Physiotherapy assessment and treatment of patients with tibial external fixator: a systematic scoping review.

PURPOSE: To map evidence regarding physiotherapy assessment and treatment of patients with tibial external fixator (EF), and to point out literature gaps for further research. METHODS: Systematic scoping review conducted in four databases. We included both experimental and non-experimental studies involving patients with tibial EF and outcomes of interest. We recorded study design, population, sample size, sample age, reason for EF use, type of surgery, type of EF used, instruments used for assessing function, pain, quality of life, satisfaction, psychosocial aspects, and physiotherapy treatment descriptions from included studies. We categorised data accordingly to outcomes assessed and physiotherapy treatments description. RESULTS: Eighty-six studies were included involving 3070 patients. Causes of fixator use were traumatic conditions, acquired and congenital deformities, and non-traumatic conditions, like compartmental osteoarthritis. Function was assessed in about three-quarters of included studies, though other outcomes were not presented in most studies. Only one study described satisfactorily the physiotherapy treatment. Almost half of the studies did not provide any description of the rehabilitation process. CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence about the assessment of function, pain, quality of life, satisfaction, psychosocial aspects, and other outcomes in tibial EF patients. Physiotherapy treatment in these patients is poorly reported.Protocol registration: Open Science Framework: doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/UT2DAIMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONRehabilitation programmes and research should consider that most studies with tibial external fixator (EF) patients did not evaluate outcomes routinely used in physiotherapy assessment.Rehabilitation programmes should consider that the instruments used in evaluation of tibial EF patients have unknown measurement properties.Rehabilitation programmes should consider that treatment of patients with tibial EF involves different types of interventions, however, they are poorly described or not described in most studies.

Knowledge and use of extrinsic feedback characteristics: A survey of current practice among Brazilian physical therapists.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify the knowledge about the different characteristics of and the use of extrinsic feedback (EF) by Brazilian physical therapists. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study, and we used an internet-based survey with questions about knowledge and application of extrinsic feedback in clinical practice. We analyzed the responses in relation to the best available evidence on motor control and learning. We recruited Brazilian registered physical therapists from different regions in Brazil. Participants' demographics and survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-six Brazilian physical therapists participated in the study. Most participants affirmed not knowing the definition of EF (55.69%), confirmed using some form of EF in their clinical practice (86.59%), and reported using it in 50% to 90% of their patients (26.42%). Brazilian physical therapists reported using mainly summary feedback (69.10%) with external focus of attention (63.41%). Participants reported using concurrent feedback (82.83%) and delivered it after every exercise repetition (63.82%). Most participants (43.09%) did not assess learning retention. Answers were similar regardless of education level or time from graduation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey suggest that Brazilian physical therapists do not have sufficient knowledge about the different characteristics of EF; however, they do consider EF useful and use it for most of their patients. Brazilian physical therapists adopted adequate content characteristics of EF but not adequate use of timing characteristics of EF.

Pilates for neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Although widely used in clinical practice, evidence on the effectiveness of the Pilates method in people with neck pain has not been adequately summarised yet. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature on the effectiveness of the Pilates method on improving pain and disability in patients with neck pain. METHODS: We performed searches in multiple databases from their inception to October 2021. We included randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of the Pilates method with other treatments on pain and disability in patients with neck pain. Two authors independently selected studies, rated risk of bias, extracted data, and judged the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: We included five RCTs (n = 224 participants). There is low certainty evidence that Pilates method did not significantly improve pain compared to other treatments at short-term (mean difference (MD): MD: 9.29 points, 95% CI -25.84 to 7.26; I2 = 93%). Low certainty evidence suggested that the Pilates method did not significantly improve disability compared to other treatments at short-term (MD: 3.20 points, 95% CI -7.70 to 1.30; I2 = 75%). CONCLUSION: Based on low certainty evidence, the Pilates method is not better than other treatments at 3 months to reduce pain and disability. High quality trials are required.