FOOT & ANKLE
Effect of accelerated rehabilitation on function after ankle sprain: randomised controlled trial
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
Cette étude a été identifiée comme étant potentiellement à fort impact.
L'indicateur High Impact de l'ENP, basé sur l'IA, estime l'influence qu'un article est susceptible d'avoir en intégrant des signaux provenant à la fois de la revue dans laquelle il est publié et du contenu scientifique de l'article lui-même.
Développé à l'aide d'un traitement du langage naturel de pointe, le modèle High Impact de l'ENP prédit avec plus de précision les futures citations d'une étude que le seul facteur d'impact de la revue.
Cela permet d'identifier plus tôt les recherches cliniquement significatives et aide les lecteurs à se concentrer sur les articles les plus susceptibles d'influencer les pratiques futures.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(9):21 BMJ. 2010 May 10;340:c1964. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1964101 patients with an acute grade 1 or 2 ankle sprain were randomized to be managed with an early therapeutic exercise program or a conventional PRICE (protection, rest, ice, compression and elevation) protocol. It was observed that after early incorporating therapeutic exercises during the first week after an ankle sprain brings about significant improvements in physical activity and improved functional status compared to the standard treatment at weeks 1 and 2. At 16-week follow-up, both groups had good and comparable ankle function.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
4/4
Randomization
3/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
4/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
Ankle sprains are very common musculoskeletal injuries with acute side affects, such as pain and loss of function. A passive treatment approach involves protection, rest, ice, compression and elevation. This approach is common for all soft tissue injuries, which raises the question as to whether a more accelerated protocol would be effective in improving recovery and long term outcomes from ankle sprains.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
Does an accelerated intervention involving exercise confer additional benefit compared to the standard treatment of protection, rest, ice, compression and elevation in patients with ankle sprains, 16 weeks after treatment?
Quels sont les résultats importants ?
- Overall treatment effect favoured the exercise group for improved physical activity at week 1 (baseline adjusted difference in treatment 5.28, 98.75% CI 0.31-10.26, p=0.008) and week 2 (baseline adjusted difference in treatment 4.92, 98.5%CI 0.27-9.57, p=0.0083)
- The exercise group was found to be significantly more active when analyzed through time spent walking (p=0.029), average number of steps taken daily (p=0.021), and numbers of steps taken daily (p=0.047).
- At weeks 3, 4, and 16, there were no significant differences in pain at rest, pain on activity, or swelling, and the re-injury rate was the same between groups (4%).
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
At the first and second week, the group receiving the accelerated intervention reported increased amounts of physical activity, had improved ankle function, lesser swelling, and pain compared to the group receiving standard care. At 16-week follow-up, there was no significant difference in ankle function between the two groups, and the reinjury rate was the same between groups.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
Accelerated exercise rehabilitation received during the first week after an ankle sprain is an effective method to improve early ankle function. Patients who partake in the accelerated interventions are more physically active than those receiving standard treatment.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
