颈椎前路椎间盘切除术融合术后早期颈椎稳定器训练与常规护理的临床效果比较。

IF 1.5 Q3 REHABILITATION Rehabilitation Research and Practice Pub Date : 2020-04-24 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2020/5946152
Carol McFarland, Sharon Wang-Price, Charles R Gordon, Guy Otis Danielson, J Stuart Crutchfield, Ann Medley, Toni Roddey
{"title":"颈椎前路椎间盘切除术融合术后早期颈椎稳定器训练与常规护理的临床效果比较。","authors":"Carol McFarland,&nbsp;Sharon Wang-Price,&nbsp;Charles R Gordon,&nbsp;Guy Otis Danielson,&nbsp;J Stuart Crutchfield,&nbsp;Ann Medley,&nbsp;Toni Roddey","doi":"10.1155/2020/5946152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Early physical therapy (PT) with specific stabilization training has been shown to benefit individuals after lumbar spinal surgery but has not been studied in patients after cervical spine surgery. The primary purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between early cervical spine stabilizer (ECS) training and usual care (UC) in patients after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. The secondary purpose was to determine test-retest reliability of strength and endurance tests of cervical spinal stabilizers in this patient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty participants who were scheduled for ACDF surgery were randomized into either the ECS group or the UC group. After surgery, participants received their assigned group intervention during their hospital stay and continued their assigned intervention for 12 weeks. All participants had phone follow-ups twice during the first 6 weeks to address questions or problems. Clinical outcome measures including pain level using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), disability level using the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Craniocervical Flexor Strength (CCF-S), and Craniocervical Flexor Endurance (CCF-E) were collected three times: before surgery and 6 and 12 weeks after surgery. Test-retest reliability was assessed in the first 10 participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant interaction between the groups over time for any of the outcome measures. However, all participants made significant improvements in all four outcome measures at 6 and 12 weeks post surgery. The results showed good-to-excellent test-retest reliability for the CCF-S and CCF-E tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both ECS training and UC resulted in the same amount of improvement at 6 and 12 weeks; therefore, both therapy approaches appear to have similar and positive effects on patients in their first 3 months of recovery after ACDF. Both the CCF-S and CCF-E tests can be used reliably to assess the strength and endurance of the cervical spinal stabilizers for patients after ACDF surgery. The study was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov (NIH, U.S. National Library of Medicine, identifier # NCT01519115) Protocol Registration system.</p>","PeriodicalId":45585,"journal":{"name":"Rehabilitation Research and Practice","volume":"2020 ","pages":"5946152"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2020/5946152","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Early Cervical Spine Stabilizer Training and Usual Care in Individuals following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.\",\"authors\":\"Carol McFarland,&nbsp;Sharon Wang-Price,&nbsp;Charles R Gordon,&nbsp;Guy Otis Danielson,&nbsp;J Stuart Crutchfield,&nbsp;Ann Medley,&nbsp;Toni Roddey\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2020/5946152\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Early physical therapy (PT) with specific stabilization training has been shown to benefit individuals after lumbar spinal surgery but has not been studied in patients after cervical spine surgery. The primary purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between early cervical spine stabilizer (ECS) training and usual care (UC) in patients after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. The secondary purpose was to determine test-retest reliability of strength and endurance tests of cervical spinal stabilizers in this patient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty participants who were scheduled for ACDF surgery were randomized into either the ECS group or the UC group. After surgery, participants received their assigned group intervention during their hospital stay and continued their assigned intervention for 12 weeks. All participants had phone follow-ups twice during the first 6 weeks to address questions or problems. Clinical outcome measures including pain level using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), disability level using the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Craniocervical Flexor Strength (CCF-S), and Craniocervical Flexor Endurance (CCF-E) were collected three times: before surgery and 6 and 12 weeks after surgery. Test-retest reliability was assessed in the first 10 participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant interaction between the groups over time for any of the outcome measures. However, all participants made significant improvements in all four outcome measures at 6 and 12 weeks post surgery. The results showed good-to-excellent test-retest reliability for the CCF-S and CCF-E tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both ECS training and UC resulted in the same amount of improvement at 6 and 12 weeks; therefore, both therapy approaches appear to have similar and positive effects on patients in their first 3 months of recovery after ACDF. Both the CCF-S and CCF-E tests can be used reliably to assess the strength and endurance of the cervical spinal stabilizers for patients after ACDF surgery. The study was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov (NIH, U.S. National Library of Medicine, identifier # NCT01519115) Protocol Registration system.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rehabilitation Research and Practice\",\"volume\":\"2020 \",\"pages\":\"5946152\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2020/5946152\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rehabilitation Research and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5946152\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rehabilitation Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5946152","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的:早期物理治疗(PT)与特定的稳定训练已被证明对腰椎手术后的个体有益,但尚未对颈椎手术后的患者进行研究。本研究的主要目的是比较前路颈椎椎间盘切除术和融合(ACDF)手术后患者早期颈椎稳定剂(ECS)训练和常规护理(UC)的临床结果。次要目的是确定在该患者群体中颈椎稳定剂强度和耐力试验的重测可靠性。方法:40例计划行ACDF手术的患者随机分为ECS组和UC组。手术后,参与者在住院期间接受指定的小组干预,并继续进行12周的指定干预。在前6周,所有参与者都有两次电话随访,以解决问题或问题。临床结果测量包括使用数字疼痛评定量表(NPRS)的疼痛水平,使用颈部残疾指数(NDI)的残疾水平,颅颈屈肌强度(CCF-S)和颅颈屈肌耐力(CCF-E)收集三次:术前和术后6周和12周。对前10名参与者进行重测信度评估。结果:随着时间的推移,两组之间的任何结果测量都没有显著的相互作用。然而,所有参与者在手术后6周和12周的所有四项结果测量均有显著改善。结果显示CCF-S和CCF-E测试的重测信度良好至优异。结论:ECS培训和UC在6周和12周时的改善程度相同;因此,两种治疗方法似乎对ACDF后恢复的前3个月的患者具有相似的积极作用。CCF-S和CCF-E试验均可可靠地用于评估ACDF术后患者颈椎稳定器的强度和耐力。该研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov (NIH,美国国家医学图书馆,识别码# NCT01519115)方案注册系统注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Early Cervical Spine Stabilizer Training and Usual Care in Individuals following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

