Does Telerehabilitation Help in Reducing Disability among People with Musculoskeletal Conditions? A Preliminary Study

Introduction: During the coronavirus pandemic, an initiative was launched in Saudi Arabia to provide telerehabilitation for people with musculoskeletal conditions who were unable to access in-person physiotherapy due to the associated lockdown. The purpose of this study was to explore the therapeutic impact and acceptability of telerehabilitation among the Saudi population. Methods: Ninety-five participants were recruited through an online advertisement and received a physiotherapy consultation and interventions via an online video conference platform (Google Meet). Following screening for red flags, participants received tailored education and conditioning exercises 2–3 times a week for 6 weeks. Outcome measures were recorded at baseline and 6 weeks and comprised the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Patient-Specific Functional Scale, Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire and a satisfaction survey. Results: The most frequent musculoskeletal conditions reported were lower back (37%), knee (14%) and neck (10%) pain and post-operative conditions (15%). Participants showed significant improvements in outcomes at the end of the program (p < 0.001) with effect sizes ranging from 0.6 to −1.9 and reported a high level of satisfaction with the telerehabilitation intervention. Conclusion: This study showed that telerehabilitation was an acceptable method of providing physiotherapy interventions for patients with musculoskeletal conditions in Saudi Arabia.

Main health impairment in the middle-aged former athletes

Objective: to obtain the main reasons for seeking medical assistance in the cohort of former athletes.Materials and methods: health records of 116 former athletes (65 males and 51 females), including 30 high qualification sportsmen were examined during 2006–2020. Mean age (M ± m) was 53.9 ± 1.8 in males and 53.9 ± 1.9 years in females. 52.4 % of males and 54.9 % of females had health records in the Center of clinical diagnostics.Results: cardiovascular pathology and musculoskeletal conditions (neck or back pain or osteoarthritis of the knee or hip) were randomly distributed among males (43.1 and 44.7 % of cases), while there was significant predominance of musculoskeletal conditions in females (62.7 %) than cardiovascular diseases (39.2 %). Gastrointestinal pathology was seen in 18.5 and 23.5 % of cases. Polymorbidity was detected in 50 % of males and in 58.6 % of females.Conclusions: age and gender differences in occurrence of cardiovascular and musculoskeletal conditions give the opportunity to realize the preventive strategy in former athletes.

Corticosteroid injection or dry needling for musculoskeletal pain and disability? A systematic review and GRADE evidence synthesis

Background Corticosteroid injection and dry needling have been used in the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions, but it is unclear which intervention is the most effective. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of corticosteroid injection and dry needling for musculoskeletal conditions at short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up. Methods Electronic databases were searched up to 31 October 2021. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that investigated the effectiveness of dry needling compared to corticosteroid injection in patients over 18 years with a musculoskeletal condition were included in the review. The studies had to report pain and/or disability as outcome. Risk of bias was assessed by using the revised Cochrane Collaboration tool (RoB 2.0). Quality of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE approach. Results Six studies were included (n = 384 participants). Four musculoskeletal conditions were investigated. There is very low-quality evidence that CSI is superior to DN for reducing heel pain (plantar fasciitis) and lateral elbow pain at short- and medium-term follow-up, but not for myofascial pain and greater trochanteric pain. There is very low-quality evidence that DN is more effective than CSI at long-term follow-up for reducing pain in people with plantar fasciitis and lateral epicondylitis. Very low-certainty evidence shows that there is no difference between DN and CSI for disability at short-term follow-up. One study showed that CSI is superior to DN at medium-term follow-up and another observed that DN is superior to CSI for reducing disability at long-term. Conclusions There are no differences between DN and CSI in pain or disability for myofascial pain and greater trochanteric pain syndrome. Very-low certainty evidence suggests that CSI is superior to DN at shorter follow-up periods, whereas DN seems to be more effective than CSI at longer follow-up durations for improving pain in plantar fasciitis and lateral epicondylitis. Large RCTs with higher methodological quality are needed in order to draw more incisive conclusions. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020148650.