scholarly journals Considerations surrounding remote medicolegal assessments: a systematic search and narrative synthesis of the range of motion literature

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Steadman ◽  
Dianne Sheppard ◽  
Janette Henderson ◽  
Brett Halliday ◽  
Ian Freckelton
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Systematic Search ◽  
Narrative Synthesis

scholarly journals Footwear comfort: a systematic search and narrative synthesis of the literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hylton B. Menz ◽  
Daniel R. Bonanno
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Factors ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Systematic Search ◽  
Narrative Synthesis ◽  
Measurement Scales ◽  
Design Features ◽  
Visual Analog Scales ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Footwear Design ◽  
Footwear Comfort

Abstract Objective To provide a narrative synthesis of the research literature pertaining to footwear comfort, including definitions, measurement scales, footwear design features, and physiological and psychological factors. Methods A systematic search was conducted which yielded 101 manuscripts. The most relevant manuscripts were selected based on the predetermined subheadings of the review (definitions, measurement scales, footwear design features, and physiological and psychological factors). A narrative synthesis of the findings of the included studies was undertaken. Results The available evidence is highly fragmented and incorporates a wide range of study designs, participants, and assessment approaches, making it challenging to draw strong conclusions or implications for clinical practice. However, it can be broadly concluded that (i) simple visual analog scales may provide a reliable overall assessment of comfort, (ii) well-fitted, lightweight shoes with soft midsoles and curved rocker-soles are generally perceived to be most comfortable, and (iii) the influence of sole flexibility, shoe microclimate and insoles is less clear and likely to be more specific to the population, setting and task being performed. Conclusion Footwear comfort is a complex and multifaceted concept that is influenced not only by structural and functional aspects of shoe design, but also task requirements and anatomical and physiological differences between individuals. Further research is required to delineate the contribution of specific shoe features more clearly, and to better understand the interaction between footwear features and individual physiological attributes.

scholarly journals Static Progressive Orthoses for Elbow Contracture: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Chen ◽  
Jianhua Lin ◽  
Lifen Liu ◽  
Wenxin Niu
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Daily Activities ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Narrative Synthesis ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomized Control ◽  
Elbow Contracture

Background. As one of the most common musculoskeletal complications following trauma, elbow contracture is a frequent source of disabled daily activities. Conventional interventions are inadequate to provide favorable outcome. The static progressive orthoses are getting popular in the treatment of this problem.Objective. The purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of static progressive orthoses for elbow contracture.Methods. Literatures when written in English published during 1 January 1997 and 31 January 2017 were searched in the following databases: Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EBSCOhost. Articles are quality-assessed by two assessors, each article was summarized in evidence tables, and a narrative synthesis was also performed.Results. Ten clinical trials were included. The study design and outcome measures used varied. Significant immediate improvement in the range of motion was reported by all studies, and those effects were still significant at follow-up. No significant difference was shown between static progressive and dynamic orthoses for elbow contracture in one randomized control trial.Conclusions. Current low-quality evidence suggested that static progressive orthoses provided assistance for elbow contracture through improving range of motion. Further research is recommended using high-quality randomized controlled trials.

Impairment Tutorial: Recurrent Radioculpathy: Recurrent Radioculpathy and Apportionment

2002 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 8-10
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Leon H. Ensalada
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Disk Herniation ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Recurrent Injury ◽  
Injury Model ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Spinal Region

