Svane Christian, Nielsen Jens Bo, Lorentzen Jakob
Department of Neuroscience, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.
Elsass Foundation, Charlottenlund, Denmark.
Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2021 Jan 13;3(1):100104. doi: 10.1016/j.arrct.2021.100104. eCollection 2021 Mar.
To investigate whether nonsurgical treatment can reduce muscle contractures in individuals with neurologic disorders. The primary outcome measure was muscle contractures measured as joint mobility or passive stiffness.
Embase, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database in June-July 2019 and again in July 2020.
The search resulted in 8020 records, which were screened by 2 authors based on our patient, intervention, comparison, outcome criteria. We included controlled trials of nonsurgical interventions administered to treat muscle contractures in individuals with neurologic disorders.
Authors, participant characteristics, intervention details, and joint mobility/passive stiffness before and after intervention were extracted. We assessed trials for risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. We conducted meta-analyses investigating the short-term effect on joint mobility using a random-effects model with the pooled effect from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the primary outcome. The minimal clinically important effect was set at 5°.
A total of 70 trials (57 RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. Stretch had a pooled effect of 3° (95% CI, 1-4°; prediction interval (PI)=-2 to 7°; =66%; <.001), and robot-assisted rehabilitation had an effect of 1 (95% CI, 0-2; PI=-8 to 9; =73%; =.03). We found no effect of shockwave therapy (=.56), physical activity (=.27), electrical stimulation (=.11), or botulinum toxin (=.13). Although trials were generally of moderate to high quality according to the Downs and Black checklist, only 18 of the 70 trials used objective measures of muscle contractures. In 23 trials, nonobjective measures were used without use of assessor-blinding.
We did not find convincing evidence supporting the use of any nonsurgical treatment option. We recommend that controlled trials using objective measures of muscle contractures and a sufficiently large number of participants be performed.
探讨非手术治疗能否减少神经系统疾病患者的肌肉挛缩。主要结局指标为以关节活动度或被动僵硬度衡量的肌肉挛缩。
2019年6月至7月以及2020年7月检索了Embase、MEDLINE、护理学与联合健康累积索引和物理治疗证据数据库。
检索结果得到8020条记录,由2位作者根据我们的患者、干预措施、对照、结局标准进行筛选。我们纳入了针对神经系统疾病患者肌肉挛缩进行治疗的非手术干预对照试验。
提取作者、参与者特征、干预细节以及干预前后的关节活动度/被动僵硬度。我们使用唐斯和布莱克清单评估试验的偏倚风险。我们进行了荟萃分析,采用随机效应模型研究对关节活动度的短期影响,将随机对照试验(RCT)的合并效应作为主要结局。最小临床重要效应设定为5°。
共有70项试验(57项RCT)符合纳入标准。拉伸的合并效应为3°(95%CI,1 - 4°;预测区间(PI)= -2至7°;I² = 66%;P <.001),机器人辅助康复的效应为1°(95%CI,0 - 2°;PI = -8至9°;I² = 73%;P =.03)。我们未发现冲击波疗法(P =.56)、体育活动(P =.27)、电刺激(P =.11)或肉毒杆菌毒素(P =.13)有效果。尽管根据唐斯和布莱克清单,试验总体质量为中等至高,但70项试验中只有18项使用了肌肉挛缩的客观测量方法。在23项试验中,使用了非客观测量方法且未采用评估者盲法。
我们未找到支持使用任何非手术治疗方案的令人信服的证据。我们建议开展使用肌肉挛缩客观测量方法且有足够数量参与者的对照试验。