Is asynchronous telerehabilitation equal to synchronous telerehabilitation in COVID-19 survivors with classes 4-6?

INTRODUCTION: The first aim of this study was to compare synchronous and asynchronous telerehabilitation programs in COVID-19 survivors with classes 4-6 and determine the more appropriate telerehabilitation approach. METHODS: Thirty-six COVID-19 survivors with class 4-6 severity were randomly divided into two groups. Telerehabilitation programs were an 8-week exercise program that comprised pulmonary, aerobic, and strengthening exercises. Patients were assessed at the baseline, post-treatment, and follow-up for the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT), short physical performance battery (SPPB), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS). RESULTS: The overall mean age of the study population was 54.06 (SD 10.50), and 15 (46.8%) were male. There were no significant differences between the two groups in any of the demographics and clinical characteristics at the baseline (p > 0.05), except for physical function (p < 0.05). There was a significant improvement in exercise capacity (p < 0.001) and lower extremity function (p < 0.01) within both groups in the short term and long term. There was a significant improvement in some subparameters of quality of life in both groups. As the synchronous group's short-term and long-term psychological status improved significantly, the asynchronous group's short-term psychological status improved significantly (p < 0.05). Telerehabilitation programs had similar effects, and only synchronous telerehabilitation outperformed asynchronous telerehabilitation in terms of physical function, role-emotional, and long-term anxiety. DISCUSSION: Asynchronous telerehabilitation was as effective as synchronous telerehabilitation in developing clinical and functional parameters when properly planned and implemented.

Is asynchronous telerehabilitation equal to synchronous telerehabilitation in COVID-19 survivors with classes 4­6?

Introduction The first aim of this study was to compare synchronous and asynchronous telerehabilitation programs in COVID-19 survivors with classes 4­6 and determine the more appropriate telerehabilitation approach. Methods Thirty-six COVID-19 survivors with class 4­6 severity were randomly divided into two groups. Telerehabilitation programs were an 8-week exercise program that comprised pulmonary, aerobic, and strengthening exercises. Patients were assessed at the baseline, post-treatment, and follow-up for the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT), short physical performance battery (SPPB), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) Results The overall mean age of the study population was 54.06 (SD 10.50), and 15 (46.8%) were male. There were no significant differences between the two groups in any of the demographics and clinical characteristics at the baseline (p > 0.05), except for physical function (p < 0.05). There was a significant improvement in exercise capacity (p < 0.001) and lower extremity function (p < 0.01) within both groups in the short term and long term. There was a significant improvement in some subparameters of quality of life in both groups. As the synchronous group's short-term and long-term psychological status improved significantly, the asynchronous group's short-term psychological status improved significantly (p < 0.05). Telerehabilitation programs had similar effects, and only synchronous telerehabilitation outperformed asynchronous telerehabilitation in terms of physical function, role-emotional, and long-term anxiety. Discussion Asynchronous telerehabilitation was as effective as synchronous telerehabilitation in developing clinical and functional parameters when properly planned and implemented.

Efficacy of different combinations of physiotherapy techniques compared to exercise and patient education in temporomandibular disorders: A randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the efficacy of different types of physiotherapy approaches in individuals with cervical myofascial painful temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). METHODS: Seventy-five participants with myofascial pain of jaw muscles and cervical myofascial pain were randomized into three groups: exercise group (E), low-level laser therapy group (LLLT), and manual pressure release group (MPR). All patients were assessed before treatment and after 12 sessions of treatment. RESULTS: Significant improvement was seen in all groups' pressure pain threshold (PPT) values (p < 0.01). Some masticatory and neck muscles' PPT changes in MRP and LLLT groups were significantly higher than the exercise group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Exercise therapy is an effective approach for treatment of TMDs. Additionally, LLLT combined with exercise and MPR combined with exercise have better effects than only exercise therapy. Multimodal treatment approaches should include exercise to achieve better results in clinical practice.