Abstract Recurrent radiculopathy is evaluated by a different approach in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, compared to that in the Fourth Edition. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, specifies several occasions on which the range-of-motion (ROM), not the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) method, is used to rate spinal impairments. For example, the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, clarifies that ROM is used only for radiculopathy caused by a recurrent injury, including when there is new (recurrent) disk herniation or a recurrent injury in the same spinal region. In the AMA Guides, Fourth Edition, radiculopathy was rated using the Injury Model, which is termed the DRE method in the Fifth Edition. Also, in the Fourth Edition, for the lumbar spine all radiculopathies resulted in the same impairment (10% whole person permanent impairment), based on that edition's philosophy that radiculopathy is not quantifiable and, once present, is permanent. A rating of recurrent radiculopathy suggests the presence of a previous impairment rating and may require apportionment, which is the process of allocating causation among two or more factors that caused or significantly contributed to an injury and resulting impairment. A case example shows the divergent results following evaluation using the Injury Model (Fourth Edition) and the ROM Method (Fifth Edition) and concludes that revisions to the latter for rating permanent impairments of the spine often will lead to different results compared to using the Fourth Edition.

Spinal Impairment Evaluation: Fifth Edition Changes

2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Treatment Results ◽  
Standard Terminology ◽  
Made In

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.

Osteosynthesis of Combined Injuries of the Capitellum humeri and the Radial Head

Swiss Surgery ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 275-282
Author(s):  
Ott ◽  
Rikli ◽  
Babst
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Radial Head ◽  
Performance Score ◽  
Anatomische Rekonstruktion ◽  
Mayo Elbow Performance Score ◽  
Capitulum Humeri ◽  
Combined Injuries

Einleitung: Kombinierte Verletzungen des Capitulum humeri und des Radiusköpfchens sind selten. Meist sind neben den osteocartilaginären Schäden am Gelenk auch Verletzungen der Kollateralbänder assoziiert. Behandlungsempfehlungen für diese seltenen schwerwiegenden Ellenbogenverletzungen fehlen. Studientyp: In einer retrospektiven Analyse werden fünf Fälle untersucht, bei denen die osteocartilaginären Verletzungen des Capitulum humeri durch den gleichen Zugang, der zur Versorgung des Radiusköpfchens verwendet wurde, versorgt wurden. Die Osteosynthese erfolgte mit Mini-Titanimplantaten z.T. kombiniert mit resorbierbaren Pins. Patienten und Methode: Zwischen 1996-1999 wurden fünf Patienten (vier Männer, eine Frau) mit einer Kombinationsverletzung von Radiuskopf und Capitulum humeri operativ stabilisiert. Das Durchschnittsalter beträgt 34 Jahre (31-40 Jahre). Alle Frakturen wurden über einen direkten radialen Zugang mittels 1.5mm oder 2.0mm Zugschrauben, zum Teil mit resorbierbaren Pins stabilisiert. Anschliessend wurden die Patienten radiologisch und klinisch gemäss dem Mayo-elbow-performance Score beurteilt. Resultate: Alle Patienten konnten persönlich durch einen nicht in die Initialtherapie involvierten Untersucher nach durchschnittlich 12.8 Monaten (8-24 Monate) nachuntersucht werden. 4/5 Patienten konnten bezüglich ihrer subjektiven Einschätzung befragt werden. Radiologische Zeichen einer Nekrose des Capitulum humeri oder Arthrosezeichen fanden sich nicht. Bei drei Patienten fanden sich periartikuläre Verkalkungen. Der range of motion beträgt durchschnittlich 124 Grad (Extension 5-30 Grad, Flexion 110-145 Grad) in drei von fünf Fällen waren Sekundäreingriffe zu Mobilitätsverbesserung nötig. Der Mayo-elbow-performance Score beträgt im Mittel 85 Punkte (range 70-100 Punkte). Schlussfolgerung: Die direkte Verschraubung mit Miniimplantaten zum Teil in Kombination mit resorbierbaren Pins ermöglicht eine stabile anatomische Rekonstruktion des Capitulum humeri durch den gleichen Zugang wie er für die Stabilisierung des Radiusköpfchens notwendig ist. Die transartikuläre Fixation der kleinen Schalenfragmente des Capitulum humeri erlaubt eine sichere interfragmentäre Kompression und damit eine frühfunktionelle Rehabilitation. Sekundäreingriffe zur Verbesserung der Gelenkbeweglichkeit waren in drei von fünf Fällen nötig.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document