RESUMO
Megaprostheses are well-known, reliable, and effective reconstruction prostheses used in oncologic surgery for limb salvage in patients affected by primary or metastatic bone tumors. Rehabilitation plays a major role after MUTARS replacement, with the aim of improving function after surgery and maintaining the highest possible quality of life. Only a few studies have been published about the use of megaprostheses for the upper limb. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the results of functional and rehabilitative outcomes of patients affected by bone primary or metastatic bone cancer of the upper limb and surgically treated with MUTARS prostheses. A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed and Scopus using the following MESH terms: "Mutars", "Megaprosthesis", "bone", "tumors", "metastasis", "upper limb", "rehabilitation", "outcome", "quality of life", and 10 studies were included. The most frequent oncological pathology was found to be metastases of the proximal humerus treated with modular endoprosthesis or modular reverse implants. Outcome measures used were ROM, MSTS, ASES, DASH, Constant-Murley score, Enneking score, VAS, MEP, TESS, and WOSI. Reconstruction of the proximal humerus with the MUTARS system seemed to be a valid treatment option after bone tumor resection. Rehabilitation after MUTARS surgery is very relevant, but currently, functional and rehabilitative outcomes are inadequately represented in the literature. Hence, further studies are needed to define standardized rehabilitation protocols after oncological orthopedic surgery that can be applied routinely in clinical practice.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Over the last few decades, the use of neo/adjuvant therapies has significantly increased the number of breast cancer survivors who experience chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). To date, few, low-efficacy, pharmacological remedies exist to manage this side effect. For this reason, alternative treatments are increasingly being investigated as possible strategies to prevent or promote faster recovery from CIPN. In this review we aimed to provide an overview of the literature evidence regarding all the non-pharmacological and rehabilitative interventions for patients affected by CIPN secondary to breast cancer care. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A comprehensive literature search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science and included a total of 1895 patients (1528 with breast cancer) with a wide range of CIPN (motor, sensory and autonomic neuropathies) and chemotherapy treatments (e.g., Taxanes, Platins, Vinca alkaloids or monoclonal antibody drugs). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of the initial 1108 hits, only 25 studies - describing different treatment modalities for peripheral neuropathies - were finally included in the qualitative synthesis. Most studies focused on acupuncture, physiotherapy, cryotherapy, and yoga. CONCLUSIONS: There is still controversial evidence on conservative non-pharmacological interventions for the management of CIPN symptoms. We believe however that moderate exercise, as well as all types of stress reducing activities like sport, yoga and mindfulness, should be encouraged in cancer patients for their positive effect on global physical and psychological health. Further studies of higher methodological quality are needed to determine the best conservative approach to CIPN.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos , Neoplasias da Mama , Doenças do Sistema Nervoso Periférico , Humanos , Doenças do Sistema Nervoso Periférico/induzido quimicamente , Doenças do Sistema Nervoso Periférico/terapia , Doenças do Sistema Nervoso Periférico/reabilitação , Neoplasias da Mama/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias da Mama/terapia , Feminino , Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Tratamento Conservador/métodos , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Yoga , Crioterapia/métodosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Scar adherence due to a pathological healing process can cause physical and psychological disturbance. Soft tissue mobilisation (STM) techniques are widely used to treat and prevent scar adherence, but little is known on their effects. We aimed to analyse the effect of STM in patients with subacute post-surgical scar adhesions affecting the extremities. METHOD: A single-group quasi-experimental study was conducted on consecutive patients undergoing post-surgery limb rehabilitation. Patients with a baseline Adhesion Severity (AS) index of <0.5 at the worst scar point, as measured by the Adheremeter, were eligible. All patients who completed a minimum of five manual treatment sessions were included. The primary outcome was the AS index and the secondary outcome was the Italian version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scales (POSAS-I). RESULTS: A cohort of 19 patients underwent an average of eight STM sessions over a period of one month. The AS index value increased from a median of 0.12 at baseline (interquartile range (IQR): 0.05-0.25) to 0.41 post-treatment (IQR: 0.26-0.63; median change: 0.24; IQR: 0.16-0.40; p<0.001). A large effect size was observed for both AS and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS-I) (Cohen r=0.6), with a large probability of superiority (PS) (87% and 86%, respectively). A moderate effect was observed for the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS-I) (Cohen=0.4; PS=71%). Pre-post treatment changes exceeded the minimal detectable changes for the AS and OSAS-I in 68% of subjects, and for PSAS-I in 21% of subjects. CONCLUSION: STM manual techniques may produce a large effect on the mobility of adherent subacute post-surgical scars.