Nonexercise Interventions for Prevention of Musculoskeletal Injuries in Armed Forces: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

CONTEXT: This study evaluates the effect of nonexercise interventions on the reduction of risk for musculoskeletal injuries in armed forces. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A database search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTdiscus, Greylit, Open Grey, the WHO trial registry, and the reference lists of included articles up to July 2019. RCTs and cluster RCTs evaluating nonexercise interventions for the prevention of musculoskeletal injuries in armed forces compared with any other intervention(s) or no intervention were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were done by 2 authors independently, followed by meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation assessment, if appropriate. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: This study included 27 articles with a total number of 25,593 participants, examining nutritional supplementation, prophylactic medication, and equipment modifications with mostly high or unclear risk of bias. Meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation assessment could be performed for 3 comparisons: custom-made insoles versus no insoles, tropical/hot-weather boots versus leather boots, and shock-absorbing insoles versus nonshock-absorbing insoles interventions, all showing the very low quality of evidence. Some evidence was found to support the preventive effect of shock-absorbing insoles, basketball shoes, padded polyester socks, calcium with vitamin D supplementation, only calcium supplementation, protein supplementation, and dynamic patellofemoral braces. CONCLUSIONS: Although an evidence base for the efficacy of preventive interventions for musculoskeletal injuries in armed forces is weak, there are some indications for the preventive effect of shock-absorbing insoles, basketball shoes, padded polyester socks, supplementation of calcium alone or combined with vitamin D, protein supplementation, and dynamic patellofemoral braces on the incidence of musculoskeletal injuries.

Conservative interventions for preventing clinically detectable upper-limb lymphoedema in patients who are at risk of developing lymphoedema after breast cancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer-related lymphoedema can be a debilitating long-term sequela of breast cancer treatment. Several studies have investigated the effectiveness of different treatment strategies to reduce the risk of breast cancer-related lymphoedema. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of conservative (non-surgical and non-pharmacological) interventions for preventing clinically-detectable upper-limb lymphoedema after breast cancer treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's (CBCG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, PsycINFO, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in May 2013. Reference lists of included trials and other systematic reviews were searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that reported lymphoedema as the primary outcome and compared any conservative intervention to either no intervention or to another conservative intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Outcome measures included lymphoedema, infection, range of motion of the shoulder, pain, psychosocial morbidity, level of functioning in activities of daily life (ADL), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Where possible, meta-analyses were performed. Risk ratio (RRs) or hazard ratio (HRs) were reported for dichotomous outcomes or lymphoedema incidence, and mean differences (MDs) for range of motion and patient-reported outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials involving 1205 participants were included. The duration of patient follow-up ranged from 2 days to 2 years after the intervention. Overall, the quality of the evidence generated by these trials was low, due to risk of bias in the included trials and inconsistency in the results. Manual lymph drainageIn total, four studies used manual lymph drainage (MLD) in combination with usual care or other interventions. In one study, lymphoedema incidence was lower in patients receiving MLD and usual care (consisting of standard education or exercise, or both) compared to usual care alone. A second study reported no difference in lymphoedema incidence when MLD was combined with physiotherapy and education compared to physiotherapy alone. Two other studies combining MLD with compression and scar massage or exercise observed a reduction in lymphoedema incidence compared to education only, although this was not significant in one of the studies. Two out of the four studies reported on shoulder mobility where MLD combined with exercise gave better shoulder mobility for lateral arm movement (shoulder abduction) and forward flexion in the first weeks after breast cancer surgery, compared to education only (mean difference for abduction 22°; 95% confidence interval (CI) 14 to 30; mean difference for forward flexion 14°; 95% CI 7 to 22). Two of the studies on MLD reported on pain, with inconsistent results. Results on HRQoL in two studies on MLD were also contradictory. Exercise: early versus delayed start of shoulder mobilising exercisesThree studies examined early versus late start of postoperative shoulder exercises. The pooled relative risk of lymphoedema after an early start of exercises was 1.69 (95% CI 0.94 to 3.01, 3 studies, 378 participants). Shoulder forward flexion was better at one and six months follow-up for participants who started early with mobilisation exercises compared to a delayed start (two studies), but no meta-analysis could be performed due to statistical heterogeneity. There was no difference in shoulder mobility or self-reported shoulder disability at 12 months follow-up (one study). One study evaluated HRQoL and reported difference at one year follow-up (mean difference 1.6 points, 95% CI -2.14 to 5.34, on the Trial Outcome Index of the FACT-B). Two studies collected data on wound drainage volumes and only one study reported higher wound drainage volumes in the early exercise group. Exercise: resistance trainingTwo studies compared progressive resistance training to restricted activity. Resistance training after breast cancer treatment did not increase the risk of developing lymphoedema (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.13, two studies, 358 participants) provided that symptoms are monitored and treated immediately if they occur. One out of the two studies measured pain where participants in the resistance training group reported pain more often at three months and six months compared to the control group. One study reported HRQoL and found no significant difference between the groups. Patient education, monitoring and early interventionOne study investigated the effects of a comprehensive outpatient follow-up programme, consisting of patient education, exercise, monitoring of lymphoedema symptoms and early intervention for lymphoedema, compared to education alone. Lymphoedema incidence was lower in the comprehensive outpatient follow-up programme (at any time point) compared to education alone (65 people). Participants in the outpatient follow-up programme had a significantly faster recovery of shoulder abduction compared to the education alone group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current available evidence, we cannot draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions containing MLD. The evidence does not indicate a higher risk of lymphoedema when starting shoulder-mobilising exercises early after surgery compared to a delayed start (i.e. seven days after surgery). Shoulder mobility (that is, lateral arm movements and forward flexion) is better in the short term when starting shoulder exercises earlier compared to later. The evidence suggests that progressive resistance exercise therapy does not increase the risk of developing lymphoedema, provided that symptoms are closely monitored and adequately treated if they occur.Given the degree of heterogeneity encountered, limited precision, and the risk of bias across the included studies, the results of this review should be interpreted with caution.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for treating acute surgical and traumatic wounds.

