To our knowledge this is the first study that has explored this topic in MS. The results broaden our understanding of the different PT interventions used in MS, as well as the context of their use.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain lasts longer than 12 weeks and is characterised by pain, muscle weakness, reduced functional ability and psychosocial burden. AIM: To compare the effects of two physical modalities, high-intensity laser against ultrasound therapy in the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a prospective, monocentric, controlled clinical study comprising a group of 54 patients at the age between 25 and 65 years. Patients were divided into two groups: examined group of 27 patients (high-intensity laser and exercises) and a control group of 27 patients (ultrasound therapy and exercises). The results were evaluated by the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, Oswestry Disability Index and Schober’s test. Clinical findings were evaluated at the same time points for all patients, before treatment, at two weeks and three months following treatment. Statistical analyses were made to compare the differences between the results obtained on admission and the two consecutive control check-ups. Statistical significance was defined as a P value < 0.05. RESULTS: The examined group showed statistically significantly better results than the control group after completion of the treatment (at two weeks) and at follow up after three months. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that patient with chronic low back pain treated with a high-intensity laser has significantly reduced low back pain, reduced disability and improved range of motion. Its positive effect maintained for three months. It seems to be an effective, safe and useful physical modality in the treatment of a patient with chronic low back pain.

BackgroundUnderstanding the organisational set-up of physiotherapy services across different countries is increasingly important as clinicians around the world use evidence to improve their practice. This also has to be taken into consideration when multi-centre international clinical trials are conducted. This survey aimed to systematically describe organisational aspects of physiotherapy services for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) across Europe.MethodsRepresentatives from 72 rehabilitation facilities within 23 European countries completed an online web-based questionnaire survey between 2013 and 2014. Countries were categorised according to four European regions (defined by United Nations Statistics). Similarities and differences between regions were examined.ResultsMost participating centres specialized in rehabilitation (82 %) and neurology (60 %), with only 38 % specialising in MS. Of these, the Western based Specialist MS centres were predominately based on outpatient services (median MS inpatient ratio 0.14), whilst the Eastern based European services were mostly inpatient in nature (median MS inpatient ratio 0.5). In almost all participating countries, medical doctors - specialists in neurology (60 %) and in rehabilitation (64 %) - were responsible for referral to/prescription of physiotherapy. The most frequent reason for referral to/prescription of physiotherapy was the worsening of symptoms (78 % of centres). Physiotherapists were the most common members of the rehabilitation team; comprising 49 % of the team in Eastern countries compared to approximately 30 % in the rest of Europe. Teamwork was commonly adopted; 86 % of centres based in Western countries utilised the interdisciplinary model, whilst the multidisciplinary model was utilised in Eastern based countries (p = 0.046).ConclusionThis survey is the first to provide data about organisational aspects of physiotherapy for people with MS across Europe. Overall, care in key organisational aspects of service provision is broadly similar across regions, although some variations, for example the models of teamwork utilised, are apparent. Organisational framework specifics should be considered anytime a multi-centre study is conducted and results from such studies are applied.

Background: Guidelines and general recommendations are available for multiple sclerosis rehabilitation, but no specific guidance exists for physical therapists. Describing aspects of physical therapy content and delivery in multiple sclerosis and its determinants and analysing whether general recommendations connected with physical therapy are implemented in practice is important for interpreting clinical and research evidence. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey of physical therapists specialized in multiple sclerosis (212 specialists from 26 European countries) was used. Results: There was distinct diversity in service delivery and content across Europe. Perceived accessibility of physical therapy varied from most accessible in the Western region, and least in the Southern region. Sixty-four physical therapists adjusted their approach according to different disability levels, less so in the Eastern region. Duration, frequency and dose of sessions differed between regions, being highest in Southern and Western regions. “Hands on treatment” was the most commonly used therapeutic approach in all apart from the Northern regions, where “word instruction” (providing advice and information) prevailed. Conclusions: The content and delivery of physical therapy differs across Europe. Recommendations concerning access to treatment and adjustment according to disability do not appear to be widely implemented in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a systemic skeletal disease characterised by a low bone density and microarchitectural deterioration of bone tissue leading to decrease of its strength and increased risk of fracture. Drug therapy decreases the risk of fracture, thus influencing on the mechanism of bone remodelling. Non-pharmacological interventions include specific exercises for osteoporosis that improve muscle strength and balance, decrease pain and improve quality of life. AIM: To compare the quality of life in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis who practice exercises with those who do not practice on the beginning and after a year. MATERIJAL AND METHODS: A randomised Single-blind randomised controlled prospective trial study, which included 92 women with postmenopausal osteoporosis diagnosed and treated at the Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. Patients were randomly assigned to three groups: the first group of patients with exercises and physical modalities (gr. I), the second group with exercises (gr. II), and the third control group of patients who did not practice exercises (gr. III).  Exercises were practised 3 times a week; each exercise was repeated for 5-8 times. Patients regularly took bisphosphonates, calcium and vitamin D. The follow-up period lasted for one year. Quality of life was determined with a specific questionnaire Qualeffo-41. RESULTS: The results showed, significant statistical difference in terms of pain, physical activity, social life, the perception of own health were shown between the groups (p < 0.0001), only in term of mental function were no significant (p < 0.3). CONCLUSION: Patients who practice exercises for osteoporosis have a significantly better quality of life than patients who do not perform exercises.