Suppr超能文献

一项比较慢性踝关节不稳康复疗效的随机对照试验。

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Rehabilitation Efficacy in Chronic Ankle Instability.

作者信息

Wright Cynthia J, Linens Shelley W, Cain Mary S

出版信息

J Sport Rehabil. 2017 Jul;26(4):238-249. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2015-0189. Epub 2016 Aug 24.

Abstract

CONTEXT

There is minimal patient-oriented evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions targeted to reduce symptoms associated with chronic ankle instability (CAI). In addition, clinicians aiming to prioritize care by implementing only the most effective components of a rehabilitative program have very little evidence on comparative efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the comparative efficacy of 2 common ankle rehabilitation techniques (wobble-board [WB] balance training and ankle strengthening using resistance tubing [RT]) using patient-oriented outcomes.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Laboratory.

PATIENTS

40 patients with CAI randomized into 2 treatment groups: RT and WB. CAI inclusion criteria included a history of an ankle sprain, recurrent "giving way," and a Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT) score ≤25.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants completed 5 clinician-oriented tests (foot-lift test, time-in-balance, Star Excursion Balance Test, figure-of-8 hop, and side-hop) and 5 patient-oriented questionnaires (CAIT, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure [FAAM], Activities of Daily Living [ADL] and FAAM Sport scale, Short-Form 36 [SF-36], and Global Rating of Function [GRF]). After baseline testing, participants completed 12 sessions over 4 wk of graduated WB or RT exercise, then repeated baseline tests.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

For each patient- and clinician-oriented test, separate 2 × 2 RMANOVAs analyzed differences between groups over time (alpha set at P = .05).

RESULTS

There was a significant interaction between group and time for the FAAM-ADL (P = .04). Specifically, the WB group improved postintervention (P < .001) whereas the RT group remained the same (P = .29). There were no other significant interactions or significant differences between groups (all P > .05). There were significant improvements postintervention for the CAIT, FAAM-Sport, GRF, SF-36, and all 5 clinician-oriented tests (all P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A single-exercise 4-wk intervention can improve patient- and clinician-oriented outcomes in individuals with CAI. Limited evidence indicates that WB training was more effective than RT.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapy, level 1b.

摘要

背景

关于旨在减轻慢性踝关节不稳(CAI)相关症状的干预措施的有效性,以患者为导向的证据极少。此外,临床医生若想通过仅实施康复计划中最有效的部分来优先安排治疗,却几乎没有关于比较疗效的证据。

目的

使用以患者为导向的结果评估两种常见的踝关节康复技术(摇摆板[WB]平衡训练和使用弹力带[RT]进行踝关节强化训练)的比较疗效。

设计

随机对照试验。

地点

实验室。

患者

40例CAI患者随机分为2个治疗组:RT组和WB组。CAI纳入标准包括踝关节扭伤史、反复“打软腿”以及坎伯兰踝关节不稳工具(CAIT)评分≤25分。

干预措施

参与者完成5项以临床医生为导向的测试(足背屈试验、平衡时间、星形偏移平衡测试、8字跳和侧跳)以及5项以患者为导向的问卷(CAIT、足踝能力量表[FAAM]、日常生活活动[ADL]和FAAM运动量表、简短健康调查[SF-36]以及功能总体评分[GRF])。在基线测试后,参与者在4周内完成12节渐进式WB或RT锻炼课程,然后重复基线测试。

主要结局指标

对于每项以患者和临床医生为导向的测试,分别采用2×2重复测量方差分析来分析组间随时间的差异(α设定为P = 0.05)。

结果

FAAM-ADL在组和时间之间存在显著交互作用(P = 0.04)。具体而言,WB组干预后有所改善(P < 0.001),而RT组保持不变(P = 0.29)。组间没有其他显著的交互作用或显著差异(所有P > 0.05)。干预后CAIT、FAAM-运动、GRF、SF-36以及所有5项以临床医生为导向的测试均有显著改善(所有P < 0.001)。

结论

为期4周的单一锻炼干预可改善CAI患者以患者和临床医生为导向的结局。有限的证据表明WB训练比RT更有效。

证据水平

治疗,1b级。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验