正念疗法与物理疗法、药物疗法的比较:COVID-19大流行期间腰背手术患者的最佳术后恢复方法--一家医疗机构的经验。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Personalized Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-29 DOI:10.3390/jpm14090917
Giuseppe La Rocca, Vittorio Orlando, Gianluca Galieri, Edoardo Mazzucchi, Fabrizio Pignotti, Davide Cusumano, Paola Bazzu, Alessandro Olivi, Giovanni Sabatino
{"title":"正念疗法与物理疗法、药物疗法的比较:COVID-19大流行期间腰背手术患者的最佳术后恢复方法--一家医疗机构的经验。","authors":"Giuseppe La Rocca, Vittorio Orlando, Gianluca Galieri, Edoardo Mazzucchi, Fabrizio Pignotti, Davide Cusumano, Paola Bazzu, Alessandro Olivi, Giovanni Sabatino","doi":"10.3390/jpm14090917","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mindfulness therapy compared to traditional physiotherapy and usual care in alleviating postoperative pain and improving functional outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety patients undergoing lumbar decompression and fusion (LDF) who presented persistent low back pain after surgery were prospectively followed for one year. They were randomly divided into three groups: mindfulness therapy, physiotherapy, and medical therapy. The primary outcome was the improvement of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score postoperatively and at six months follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both mindfulness and physiotherapy groups showed significant improvement in ODI scores compared to the control group, with mean variations of 10.6 and 11.6 points, respectively, versus 4.9 points in the control group. There was no significant difference between mindfulness and physiotherapy (<i>p</i> = 0.52), but both were superior to medical care (<i>p</i> < 0.0001 for physiotherapy and <i>p</i> = 0.0007 for mindfulness).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated that mindfulness therapy is more effective than usual care in improving postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. In our cohort, its efficacy was comparable to that of physiotherapy, making it a viable alternative, especially when access to healthcare services is restricted, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research should validate the findings of this study and examine the long-term effects on surgical patient populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":16722,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11433326/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mindfulness vs. Physiotherapy vs. Medical Therapy: Uncovering the Best Postoperative Recovery Method for Low Back Surgery Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Single Institution's Experience.\",\"authors\":\"Giuseppe La Rocca, Vittorio Orlando, Gianluca Galieri, Edoardo Mazzucchi, Fabrizio Pignotti, Davide Cusumano, Paola Bazzu, Alessandro Olivi, Giovanni Sabatino\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jpm14090917\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mindfulness therapy compared to traditional physiotherapy and usual care in alleviating postoperative pain and improving functional outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety patients undergoing lumbar decompression and fusion (LDF) who presented persistent low back pain after surgery were prospectively followed for one year. They were randomly divided into three groups: mindfulness therapy, physiotherapy, and medical therapy. The primary outcome was the improvement of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score postoperatively and at six months follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both mindfulness and physiotherapy groups showed significant improvement in ODI scores compared to the control group, with mean variations of 10.6 and 11.6 points, respectively, versus 4.9 points in the control group. There was no significant difference between mindfulness and physiotherapy (<i>p</i> = 0.52), but both were superior to medical care (<i>p</i> < 0.0001 for physiotherapy and <i>p</i> = 0.0007 for mindfulness).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated that mindfulness therapy is more effective than usual care in improving postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. In our cohort, its efficacy was comparable to that of physiotherapy, making it a viable alternative, especially when access to healthcare services is restricted, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research should validate the findings of this study and examine the long-term effects on surgical patient populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16722,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Personalized Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11433326/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Personalized Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14090917\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Personalized Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14090917","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:本研究旨在评估正念疗法与传统物理疗法和常规护理相比,在缓解COVID-19大流行期间腰椎手术患者术后疼痛和改善功能预后方面的疗效:对接受腰椎减压融合术(LDF)的90名术后出现持续腰痛的患者进行为期一年的前瞻性随访。他们被随机分为三组:正念疗法组、物理疗法组和药物疗法组。主要研究结果是术后和随访六个月时Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)评分的改善情况:结果:与对照组相比,正念治疗组和物理治疗组的 ODI 评分均有显著改善,平均值分别为 10.6 分和 11.6 分,而对照组为 4.9 分。正念和物理治疗之间没有明显差异(p = 0.52),但都优于医疗护理(物理治疗的p < 0.0001,正念的p = 0.0007):本研究表明,正念疗法在改善腰椎手术患者的术后效果方面比常规护理更有效。在我们的队列中,正念疗法的疗效与物理疗法不相上下,因此正念疗法是一种可行的替代疗法,尤其是在医疗服务受限的情况下,如 COVID-19 大流行期间。未来的研究应验证本研究的结果,并检查其对手术患者的长期影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Mindfulness vs. Physiotherapy vs. Medical Therapy: Uncovering the Best Postoperative Recovery Method for Low Back Surgery Patients during the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Single Institution's Experience.

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of mindfulness therapy compared to traditional physiotherapy and usual care in alleviating postoperative pain and improving functional outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: Ninety patients undergoing lumbar decompression and fusion (LDF) who presented persistent low back pain after surgery were prospectively followed for one year. They were randomly divided into three groups: mindfulness therapy, physiotherapy, and medical therapy. The primary outcome was the improvement of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score postoperatively and at six months follow-up.

Results: Both mindfulness and physiotherapy groups showed significant improvement in ODI scores compared to the control group, with mean variations of 10.6 and 11.6 points, respectively, versus 4.9 points in the control group. There was no significant difference between mindfulness and physiotherapy (p = 0.52), but both were superior to medical care (p < 0.0001 for physiotherapy and p = 0.0007 for mindfulness).

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that mindfulness therapy is more effective than usual care in improving postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. In our cohort, its efficacy was comparable to that of physiotherapy, making it a viable alternative, especially when access to healthcare services is restricted, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future research should validate the findings of this study and examine the long-term effects on surgical patient populations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Personalized Medicine
Journal of Personalized Medicine Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1878
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Personalized Medicine (JPM; ISSN 2075-4426) is an international, open access journal aimed at bringing all aspects of personalized medicine to one platform. JPM publishes cutting edge, innovative preclinical and translational scientific research and technologies related to personalized medicine (e.g., pharmacogenomics/proteomics, systems biology). JPM recognizes that personalized medicine—the assessment of genetic, environmental and host factors that cause variability of individuals—is a challenging, transdisciplinary topic that requires discussions from a range of experts. For a comprehensive perspective of personalized medicine, JPM aims to integrate expertise from the molecular and translational sciences, therapeutics and diagnostics, as well as discussions of regulatory, social, ethical and policy aspects. We provide a forum to bring together academic and clinical researchers, biotechnology, diagnostic and pharmaceutical companies, health professionals, regulatory and ethical experts, and government and regulatory authorities.
期刊最新文献
Applications of Artificial Intelligence-Based Systems in the Management of Esophageal Varices. Clinical and Laboratory Parameters Associated with PICU Admission in Children with Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome Associated with COVID-19 (MIS-C). Oral Care in Head and Neck Radiotherapy: Proposal for an Oral Hygiene Protocol. Sinonasal Outcomes Obtained after 2 Years of Treatment with Benralizumab in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma and CRSwNP: A "Real-Life" Observational Study. Melatonin Receptors and Serotonin: Age-Related Changes in the Ovaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1