Comparison of patients in three different rehabilitation settings after knee or hip arthroplasty: a natural observational, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Patients after primary hip or knee replacement surgery can benefit from postoperative treatment in terms of improvement of independence in ambulation, transfers, range of motion and muscle strength. After discharge from hospital, patients are referred to different treatment destination and modalities: intensive inpatient rehabilitation (IR), cure (medically prescribed stay at a convalescence center), or ambulatory treatment (AT) at home. The purpose of this study was to 1) measure functional health (primary outcome) and function relevant factors in patients with hip or knee arthroplasty and to compare them in relation to three postoperative management strategies: AT, Cure and IR and 2) compare the post-operative changes in patient's health status (between preoperative and the 6 month follow-up) for three rehabilitation settings. METHODS: Natural observational, prospective two-center study with follow-up. Sociodemographic data and functional mobility tests, Timed Up and Go (TUG) and Iowa Level of Assistance Scale (ILOAS) of 201 patients were analysed before arthroplasty and at the end of acute hospital stay (mean duration of stay: 9.7 days +/- 3.9). Changes in health state were measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) before and 6 months after arthroplasty. RESULTS: Compared to patients referred for IR and Cure, patients referred for AT were significantly younger and less comorbid. Patients admitted to IR had the highest functional disability before arthroplasty. Before rehabilitation, mean TUG was 40.0 s in the IR group, 33.9 s in the Cure group, and 27.5 s in the AT group, and corresponding mean ILOAS was 16.0, 13.0 and 12.2 (50.0 = worst). At the 6 months follow-up, the corresponding effect sizes of the WOMAC global score were 1.32, 1.87, and 1.51 (>0 means improvement). CONCLUSIONS: Age, comorbidity and functional disability are associated with referral for intensive inpatient rehabilitation after hip or knee arthroplasty and partly affect health changes after rehabilitation.

Horticultural therapy for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: results of a pilot study.

CONTEXT: Therapists can use horticultural therapy as an adjuvant therapy in a non threatening context, with the intent of bringing about positive effects in physical health, mental health, and social interaction. Very few experimental studies exist that test its clinical effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the addition of horticultural therapy to a pain-management program improved physical function, mental health, and ability to cope with pain. DESIGN: The research team designed a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled cohort study, enrolling all patients consecutively referred to the Zurzach Interdisciplinary Pain Program (ZISP) who met the studys criteria. The team divided them into two cohorts based on when medical professionals referred them: before (control group) or after (intervention group) introduction of a horticultural therapy program. SETTING: The setting was the rehabilitation clinic (RehaClinic) in Bad Zurzach, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-nine patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (fibromyalgia or chronic, nonspecific back pain) participated in the study. INTERVENTIONS: The research team compared a 4-week, inpatient, interdisciplinary pain-management program with horticultural therapy (intervention, n = 37) with a pain-management program without horticultural therapy (control, n = 42). The horticultural therapy program consisted of seven sessions of group therapy, each of 1-hour duration. OUTCOME MEASURES: The research team assessed the outcome using the Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 (SF-36), the West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ ), and two functional performance tests. The team tested participants on entry to and discharge from the 4-week pain-management program. RESULTS: Between-group differences in sociodemographic and outcome variables were not significant on participants entry to the pain-management program. On discharge, the research team measured small to moderate outcome effects (effect size [ES] up to 0.71) within both groups. The study found significantly larger improvements for the horticultural therapy group vs the control group in SF-36 role physical (ES = 0.71 vs 0.22; P = .018); SF-36 mental health (ES = 0.46 vs 0.16; P = .027); HADS anxiety (ES = 0.26 vs 0.03; P = .043); and CSQ pain behavior (ES = 0.30 vs -0.05; P = .032). CONCLUSION: The addition of horticultural therapy to a pain management program improved participants' physical and mental health and their coping ability with respect to chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Does classification of persons with fibromyalgia into Multidimensional Pain Inventory subgroups detect differences in outcome after a standard chronic pain management program?

INTRODUCTION: The present study aimed to replicate and validate the empirically derived subgroup classification based on the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) in a sample of highly disabled fibromyalgia (FM) patients. Second, it examined how the identified subgroups differed in their response to an intensive, interdisciplinary inpatient pain management program. METHODS: Participants were 118 persons with FM who experienced persistent pain and were disabled. Subgroup classification was conducted by cluster analysis using MPI subscale scores at entry to the program. At program entry and discharge, participants completed the MPI, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Coping Strategies Questionnaire. RESULTS: Cluster analysis identified three subgroups in the highly disabled sample that were similar to those described by other studies using less disabled samples of FM. The dysfunctional subgroup (DYS; 36% of the sample) showed the highest level of depression, the interpersonally distressed subgroup (ID; 24%) showed a modest level of depression and the adaptive copers subgroup (AC; 38%) showed the lowest depression scores in the MPI (negative mood), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (mental health), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (depression) and Coping Strategies Questionnaire (catastrophizing). Significant differences in treatment outcome were observed among the three subgroups in terms of reduction of pain severity (as assessed using the MPI). The effect sizes were 1.42 for DYS, 1.32 for AC and 0.62 for ID (P=0.004 for pairwise comparison of ID-AC and P=0.018 for ID-DYS). DISCUSSION: These findings underscore the importance of assessing individuals' differences in how they adjust to FM.