Effect of traditional rehabilitation programme versus telerehabilitation in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/jrm.v56.5343Keywords:
idiopathic scoliosis, adolescents, exercise, physical therapy, telerehabilitatioAbstract
Background: Telerehabilitation has become increasingly popular since the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) outbreak. However, studies are needed to understand the effects of remote delivery of spine treatment approaches.
Objectives: To verify and compare the effects of traditional rehabilitation programmes (in-person) and telerehabilitation (online) on the progression of scoliotic curvature in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to verify the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility among patients and physiotherapists regarding both treatments.
Methods: This is a cohort study (prospective analysis of 2 intervention groups: telerehabilitation (online) and traditional rehabilitation (in-person). A total of 66 adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis were included. Recruitment was conducted through the Clinical Center in Scoliosis Care (January–December 2020). Participants were divided into 2 intervention groups: telerehabilitation (online) (n = 33) and traditional rehabilitation programme (in-person) (n = 33). Both groups also were supplied with a spinal orthopaedic brace. Scoliosis was confirmed by a spine X-ray examination (Cobb angle). Radiographic parameters measured were: Cobb angles (thoracic and lumbar). The method of Nash and Moe (thoracic and lumbar) was also evaluated based on the relationship between the vertebral pedicles and the centre of the vertebral body in the X-rays. Assessments were performed at baseline (T0) and after 6 months of the intervention protocol (T6). Patient and physiotherapist reports were evaluated on the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of the interventions.
Results: Adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis showed a significant decrease in the Cobb angle (main scoliotic curvature), with a 4.9° for the traditional rehabilitation programme and 2.4° for the telerehabilitation. Thoracic and lumbar Cobb angles did not show significant changes after the intervention in both groups or between groups. Thoracic and lumbar Nash and Moe scores scores also did not show significant differences after 6 months of in-person or telerehabilitation intervention, or between groups. The intervention by telerehabilitation was acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for patients and physiotherapists.
Conclusion: Use of the rehabilitation programme for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis, delivered via telerehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic, was encouraging for future applications due to the improved effect on reducing the Cobb angle, preventing progression of scoliosis. In addition, telerehabilitation showed good acceptability among patients and physiotherapists. Traditional rehabilitation programmes (in-person) in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis also showed a reduction in the Cobb angle.
Downloads
References
Piron L, Turolla A, Agostini M, Zucconi C, Cortese F, Zampolini M, et al. Exercises for paretic upper limb after stroke: a combined virtual-reality and telemedicine approach. J Rehabil Med 2009; 41: 1016-102.
https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0459 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0459
Piron L, Tonin P, Trivello E, Battistin L, Dam M. Motor tele-rehabilitation in post-stroke patients. Med Inform Internet Med 2004; 29: 119-125.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14639230410001723428 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14639230410001723428
Baumgärtel M, Riessen R, John S. Digitalisierung in der Intensivmedizin. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2019; 144: 436-441.
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0740-8551
DOI: 10.1055/a-0740-8551
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0740-8551 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0740-8551
Allely EB. Synchronous and asynchronous telemedicine. J Med Syst 1995; 19: 207-212.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02257174 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02257174
Chumbler NR, Quigley P, Li X, Morey M, Rose D, Sanford J, et al. Effects of telerehabilitation on physical function and disability for stroke patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Stroke 2012; 43: 2168-2174.
https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.646943 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.646943
Tousignant M, Moffet H, Boissy P, Corriveau H, Cabana F, Marquis F. A randomized controlled trial of home telerehabilitation for post-knee arthroplasty. J Telemed Telecare 2011; 17: 195-198.