Objectives: Early physical therapy (PT) with specific stabilization training has been shown to benefit individuals after lumbar spinal surgery but has not been studied in patients after cervical spine surgery. The primary purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between early cervical spine stabilizer (ECS) training and usual care (UC) in patients after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. The secondary purpose was to determine test-retest reliability of strength and endurance tests of cervical spinal stabilizers in this patient population.

Methods: Forty participants who were scheduled for ACDF surgery were randomized into either the ECS group or the UC group. After surgery, participants received their assigned group intervention during their hospital stay and continued their assigned intervention for 12 weeks. All participants had phone follow-ups twice during the first 6 weeks to address questions or problems. Clinical outcome measures including pain level using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), disability level using the Neck Disability Index (NDI), Craniocervical Flexor Strength (CCF-S), and Craniocervical Flexor Endurance (CCF-E) were collected three times: before surgery and 6 and 12 weeks after surgery. Test-retest reliability was assessed in the first 10 participants.

Results: There was no significant interaction between the groups over time for any of the outcome measures. However, all participants made significant improvements in all four outcome measures at 6 and 12 weeks post surgery. The results showed good-to-excellent test-retest reliability for the CCF-S and CCF-E tests.

Conclusions: Both ECS training and UC resulted in the same amount of improvement at 6 and 12 weeks; therefore, both therapy approaches appear to have similar and positive effects on patients in their first 3 months of recovery after ACDF. Both the CCF-S and CCF-E tests can be used reliably to assess the strength and endurance of the cervical spinal stabilizers for patients after ACDF surgery. The study was registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov (NIH, U.S. National Library of Medicine, identifier # NCT01519115) Protocol Registration system.

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
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: Rehabilitation Research and Practice is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of physical medicine and rehabilitation. The journal focuses on improving and restoring functional ability and quality of life to those with physical impairments or disabilities. In addition, articles looking at techniques to assess and study disabling conditions will be considered.
期刊最新文献
Physical Health and Socioeconomic Status in Ambulatory Adults With Bilateral Spastic Cerebral Palsy. Comparing the Physiological Responses to the 6-Minute Walk Test, Timed Up and Go Test, and Treadmill Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test. Virtual Reality Technology for Physical and Cognitive Function Rehabilitation in People With Multiple Sclerosis. Categories of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale Activities in Chronic Neck Pain and Their Relationship to the Neck Disability Index. The NewGait Rehabilitative Device Corrects Gait Deviations in Individuals With Foot Drop.
×
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