4.2 Article

The effect of prehabilitation on the range of motion and functional outcomes in patients following the total knee or hip arthroplasty: A pilot randomized trial

Journal

PHYSIOTHERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE
Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 262-270

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/09593985.2016.1138174

Keywords

Activities of daily living; arthroplasty (replacement); range of motion (articular); rehabilitation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The study investigated the effect of prehabilitation on the quality of life and function in patients having total knee replacement (TKR)/total hip replacement (THR). Methods: A pilot randomized controlled trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding, and intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Sixty-four people undergoing elective lower-limb arthroplasty were included. Prehabilitation included one-hour twice-weekly sessions for at least three and a maximum of four weeks prior to surgery. Control participants did not complete any pre-surgical programs. Health utility and quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D-3L and the patient-specific functional scale were the primary outcomes measured before allocation and eight weeks post-operatively. Results: No between-group differences were evident in health utility (main effect of the group -0.04 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] -0.16 to 0.08, p = 0.50) or patient-specific functional scale (main effect of the group -0.59 (95% CI -1.8 to 0.6, p= 0.73), but the group-by-joint interaction effects for the timed up and go (TUG) (7.6 (95% CI -0.9 to 16.1, p = 0.08)) and the EQ-5D VAS (-18.3 (95% CI -41.1 to 4.5), p = 0.11) were larger. Prehabilitation participants' knee flexion improved by 12.6 degrees (95% CI 5.2-20, p= 0.001). Conclusions: Prehabilitation improved knee flexion, but this did not translate into improved functional mobility or quality of life.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available