BACKGROUND: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is used as a treatment for acute wounds (such as those arising from surgery and trauma). However, the effects of HBOT on wound healing are unclear.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of HBOT on the healing of acute surgical and traumatic wounds. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 9 August 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12); Ovid MEDLINE (2010 to July Week 5 2013); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, August 08, 2013); Ovid EMBASE (2010 to 2013 Week 31); EBSCO CINAHL (2010 to 8 August 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HBOT with other interventions such as dressings, steroids, or sham HOBT or comparisons between alternative HBOT regimens. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors conducted selection of trials, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and data synthesis independently. Any disagreements were referred to a third review author.  MAIN RESULTS: Four trials involving 229 participants were included. The studies were clinically heterogeneous, which precluded a meta-analysis.One trial (48 participants with burn wounds undergoing split skin grafts) compared HBOT with usual care and reported a significantly higher complete graft survival associated with HBOT (95% healthy graft area risk ratio (RR) 3.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 9.11). A second trial (10 participants in free flap surgery) reported no significant difference between graft survival (no data available). A third trial (36 participants with crush injuries) reported significantly more wounds healed (RR 1.70; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.61), and significantly less tissue necrosis (RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.90) with HBOT compared to sham HBOT. The fourth trial (135 people undergoing flap grafting) reported no significant differences in complete graft survival with HBOT compared with dexamethasone (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38) or heparin (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.49).Many of the predefined secondary outcomes of the review were not reported. All four trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high quality, valid research evidence regarding the effects of HBOT on wound healing. Whilst two small trials suggested that HBOT may improve the outcomes of skin grafting and trauma, these trials were at risk of bias. Further evaluation by means of high quality RCTs is needed.

Does postoperative 'M' technique massage with or without mandarin oil reduce infants' distress after major craniofacial surgery?

