telerehabilitation has seen emerging use in a variety of conditions. This case report aims to investigate the feasibility of adopting telerehabilitation in treating frozen shoulder. Case presentation: A 43-year old female presented with frozen shoulder of insidious onset. She underwent four sessions of physiotherapy. Sessions two and three were telerehabilitation sessions; the initial and final sessions were conducted in-person. Results: The subject was compliant with all exercises prescribed during her rehabilitation and achieved all rehabilitation goals in four sessions. She was then discharged from physiotherapy. Conclusion: Telerehabilitation is feasible in treating frozen shoulder. One barrier to implementation of telerehabilitation includes the lack of technical skills and knowledge despite the high prevalence of technology in today's society. Telerehabilitation increases accessibility and ease of rehabilitation. Telerehabilitation can be considered for segments of the population that are most inclined to use technology.
ABSTRACT
QUESTION: Is 6 weeks of treadmill walking with body weight support more effective than cycling in people with lumbar spinal stenosis when added to an exercise program? DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-eight patients aged 58 (SD 8) with symptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis for 12 weeks (SD 49). INTERVENTION: Participants performed either treadmill with body weight support or cycling, twice weekly, for 6 weeks. Both groups also received an exercise program consisting of heat, lumbar traction, and flexion exercises. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was disability measured using the modified Oswestry Disability Index. Secondary outcomes were disability, measured using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, pain severity, and patient perceived benefit. Measures were collected midway through intervention at 3 weeks and after intervention at 6 weeks. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups in reduction in disability or pain over the 6-week intervention period. The between-group difference in the modified Oswestry Disability Index was 3.2 points (95% CI -3.1 to 7.7) at 6 weeks, and in pain severity was 2 mm on a 100 visual analogue scale (95% CI -5 to 10). Furthermore, the wide confidence intervals associated with estimates of patient benefit are consistent with no difference between the two groups. However, both groups did improve. CONCLUSION: Treadmill with body weight support and cycling may be equally effective in the conservative management of people with lumbar spinal stenosis. However, the improvement observed in both groups was probably a combination of the intervention and the natural course of recovery of lumbar spinal stenosis.
