TY - JOUR
T1 - Technological rehabilitation versus conventional rehabilitation following hip replacement: A prospective controlled study
AU - Aprile, Irene
AU - Aprile, Irene Giovanna
AU - Iacovelli, Chiara
AU - Cruciani, Arianna
AU - Simbolotti, Chiara
AU - Loreti, Simona
AU - Galli, Giulia
AU - Vulpiani, Maria Chiara
AU - Padua, Luca
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - Background: Among new technological rehabilitation systems, there are proprioceptive platforms. These could be useful to improve static and dynamic balance.
Objective: To evaluate technological proprioceptive rehabilitation compared to conventional rehabilitation in patients after total hip arthroplasty (THA).
Methods: Sixty-four patients after THA were divided in two groups: a conventional group (CG) and a technological group (TG) treated with proprioceptive platforms. Before (T0) and after 20 sessions (T1), we recorded static and dynamic balance. Clinical and disability scales (Modified Harris Hip Score, Barthel Index, Deambulation Index), pain scales (ID-PAIN, DN4, VAS) and QoL scale (SF-36) were administered to patients during T0 and T1. Mann-Whitney U test was used for stabilometric and dynamic assessments to detect differences between groups of patients and healthy subjects. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for the within-group analysis and the ANCOVA test for the analysis between groups of patients.
Results: All scales improved significantly in both groups after treatment (p< 0.05). Static balance improved in both groups, but there were greater improvements in the TG than in the CG. All dynamic balance indexes showed significant improvements only in the TG after treatment.
Conclusions: Both treatments improved the clinical, disability, pain, and QoL scales, as well as static balance, but only proprioceptive technological rehabilitation improved dynamic balance. Rehabilitation through proprioceptive platforms can indeed improve static and dynamic balance, which are both crucial for the patient's safety and autonomy.
AB - Background: Among new technological rehabilitation systems, there are proprioceptive platforms. These could be useful to improve static and dynamic balance.
Objective: To evaluate technological proprioceptive rehabilitation compared to conventional rehabilitation in patients after total hip arthroplasty (THA).
Methods: Sixty-four patients after THA were divided in two groups: a conventional group (CG) and a technological group (TG) treated with proprioceptive platforms. Before (T0) and after 20 sessions (T1), we recorded static and dynamic balance. Clinical and disability scales (Modified Harris Hip Score, Barthel Index, Deambulation Index), pain scales (ID-PAIN, DN4, VAS) and QoL scale (SF-36) were administered to patients during T0 and T1. Mann-Whitney U test was used for stabilometric and dynamic assessments to detect differences between groups of patients and healthy subjects. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for the within-group analysis and the ANCOVA test for the analysis between groups of patients.
Results: All scales improved significantly in both groups after treatment (p< 0.05). Static balance improved in both groups, but there were greater improvements in the TG than in the CG. All dynamic balance indexes showed significant improvements only in the TG after treatment.
Conclusions: Both treatments improved the clinical, disability, pain, and QoL scales, as well as static balance, but only proprioceptive technological rehabilitation improved dynamic balance. Rehabilitation through proprioceptive platforms can indeed improve static and dynamic balance, which are both crucial for the patient's safety and autonomy.
KW - Rehabilitation
KW - hip replacement
KW - Rehabilitation
KW - hip replacement
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/167436
U2 - 10.3233/BMR-181211
DO - 10.3233/BMR-181211
M3 - Article
SN - 1053-8127
VL - 33
SP - 561
EP - 568
JO - Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation
JF - Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation
ER -