AIM: This article is a report of a randomized controlled trial of the effects of 'M' technique massage with or without mandarin oil compared to standard postoperative care on infants' levels of pain and distress, heart rate and mean arterial pressure after major craniofacial surgery. BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in non-pharmacological interventions such as aromatherapy massage in hospitalized children to relieve pain and distress but well performed studies are lacking. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial allocated 60 children aged 3-36 months after craniofacial surgery from January 2008 to August 2009 to one of three conditions; 'M' technique massage with carrier oil, 'M' technique massage with mandarin oil or standard postoperative care. Primary outcome measures were changes in COMFORT behaviour scores, Numeric Rating Scale pain and Numeric Rating Scale distress scores assessed from videotape by an observer blinded for the condition. RESULTS: In all three groups, the mean postintervention COMFORT behaviour scores were higher than the baseline scores, but differences were not statistically significant. Heart rate and mean arterial pressure showed a statistically significant change across the three assessment periods in all three groups. These changes were not related with the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Results do not support a benefit of 'M' technique massage with or without mandarin oil in these young postoperative patients. Several reasons may account for this: massage given too soon after general anaesthesia, young patients' fear of strangers touching them, patients not used to massage.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy: solution for difficult to heal acute wounds? Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is used to treat various wound types. However, the possible beneficial and harmful effects of HBOT for acute wounds are unclear. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of HBOT compared to other interventions on wound healing and adverse effects in patients with acute wounds. To detect all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) we searched five relevant databases up to March 2010. Trial selection, quality assessment, data extraction, and data synthesis were conducted by two of the authors independently. RESULTS: We included five trials, totaling 360 patients. These trials, with some methodologic flaws, included different kinds of wound and focused on different outcome parameters, which prohibited meta-analysis. A French trial (n = 36 patients) reported that significantly more crush wounds healed with HBOT than with sham HBOT [relative risk (RR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-2.61]. Moreover, there were significantly fewer additional surgical procedures required with HBOT (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.03-2.50), and there was significantly less tissue necrosis (RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.11-2.61). In one of two American trials (n = 141) burn wounds healed significantly quicker with HBOT (P < 0.005) than with routine burn care. A British trial (n = 48) compared HBOT with usual care. HBOT resulted in a significantly higher percentage of healthy graft area in split skin grafts (RR 3.50, 95% CI 1.35-9.11). In a Chinese trial (n = 145) HBOT did not significantly improve flap survival in patients with limb skin defects. CONCLUSIONS: HBOT, if readily available, appears effective for the management of acute, difficult to heal wounds.

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for treating acute surgical and traumatic wounds.

BACKGROUND: Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is used as a treatment for acute wounds (such as those arising from surgery and trauma) however the effects of HBOT on wound healing are unclear.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of HBOT on the healing of acute surgical and traumatic wounds. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (25 August 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to August Week 2 2010 ), Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations August 24, 2010), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2010, Week 33) and EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 20 August 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HBOT with other interventions or comparisons between alternative HBOT regimens. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors conducted selection of trials, risk of bias assessment, data extraction and data synthesis independently. Any disagreements were referred to a third review author.  MAIN RESULTS: Three trials involving 219 participants were included. The studies were clinically heterogeneous, therefore a meta-analysis was inappropriate.One trial (48 participants with burn wounds undergoing split skin grafts) compared HBOT with usual care and reported a significantly higher complete graft survival associated with HBOT (95% healthy graft area risk ratio (RR) 3.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 9.11). A second trial (36 participants with crush injuries) reported significantly more wounds healed with HBOT than with sham HBOT (RR 1.70; 95% CI 1.11 to 2.61) and fewer additional surgical procedures required with HBOT: RR 0.25; 95% CI 0.06 to 1.02 and significantly less tissue necrosis: RR 0.13; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.90). A third trial (135 people undergoing flap grafting) reported no significant differences in complete graft survival with HBOT compared with dexamethasone (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.38) or heparin (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.49).Many of the predefined secondary outcomes of the review, including mortality, pain scores, quality of life, patient satisfaction, activities daily living, increase in transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcpO(2)), amputation, length of hospital stay and costs, were not reported. All three trials were at unclear or high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high quality, valid research evidence regarding the effects of HBOT on wound healing. Whilst two small trials suggested that HBOT may improve the outcomes of skin grafting and trauma these trials were at risk of bias. Further evaluation by means of high quality RCTs is needed.

Manipulative therapy and clinical prediction criteria in treatment of acute nonspecific low back pain.

Manipulative therapy as part of a multidimensional approach may be more effective than standard physical therapy in treating Acute Nonspecific Low Back Pain. 64 participants, 29 women and 35 men, with Acute Nonspecific Low Back Pain and a mean age of 40 yr. (SD=9.6) were randomly assigned to two groups: an experimental group (manipulative therapy plus physical therapy) and a control group (only physical therapy). A multicentre, nonblinded, randomised clinical trial was conducted. Pain relief was the main performance criteria measured together with secondary criteria which included functional status and mobility of the lower back. Fritz, Childs, and Flynn's clinical prediction rule--a duration of symptoms less than 16 days, no pain distal of the knee--was used to analyse the results. In combination with an age >35 years, results showed a statistical significant effect for disability, but no statistically significant benefit of additional manipulative therapy over physical therapy found for pain and mobility within 4 treatments. Controlled for the applied clinical prediction rule, there were statistically significant interaction effects with low effect size for disability and sex, but no significant effects were found for pain of mobility.