PubMed · 8985801
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
L K Smith. Guidelines development.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008483-199611000-00025
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
This article reviews the evidence for using modalities and/or exercise treatment in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Poor evidence of efficacy exists for the use of modalities in this patient group. Exercises are beneficial for patients with subacute and chronic nonspecific low back pain. Further studies are needed for type, frequency, duration, and intensity of exercises.
This study sought to assess the safety of interval exercise training in patients with chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) with respect to left ventricular (LV) function. For effective rehabilitation in CHF, both aerobic capacity and muscle strength need to be improved. We have previously demonstrated in both coronary artery bypass surgery and patients with CHF that interval exercise training (IET) offers advantages over steady-state exercise training (SSET). However, because LV function during IET has not yet been studied, the safety of this method in CHF remains unclear. To assess LV function during IET and SSET, at the same average power output, 11 patients with stable CHF were compared with 9 stable coronary patients with minimal LV dysfunction (control group). Using first-pass radionuclide ventriculography, changes in LV function were assessed during work versus recovery phases, at temporally matched times between the fifth and sixteenth minute of IET and SSET. In CHF during IET, there were no significant variations in the parameters measured during work and/or recovery phases. During the course of both IET and SSET, there was a significant increase in LV ejection fraction (5 vs 4 U; p <0.05 each), accompanied by increased heart rate (6 vs 8 beats/min; p <0.05 each) and cardiac output (2.4 vs 1.8 L/min; p <0.01 and p <0.05). In CHF, the magnitude of change in LV ejection fraction during IET was similar to that seen in controls. Both LV ejection fraction and the clinical status in patients with CHF remained stable during IET. Because IET appears to be as safe as SSET with respect to LV function, IET can be recommended for exercise training in CHF to apply higher peripheral exercise stimuli and with no greater LV stress than during SSET.
This review demonstrates that neurorehabilitation approaches, based on recent neuroscience findings, can enhance locomotor recovery after a spinal cord injury or stroke. Findings are presented from more than 20 clinical studies conducted by numerous research groups on the effect of locomotor training using either body weight support (BWS), functional electrical stimulation (FES), pharmacological approaches or a combination of them. Among the approaches, only BWS-assisted locomotor training has been demonstrated to have a greater effect than conventional or locomotor training alone. However, when study results were combined and weighted for the number of subjects, the results indicated that there is a gradient of effects from small changes with the immediate application of FES or BWS to larger changes when locomotor training is combined with FES or BWS or pharmacological approaches. The findings of these studies suggest that these neurorehabilitation approaches do play a role in the recovery of walking in subjects with spinal cord injury or stroke. Several factors contribute to the potential for recovery including the site, etiology, and chronicity of the injury, as well as the type, duration, and specificity of the intervention and whether interventions are combined. Furthermore, how these neurorehabilitation approaches may take advantage of the plasticity process following neurological lesion is also discussed.