12 weeks high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training in chronic low back pain subjects: a randomised single-blinded feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training (HIIT) in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT must be assessed first before Currently, very little is known about the effects of an endurance high intensity interval training in chronic low back pain patients. Therefore, the feasibility and safety of the HIIT has to be assessed first before it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice it can be integrated safely into research and daily practice. This study aims to answers the question if high intensity interval training and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) have comparable adherence and feasibility. METHODS: Participants (age from 29 to 69 years) with non-specific chronic low back pain were recruited in this randomised, single-blinded, allocation concealed, feasibility study. The participants trained 30 min on a cycle ergometer for 12 weeks. One group had HIIT and the other MICT. RESULTS: Of 45 screened subjects 30 participated. The adherence rate was 94% in the HIIT group (median 0.94, IQR 0.23) versus 96% in the MICT group (median 0.96, IQR 0.08), without between-group differences: estimated median of the difference of - 0,01 [95% CI, - 0.11 to 0.06; p = 0.76]. Similar results in enjoyability (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 2, IQR 1.8) and willingness to continue the training (median 3, IQR 1 vs median 3, IQR 0.4). Both groups improved in pain and disability, without between-group differences in pain [median of the difference, 0.5; 95% CI, - 1 to 2; p = 0.95] nor in disability [median of the difference, 1.78; 95% CI, - 6.44 to 9.56; p = 0.64]. CONCLUSION: There were no differences in adherence rates. HIIT is as feasible as MICT in non-specific chronic low back pain and can be used in future larger trials to deepen the knowledge about HIIT in this specific population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04055545 . Registered 13 August 2019.

The Dutch version of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form is a reliable and valid questionnaire for shoulder problems.

BACKGROUND: The self-assessment section of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASESq) is one of the most used patient-reported outcome measures for general shoulder problems. This study was performed to establish a valid Dutch version of the ASESq (ASESq-NL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A clinical prospective, nonrandomized study was performed. Translation of the ASESq into Dutch was done following the guidelines of cross-cultural adaptation. Patients older than 17 years of age with shoulder problems were included. Patients who declined to participate or insufficiently completed questionnaires were excluded. For test-retest reliability analysis, the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated and an interval of 7-28 days between test and retest was set. Cronbach alpha was used to determine internal consistency. Dutch validated versions of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were completed and compared with the ASESq-NL to evaluate construct validity using a Spearman rank correlation coefficient calculation. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients were included. Test-retest reliability was excellent with an ICC of 0.82. The mean test-retest interval was 13 days (standard deviation 4.4). Internal consistency was good, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.83. Construct validity of the ASES questionnaire was good. All domains of the ASESq-NL had significant (P < .05) correlations with the domains of the SPADI and the SF-36, except for the SF-36 domains stability with "physical function and energy" and "emotional well-being." CONCLUSION: The Dutch ASES questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool for the evaluation of shoulder problems and is permissible for implementation into the Dutch health care system.

Long - Term survivorship and clinical and radiological follow - up of the primary uncemented Delta III reverse shoulder prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Purpose of this study was to evaluate the long - term survivorship and clinical and radiological results of a primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) performed with uncemented stems. METHODS: From 2001 until 2006 61 primary uncemented RTSAs were implanted, which were included in a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Range of motion, functional scores and radiological follow - up was obtained. 27 patients were available for follow - up. Mean follow-up was 9.2 years (SD 2.4). RESULTS: Mean cumulative survival was 82.4% (95% CI: 50.7-94.6%) of the total construct and 98.3% (CI: 88.8-98.8%) of the uncemented humeral stem after 12.5 years. Five revisions occurred (8.2%). Mean anteflexion improved from 69.3 to 111.9° (p < 0.0001), lateral elevation from 65.9 to 101.3° (p < 0.0001), Constant-Murley score from 39.1 to 66.9 (p < 0.0001), Simple Shoulder Test from 1.5 to 7.1 (p < 0.0001), and VAS-pain from 65.5 to 6.6 at final follow-up (p = 0.0003). Scapular notching was present in 94.1% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that the long-term clinical results of the primary Delta III RTSA seem very encouraging and survivorship of, in particular, its uncemented humeral stem is good.

Limited reliability of grading scapular notching according to Nerot-Sirveaux on anteroposterior radiographs.

INTRODUCTION: Incidences of scapular notching (SN) in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) range between 0% and 96%, and controversy remain as to its relevance for patient outcome. We assessed the reliability of scapular notching (SN) grading based on the Sirveaux classification system using anteroposterior radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 206 RSA procedures with 5-year postoperative anteroposterior shoulder radiographs were classified independently by seven assessors according to Sirveaux (session 1). After a review meeting, three assessors re-classified the radiographs along with quality criteria (session 2). SN grading by the majority of assessors was taken as the reference. Classification interobserver reliability was analyzed using Kappa statistics. RESULTS: The incidence of SN was estimated at 53% and 37% at the first and second sessions, respectively. Interobserver reliability Kappa coefficients resulting from the first and second sessions were 0.27 and 0.43, respectively. Case selection based on radiographic quality criteria did not improve SN grading reliability in the second session. CONCLUSION: Agreement between individual surgeons was low when grading SN in RSA according to Sirveaux using anteroposterior radiographs. Consensus among several assessors may increase reliability in research settings.