He Jiye, Xu Caiqi, Huang Lihua, Wang Hui, Lu Shengdi
Department of Orthopedics, Shanghai Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Department of Sports Medicine, Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
J Rehabil Med. 2025 Aug 21;57:jrm43237. doi: 10.2340/jrm.v57.43237.
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of telerehabilitation to traditional face- to-face physical therapy for patients with degenerative meniscal tears in Shanghai, China.
A two-arm, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted across two hospitals in Shanghai, China Subjects/Patients: Participants with clinically diagnosed degenerative meniscal tears were randomly assigned to either the telerehabilitation group or the face-to-face physical therapy group.
Both groups underwent a 12-week intervention. Participants in telerehabilitation group used a digital platform for remote physical therapy, while participants in physical therapy group received traditional clinic-based rehabilitation. A predefined non-inferiority margin of 10 points on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was applied to determine clinical equivalence between the interventions.
Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in knee function and quality of life, with no significant differences in the KOOS, SF-36, or functional tests at any time point (p > 0.05). Both groups had high adherence rates, with no significant differences in exercise completion or satisfaction scores. The TELE group had a significantly lower total cost compared to the PT group (p < 0.001), demonstrating greater cost-effectiveness.
Telerehabilitation was found to be clinically non-inferior to face-to-face physical therapy for improving knee function, pain, and quality of life in patients with degenerative meniscal tears. It offered significant cost savings, making it a cost-effective alternative to traditional in-person rehabilitation.
本研究旨在比较在中国上海,远程康复与传统面对面物理治疗对退行性半月板撕裂患者的疗效。
在中国上海的两家医院进行了一项双臂、单盲、随机对照试验。受试者/患者:临床诊断为退行性半月板撕裂的参与者被随机分配到远程康复组或面对面物理治疗组。
两组均接受为期12周的干预。远程康复组的参与者使用数字平台进行远程物理治疗,而物理治疗组的参与者接受基于传统门诊的康复治疗。采用膝关节损伤和骨关节炎疗效评分(KOOS)预先设定的非劣效性界值10分来确定干预措施之间的临床等效性。
两组在膝关节功能和生活质量方面均有显著改善,在任何时间点的KOOS、SF-36或功能测试中均无显著差异(p>0.05)。两组的依从率都很高,在运动完成情况或满意度评分方面没有显著差异。与物理治疗组相比,远程康复组的总成本显著更低(p<0.001),显示出更高的成本效益。
研究发现,对于改善退行性半月板撕裂患者的膝关节功能、疼痛和生活质量,远程康复在临床上并不劣于面对面物理治疗。它能显著节省成本,成为传统面对面康复的一种具有成本效益的替代方案。