Telerehabilitation as a Therapeutic Exercise Tool versus Face-to-Face Physiotherapy: A Systematic Review.

Digital physiotherapy, often referred to as "Telerehabilitation", consists of applying rehabilitation using telecommunication technologies. The objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic exercise when it is telematically prescribed. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, SportDiscus and PEDro (30 December 2022). The results were obtained by entering a combination of MeSH or Emtree terms with keywords related to telerehabilitation and exercise therapy. RCTs on patients over 18 years and two groups were included, one working with therapeutic exercise through telerehabilitation and one working with conventional physiotherapy group. RESULTS: a total of 779 works were found. However, after applying the inclusion criteria, only 11 were selected. Telerehabilitation is most frequently used to treat musculoskeletal, cardiac and neurological pathologies. The preferred telerehabilitation tools are videoconferencing systems, telemonitoring and online platforms. Exercise programs ranged from 10 to 30 min and were similar in both intervention and control groups. In all the studies, results proved to be similar for telerehabilitation and face-to-face rehabilitation in both groups when measuring functionality, quality of life and satisfaction. CONCLUSION: this review generally concludes that intervention through telerehabilitation programs is as feasible and efficient as conventional physiotherapy in terms of functionality level and quality of life. In addition, telerehabilitation shows high levels of patients' satisfaction and adherence, being values equivalent to traditional rehabilitation.

Relationship between drugs affecting the renin-angiotensin system and colorectal cancer: The MCC-Spain study.

The potential protective effect of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors is a subject of increasing interest due to their possible role as chemopreventive agents against colorectal cancer (CRC). To evaluate this association, we conducted a case-control study with 2165 cases of colorectal cancer, diagnosed between 2007 and 2012, and 3912 population controls frequency matched (by age, sex and region) from the Spanish multicenter case-control study MCC-Spain. We found a significant protective effect of the angiotensin-converting enzyme Inhibitors (ACEIs) against CRC, limited to the under-65years group (OR=0.65 95%CI (0.48-0.89)) and to a lesser degree to men (OR=0.81 95%CI (0.66-0.99). In contrast, the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) did not show a significant effect. Regarding the duration of use, a greater protection was observed in men as the length of consumption increases. In contrast, in the under-65 stratum, the strongest association was found in short-term treatments. Finally, by analyzing ACEIs effect by colon subsite, we found no differences, except for under 65years old, where the maximum protection was seen in the proximal intestine, descending in the distal and rectum (without statistical significance). In conclusion, our study shows a protective effect on CRC of the ACEis limited to males and people under 65years old, which increases in proximal colon in the latter. If confirmed, these results may suggest a novel approach to proximal CRC prevention, given the shortcomings of colonoscopy screening in this location.