Cargando…

Comparison of telerehabilitation versus home-based video exercise in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a single-blind randomized study

INTRODUCTION: Patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) have lost their access to on-site rehabilitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Telerehabilitation can be a viable approach for these patients to protect their muscle strength and functional status. The aim of this study is to compare tele...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kenis-Coskun, Ozge, Imamoglu, Sena, Karamancioglu, Berna, Kurt, Kubra, Ozturk, Gulten, Karadag-Saygi, Evrim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9133319/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35616780
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13760-022-01975-4
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) have lost their access to on-site rehabilitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Telerehabilitation can be a viable approach for these patients to protect their muscle strength and functional status. The aim of this study is to compare telerehabilitation with home-based video exercises. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Male, ambulatory DMD patients were randomized into telerehabilitation and video-exercise groups. Nineteen patients were included in the final analyses. Telerehabilitation consisted of live online exercises, while video exercise implemented a pre-recorded video as a home-based program. Both programs spanned 8 weeks, three times a week. Patients’ muscle strength with a hand-held dynamometer, Quick Motor Function Test, North-Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) and Caregiver Burden were recorded before and after treatment. RESULTS: The 6MWT of the telerehabilitation group was391.26 ± 95.08 m before and387.75 ± 210.93 after treatment (p = 0.94) and 327.46 ± 103.88 m before treatment and313.77 ± 114.55 after treatment in video group (p = 0.63). The mean NSAA score of the telerehabilitation group were26.70 ± 8.04 before treatment and 25.20 ± 11.33 after treatment (p = 0.24). In the video group scores were 21.66 ± 6.65 before to 22.00 ± 8.61 after treatment (p = 0.87). There were no significant changes between groups at the end of the treatments. The telerehabilitation group's neck extension, bilateral shoulder abduction, and left shoulder flexion, bilateral knee flexion and extension, bilateral ankle dorsiflexion, and left ankle plantar flexion strength improved significantly and were better than the video group (p < 0.05 for all measurements). CONCLUSION: A telerehabilitation approach is superior in improving muscle strength than a video-based home exercise, but none of the programs improved functional outcomes in ambulatory patients with DMD. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13760-022-01975-4.