https://doi.org/10.1258/jtt.2010.100602 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/jtt.2010.100602
Weinstein RS, Krupinski EA, Doarn CR. Clinical examination component of telemedicine, telehealth, mhealth, and connected health medical practices. Med Clin North Am 2018; 102: 533-544.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2018.01.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2018.01.002
Waller M, Stotler C. Telemedicine: a Primer. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2018; 25; 18: 54.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-018-0808-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-018-0808-4
Turolla A, Rossettini G, Viceconti A, Palese A, Geri T. Musculoskeletal physical therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: is telere-habilitation the answer? Phys Ther 2020; 12: 1260-1264.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa093
Agostini M, Moja L, Banzi R, Pistotti V, Tonin P, Venneri A, Turolla A. Telerehabilitation and recovery of motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare 2015; 21: 202-213.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X15572201 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X15572201
Fiani B, Siddiqi I, Lee SC, Dhillon L. Telerehabilitation: development, application, and need for increased usage in the COVID-19 era for patients with spinal pathology. Cureus 2020 21; 12: e10563.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.10563 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.10563
Peterson S. Telerehabilitation booster sessions and remote patient monitoring in the management of chronic low back pain: a case series. Physiother Theory Pract 2018; 34: 393-402.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2017.1401190 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2017.1401190
Herbert MS, Afari N, Liu L, Heppner P, Rutledge T, Williams K, et al. Telehealth versus in-person acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain: a randomized noninferiority Trial. J Pain 2017; 18: 200-211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2016.10.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2016.10.014
Schreiber S, Parent EC, Moez EK, Hedden DM, Hill D, Moreau MJ, et al. The effect of Schroth exercises added to the standard of care on the quality of life and muscle endurance in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis-an assessor and statistician blinded randomi-zed controlled trial: "SOSORT 2015 Award Winner". Scoliosis 2015; 18: 10-24.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-015-0048-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-015-0048-5
Bernhardsson S, Larsson A, Bergenheim A, Ho-Henriksson CM, Ekhammar A, Lange E, et al. Digital physiotherapy assessment vs conventional face-to-face physiotherapy assessment of patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review. PLoS One 2023; 18: e0283013.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283013
McCarthy RE. Prevention of the complications of scoliosis by early detection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; 222: 73-78.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198709000-00010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198709000-00010
Reamy BV, Slakey JB. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: review and current concepts. Am Fam Physician 2001; 64: 111-116.
Stokes IA, Aronsson DD. Disc and vertebral wedging in patients with progressive scoliosis. J Spinal Disord 2001; 14: 317-322.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-200108000-00006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-200108000-00006
Heitz PH, Aubin-Fournier JF, Parent É, Fortin C. Test-retest reliability of posture measurements in adolescents with idiopathic scoli-osis. Spine J 2018; 18: 2247-2258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.05.006
Negrini S, Donzelli S, Aulisa AG, Czaprowski D, Schreiber S, de Mauroy JC, et al 2016 SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabili-tation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth. Scoliosis Spinal Disord 2018; 13: 3.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-017-0145-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13013-017-0145-8
Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Wright JG, Dobbs MB. Effects of bracing in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 1512-1521.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1307337 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1307337
Cheung JPY, Cheung PWH, Luk KD. When should we wean bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2019; 477: 2145-2157.
https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000781 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000781
Barsotti CEG, Junior CABB, Andrade RM, Torini AP, Ribeiro AP. The effect of direct vertebral rotation on the spine parameters (co-ronal and sagittal) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2021; 34: 821-828.
https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-200320 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-200320
Bitan FD, Veliskakis KP, Campbell BC. Differences in the Risser grading systems in the United States and France. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 436: 190-195.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000160819.10767.88 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000160819.10767.88
da Silveira GE, Andrade RM, Guilhermino GG, Schmidt AV, Neves LM, Ribeiro AP. The effects of short- and long-term spinal brace use with and without exercise on spine, balance, and gait in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Medicina 2022; 58: 1024.
https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58081024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58081024
Ng SY, Bettany-Saltikov J. Imaging in the diagnosis and monitoring of children with idiopathic scoliosis. Open Orthop J 2017; 11: 1500-1520.
https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001711011500 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001711011500
Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011; 38: 65-76.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed imple-mentation outcome measures. Implement Sci 2017; 12: 108.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3
Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Cazzaniga D, Rocca B, Ferrante S. Active self-correction and task-oriented exercises reduce spinal deformity and improve quality of life in subjects with mild adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Results of a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J 2014; 23: 1204-1214.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3241-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3241-y
Kuru T, Yeldan İ, Dereli EE, Özdinçler AR, Dikici F, Çolak İ. The efficacy of three-dimensional Schroth exercises in adolescent idio-pathic scoliosis: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Clin Rehabil 2016; 30: 181-190.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215515575745 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215515575745
Zapata KA, Sucato DJ, Jo CH. Physical therapy scoliosis-specific exercises may reduce curve progression in mild adolescent idiopat-hic scoliosis curves. Pediatr Phys Ther 2019; 31: 280-285.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PEP.0000000000000621 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PEP.0000000000000621
Truter P, Russell T, Fary R. The validity of physical therapy assessment of low back pain via telerehabilitation in a clinical setting. Telemed J E Health 2014; 20: 161-167.
