Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Bracing”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Sensor-based measures of knee brace adherence have low agreement with self-report methods: A multi-measure study among knee osteoarthritis patients.

OBJECTIVE: To explore agreement between self-report and objectively measured adherence to brace wearing by patients with knee osteoarthritis. METHOD: A single-arm observational analysis nested within the PROP OA randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN28555470). Of 237 adults with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis randomised to brace treatment, 60 were included in this sub-study investigating three different methods of assessing knee brace wear time over 26 weeks: 1. Self-report questionnaires (SRQ) at 12 weeks and 26 weeks; 2. Short message service (SMS) questions (days worn in past week, typical hours per day when worn) administered from week 1 to week 24; 3. A skin temperature sensor embedded in the brace, sampling every 10 min for 26 weeks. The presence and reason for the sensor were concealed from participants. The estimated proportion of participants meeting "minimum brace use", defined a priori as ≥1 h on ≥2 days in past week, was described for each measurement method, overall and by brace type (unloader, neutral). For temperature sensor measurements, time spent above 24°C and time spent above 25°C were used. Agreement between the measures was summarised by percentage agreement and kappa (ĸ). RESULTS: The estimated proportions of participants meeting "minimum brace use" at 12 weeks were 83% (SRQ), 83% (SMS), 60% and 58% (temperature sensor, 24°C and 25°C thresholds, respectively). At 26 weeks, the corresponding estimates reduced to 72%, 71% (SMS at 24 weeks), 43% and 37%. Sensor data suggested the sharpest decline in brace use occurred within the first 12 weeks. Agreement between self-report measures was higher than between self-report measures and sensor (SRQ vs SMS at 12 weeks: 92% agreement, ĸ=0.67 (95%CI: 0.34, 1.00); SRQ vs Sensor at 12 weeks: 74%, 0.35 (0.10, 0.60); SMS vs Sens at 12 weeks: 76%, 0.36 (0.05, 0.66). Agreement between all measurement methods reduced at 26 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: This novel use of a temperature sensor to monitor brace adherence in knee osteoarthritis indicates that self-report adherence substantially overestimates knee brace wearing time, with implications for clinical trials and practice.

Humans

Feasibility and barriers to same-day physical therapy following lumbar fusion surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of same-day (postoperative day 0; POD0) physical therapy (PT) following lumbar fusion and to identify factors associated with failure to participate. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed prospectively collected data from patients undergoing single-level posterior spinal fusion (PSF), with or without anterior (ALIF) or lateral (LLIF) interbody fusion, between January and December 2024 at a single institution. A standardized POD0 PT protocol was implemented for eligible patients. Patients were categorized into two groups: successful POD0 PT (ambulatory on POD0) and unable to participate. Demographic and surgical variables were compared between groups. Reasons for inability to participate were recorded and categorized. RESULTS: Among 129 patients in whom POD0 PT was attempted, 84 (65%) successfully participated, while 45 (35%) were unable. There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, ASA class, operative time, estimated blood loss, or surgical approach between groups. Patients who successfully completed POD0 PT had a significantly shorter hospital length of stay compared to those who did not (3.4&#xa0;&#xb1;&#xa0;1.6 vs 5.8&#xa0;&#xb1;&#xa0;2.9&#xa0;days, P&#xa0;<&#xa0;0.001), with no differences in complication rates, discharge disposition, emergency department visits, or reoperation rates. The most common barriers to POD0 PT were postoperative pain, medical issues (e.g., orthostatic hypotension, nausea, dizziness), and anesthesia-related somnolence. Less common factors included postoperative restrictions and logistical issues such as brace availability. CONCLUSIONS: POD0 PT following lumbar fusion is feasible in the majority of patients and is associated with a shorter hospital stay without increased complications. Failure to participate was not associated with the baseline patient or surgical characteristics evaluated in this study. Instead, the most common barriers were postoperative pain, transient medical issues, and anesthesia-related somnolence, suggesting that optimization of modifiable perioperative factors may improve the implementation of POD0 PT.

Humans