Exploring treatment of medial tibial stress syndrome via posture and the MyoKinesthetic system.

INTRODUCTION: A standard treatment protocol for medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS) has not been identified. Clinical practice focuses on local evaluation and treatment neglecting a global approach. The MyoKinesthetic™ (MYK) System includes a full-body postural assessment to identify compensatory patterns that may lead to MTSS. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of the MYK System in treating patients diagnosed with MTSS. METHOD: A multi-site exploratory study was used to assess the effects of the MYK System on perceived pain and disability in patients diagnosed with MTSS. Eighteen physically active patients (6 female, 12 male), ages 18-25 years (19.89 ±â€¯1.32) were treated with the MYK System. RESULTS: Paired T-tests were utilized to assess change. The change in patient reported pain was statistically significant (t(17) = 10.48, p < .001, Cohen's d = 2.48) and represented an average decrease of 96% in patient reported pain. The change in disablement was statistically significant (t(17) = 7.39, p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.74) and represented an average decrease of 88.2% in patient reported disablement. DISCUSSION: Participants treated with the MYK System experienced significant improvements and appear to surpass traditional interventions without the need of rest. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the MYK System to treat MTSS led to significant decreases in patient reported pain and dysfunction. A full-scale clinical investigation of the MYK System is warranted to determine its effects compared to traditional treatment options.

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Validation: Disablement in the Physically Active Scale.

CONTEXT: Determining patient outcomes is essential to quality health care. Administering electronic patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) offers potential advantages, including faster completion and efficient data access and storage. However, commonly used PROMs have not been studied across multiple administration modes, limiting clinicians to paper forms until the electronic versions are validated. OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of an electronic version of the Disablement in the Physically Active (DPA) scale compared with the paper version. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Electronic and paper versions of the DPA scale were randomly administered to 117 participants (38 women, 79 men; age = 21.6 ± 5.9 years) 24 to 48 hours apart. Responses were compared using Pearson product moment correlations, canonical correlations, and covariance modeling. RESULTS: The electronic version of the DPA scale was strongly correlated with the paper version when compared using a bivariate correlation (r = 0.86, P < .001) or covariance modeling approach (r = 0.90, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The electronic version of the DPA scale was comparable with the paper version, making the former more efficient for use in athletic training. This study provides a template for other clinician-researchers to perform similar evaluations of electronic PROMs to determine their equivalency with the paper versions before implementing them in practice.