The Physical and Psychological Effects of Telerehabilitation-Based Exercise for Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Physical therapy has demonstrated efficacy in managing nonspecific low back pain (NLBP) among patients. Nevertheless, the prevalence of NLBP poses a challenge, as the existing medical infrastructure may be insufficient to care for the large patient population, particularly in geographically remote regions. Telerehabilitation emerges as a promising method to address this concern by offering a method to deliver superior medical care to a greater number of patients with NLBP. Objective: The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the physical and psychological effectiveness of a user-centered telerehabilitation program, consisting of a smartphone app and integrated sensors, for patients with NLBP. Methods: This was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial for individuals with NLBP for a duration exceeding 3 months. All participants were assigned randomly to either the telerehabilitation-based exercise group (TBEG) or the outpatient-based exercise group (OBEG). All participants completed a 30-minute regimen of strength and stretching exercises 3 times per week, for a total of 8 weeks, and were required to complete assessment questionnaires at 0, 2, 4, and 8 weeks. The TBEG completed home-based exercises and questionnaires using a telerehabilitation program, while the OBEG completed them in outpatient rehabilitation. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) served as the primary outcome measure, assessing physical disability. Secondary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey. Results: In total, 54 of 129 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the study. The completion of all the interventions and assessments in the TBEG and OBEG was 89% (24/27) and 81% (22/27). The findings indicate that no statistical significance was found in the difference of ODI scores between the TBEG and the OBEG at 2 weeks (mean difference -0.91; odds ratio [OR] 0.78, 95% CI -5.96 to 4.14; P=.72), 4 weeks (mean difference -3.80; OR 1.33, 95% CI -9.86 to -2.25; P=.21), and 8 weeks (mean difference -3.24; OR 0.92, 95% CI -8.65 to 2.17; P=.24). The improvement of the ODI in the TBEG (mean -16.42, SD 7.30) and OBEG (mean -13.18, SD 8.48) was higher than 10 after an 8-week intervention. No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups at the 8-week mark regarding the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (mean difference 8.88; OR 1.04, 95% CI -2.29 to 20.06; P=.12) and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (mean difference -0.39; OR 0.44, 95% CI -2.10 to 1.31; P=.64). In the subgroup analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Telerehabilitation interventions demonstrate comparable therapeutic efficacy for individuals with NLBP when compared to conventional outpatient-based physical therapy, yielding comparable outcomes in pain reduction and improvement in functional limitations.

3D Printing of Micro- and Nanoscale Bone Substitutes: A Review on Technical and Translational Perspectives.

Recent developments in three-dimensional (3D) printing technology offer immense potential in fabricating scaffolds and implants for various biomedical applications, especially for bone repair and regeneration. As the availability of autologous bone sources and commercial products is limited and surgical methods do not help in complete regeneration, it is necessary to develop alternative approaches for repairing large segmental bone defects. The 3D printing technology can effectively integrate different types of living cells within a 3D construct made up of conventional micro- or nanoscale biomaterials to create an artificial bone graft capable of regenerating the damaged tissues. This article reviews the developments and applications of 3D printing in bone tissue engineering and highlights the numerous conventional biomaterials and nanomaterials that have been used in the production of 3D-printed scaffolds. A comprehensive overview of the 3D printing methods such as stereolithography (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), fused deposition modeling (FDM), and ink-jet 3D printing, and their technical and clinical applications in bone repair and regeneration has been provided. The review is expected to be useful for readers to gain an insight into the state-of-the-art of 3D printing of bone substitutes and their translational perspectives.