PubMed · 472028
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S Lieberson, D G Mendes. 1979. Walking in bed.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj%2F59.9.1112
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal study. OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into the effects of inactivity on lumbopelvic stabilization. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Some authors have suggested a link between inactivity and lumbopelvic (LP) pain. Studies examining the superficial musculature in LP pain have shown overactivity and increased cocontraction. Studies in inactivity (bed rest, microgravity) have shown similar effects on the musculature of the legs. Here we examine the effect of bed rest on superficial LP activity and cocontraction. METHODS: Ten male subjects participated in the "Berlin Bed Rest Study" and underwent 8 weeks of bed rest with a 1-year follow-up. A repetitive knee movement model at four movement speeds in non-weightbearing was used to assess, via electromyography, activity (amplitude-ratios) in five superficial LP muscles and abdominal flexor-lumbar extensor cocontraction for LP stabilization. Testing was conducted at regular intervals during and after bed rest. RESULTS: Analysis of the amplitude-ratio data showed a significant effect of testing date (F = 2.38, P = 0.005). This effect was generalized across all muscles, however (F = 0.59, P = 0.989). During bed rest, subjects exhibited higher levels of activity but lower levels of cocontraction (F = 8.84, P < 0.001), and the changes were still present up to 1 year after bed rest. CONCLUSIONS: The bed rest protocol resulted in the development of superficial muscle overactivity but decreased cocontraction. These changes could reflect dysfunction of central nervous system control of LP stabilization. These changes were still apparent 1 year after bed rest, suggesting a stable change in motor control.
INTRODUCTION: Nosocomial pneumonia is the most important infectious complication in patients admitted to intensive care units. Kinetic bed therapy may reduce the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients. The objective of this study was to investigate whether kinetic bed therapy reduces the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia and improves outcomes in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and AMED for studies, as well as reviewed abstracts of conference proceedings, bibliographies of included studies and review articles and contacted the manufacturers of medical beds. Studies included were randomized or pseudo-randomized clinical trials of kinetic bed therapy compared to standard manual turning in critically ill mechanically ventilated adult patients. Two reviewers independently applied the study selection criteria and extracted data regarding study validity, type of bed used, intensity of kinetic therapy, and population under investigation. Outcomes assessed included the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, mortality, duration of ventilation, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Fifteen prospective clinical trials were identified, which included a total of 1,169 participants. No trial met all the validity criteria. There was a significant reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia (pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.53), but no reduction in mortality (pooled OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.66 to 1.14), duration of mechanical ventilation (pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.14 days, 95%CI, -0.29 to 0.02), duration of intensive care unit stay (pooled SMD -0.064 days, 95% CI, -0.21 to 0.086) or duration of hospital stay (pooled SMD 0.05 days, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.27). CONCLUSION: While kinetic bed therapy has been purported to reduce the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, the overall body of evidence is insufficient to support this conclusion. There appears to be a reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, but no effect on mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or intensive care or hospital length of stay. Given the lack of consistent benefit and the poor methodological quality of the trials included in this analysis, definitive recommendations regarding the use of this therapy cannot be made at this time.