https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2013.0088 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2013.0088
Bini SA, Mahajan J. Clinical outcomes of remote asynchronous telerehabilitation are equivalent to traditional therapy following total knee arthroplasty: a randomized control study. J Telemed Telecare 2017; 23: 239-247.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X16634518 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X16634518
Kloek CJJ, Bossen D, Spreeuwenberg PM, Dekker J, de Bakker DH, Veenhof C. Effectiveness of a blended physical therapist intervent-ion in people with hip osteoarthritis, knee osteoarthritis, or both: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther 2018; 1; 98: 560-570.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzy045 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzy045
Werneke, Werneke MW, Deutscher D, Grigsby D, Tucker CA, Mioduski JE, Hayes D. Telerehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic in outpatient rehabilitation settings: a descriptive study. Phys Ther 2021; 101: pzab110.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab110
DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzab110
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab110 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab110
telerehabilitation the answer? Phys Ther 2020; 12; 100: 1260-1264.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa093 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa093
Owen PJ, Miller CT, Mundell NL, Verswijveren SJJM, Tagliaferri SD, Brisby H, et al. Which specific modes of exercise training are most effective for treating low back pain? Network meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2020; 54: 1279-1287.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-100886 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-100886
Cottrell MA, Galea OA, O'Leary SP, Hill AJ, Russell TG. Real-time telerehabilitation for the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions is effective and comparable to standard practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 2017; 31: 625-638.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215516645148 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215516645148
Havran MA, Bidelspach DE. Virtual physical therapy and telerehabilitation. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2021; 32: 419-428.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2020.12.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2020.12.005
Lal H, Mohanta S, Kumar J, Patralekh MK, Lall L, Katariya H, Arya RK. Telemedicine-rehabilitation and virtual reality in orthopaedics and sports medicine. Indian J Orthop 2022; 22; 57: 7-19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-022-00766-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-022-00766-6
Shah N, Shetty GM, Kanna R, Thakur H. Efficacy of telerehabilitation for spine pain during the coronavirus pandemic lockdown: a retrospective propensity score-matched analysis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2022; 5: 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2107718 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2022.2107718
Solimini R, Busardò FP, Gibelli F, Sirignano A, Ricci G. Ethical and legal challenges of telemedicine in the era of the COVID-19 pan-demic. Medicina 2021; 57: 1314.
https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57121314 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57121314
Nittari G, Khuman R, Baldoni S, Pallotta G, Battineni G, Sirignano A, et al. Telemedicine practice: review of the current ethical and legal challenges. Telemed J E Health 2020; 26: 1427-1437.
https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2019.0158 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2019.0158
Gilbert AW, Jaggi A, May CR. What is the patient acceptability of real time 1: 1 videoconferencing in an orthopaedics setting? A systematic review. Physiotherapy 2018; 104: 178-186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2017.11.217 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2017.11.217
Casserley-Feeney SN, Phelan M, Duffy F, Roush S, Cairns MC, Hurley DA. Patient satisfaction with private physiotherapy for muscu-loskeletal pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008; 15; 9: 50.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-9-50 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-9-50
Cottrell MA, Russell TG. Telehealth for musculoskeletal physiotherapy. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2020; 48: 102193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2020.102193 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2020.102193
Malliaras P, Merolli M, Williams CM, Caneiro JP, Haines T, Barton C. 'It's not hands-on therapy, so it's very limited': telehealth use and views among allied health clinicians during the coronavirus pandemic. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2021; 52: 102340.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2021.102340 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2021.102340
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Rodrigo Mantelatto Andrade, Bruna Gomes Santana, Ariane Verttú Schmidt, Carlos Eduardo Barsotti, Marina Pegoraro Baroni, Bruno Tirotti Saragiotto, Ana Paula Ribeiro
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All digitalized JRM contents is available freely online. The Foundation for Rehabilitation Medicine owns the copyright for all material published until volume 40 (2008), as from volume 41 (2009) authors retain copyright to their work and as from volume 49 (2017) the journal has been published Open Access, under CC-BY-NC licences (unless otherwise specified). The CC-BY-NC licenses allow third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.
From 2024, articles are published under the CC-BY licence. This license permits sharing, adapting, and using the material for any purpose, including commercial use, with the condition of providing full attribution to the original publication.
