The ankle joints of 14 healthy volunteers and 16 patients with unstable ankle joints were tested regarding their functional and proprioceptive capabilities. All of them were active athletes. Three tests were used of the study: single-leg stance test, single-leg jumping course test, angle-reproduction test. The influence of three stabilization devices (lace-on-brace/"Mikros", stirrup-brace/"Aircast", taping) on the proprioceptivity of stable and unstable ankle joints was evaluated. The scores of the single-leg jumping course without any stabilizing device (category "standard") ranged between 8.06 and 13.68 (10.65 +/- 1.29). In the categories "Mikros" (9.85 +/- 0.99), and "Aircast" (9.99 +/- 1.14) as well as with the tape bandage (10.27 +/- 0.81) better scores were achieved. The differences "standard vs. Mikros" and "standard vs. Aircast" revealed a significant reduction of the scores with orthoses (P < 0.01). The error rate in the single-leg stance test was within the range of 0-16 (5.12 +/- 2.85) for the category "standard". It was lower for the categories "Mikros" (3.65 +/- 2.65) and "Aircast" (4.17 +/- 2.59). The error rate was highest in the group with a tape bandage (5.79 +/- 3.53). The differences "standard vs Mikros" as well as "standard vs. Aircast" were significant (P < 0.01). There was also a significant difference between these categories regarding injured and not injured ankle joints (P < 0.01). The angle-reproduction-test showed higher values for the category "standard" (2.36 degrees +/- 0.97) in comparison to the categories "Mikros" (1.46 degrees +/- 0.72), "Aircast" (1.62 degrees +/- 0.91) and "taping" (1.84 degrees +/- 0.41).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

BackgroundImprovement of the long-term effectiveness of multidisciplinary ortho-paedic rehabilitation (MOR) in the management of chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP) remains a central issue for health care in Germany. We developed an interprofessional and interdisciplinary, biopsychosocial rehabilitation concept named “PASTOR” to promote self-management in adults with CLBP and compared its effectiveness with the current model of MOR.MethodsA multicentre quasi-experimental study with three measurement time points was implemented. 680 adults aged 18 to 65 with CLBP were assed for eligibil-ity in three inpatient rehabilitation centres in Germany. At first the effects of the MOR, with a total extent of 48 hours (control group), were assessed. Thereafter, PASTOR was implemented and evaluated in the same centres (intervention group). It consisted of six interprofessional modules, which were provided on 12 days in fixed groups, with a total extent of 48 hours. Participants were assessed with self-report measures at baseline, discharge, and 12 months for functional ability (primary outcome) using the Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire (FFbH-R) and vari-ous secondary outcomes (e.g. pain, health status, physical activity, pain coping, pain-related cognitions).ResultsIn total 536 participants were consecutively assigned to PASTOR (n=266) or MOR (n=270). At 12 months, complete data of 368 participants was available. The adjusted between-group difference in the FFbH-R at 12 months was 6.58 (95% CI 3.38 to 9.78) using complete data and 3.56 (95% CI 0.45 to 6.67) using available da-ta, corresponding to significant small-to-medium effect sizes of d=0.42 (p<0.001) and d=0.10 (p=0.025) in favour of PASTOR. Further improvements in secondary out-comes were also observed in favour of PASTOR.ConclusionThe interprofessional and interdisciplinary, biopsychosocial rehabilita-tion program PASTOR shows some improvements of the long-term effectiveness of inpatient rehabilitation in the management of adults with CLBP. Further insights into mechanisms of action of complex intervention programs are required.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02056951

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a significant public health burden. Rates of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in OA vary substantially between geographical regions, most likely due to the lack of standardised indication criteria. We set out to define indication criteria for the German healthcare system for TKA in patients with knee OA, on the basis of best evidence and transparent multi-stakeholder consensus. We undertook a complex mixed methods study, including an iterative process of systematic appraisal of existing evidence, Delphi consensus methods and stakeholder conferences. We established a consensus panel representing key German national societies of healthcare providers (orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists, pain physicians, psychologists, physiotherapists), payers, and patient representatives. A priori defined consensus criteria were at least 70% agreement and less than 20% disagreement among the consensus panel. Agreement was sought for (1) core indication criteria defined as criteria that must be met to consider TKA in a normal patient with knee OA, (2) additional (not obligatory) indication criteria, (3) absolute contraindication criteria that generally prohibit TKA, and (4) risk factors that do not prohibit TKA, but usually do not lead to a recommendation for TKA. The following 5 core indication criteria were agreed within the panel: 1. intermittent (several times per week) or constant knee pain for at least 3 - 6 months; 2. radiological confirmation of structural knee damage (osteoarthritis, osteonecrosis); 3. inadequate response to conservative treatment, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment for at least 3 - 6 months; 4. adverse impact of knee disease on patient's quality of life for at least 3 - 6 months; 5. patient-reported suffering/impairment due to knee disease. Additional indication criteria, contraindication criteria, and risk factors for adverse outcome were also agreed by a large majority within the multi-perspective stakeholder panel. The defined indication criteria constitute a prerequisite for appropriate provision of TKA in patients with knee OA in Germany. In eligible patients, shared-decision making should eventually determine if TKA is performed or not. The next important steps are the implementation of the defined indication criteria, and the prospective investigation of predictors of success or failure of TKA in the context of routine care provision in Germany.

No abstract

Gesunde Beschäftigte, deren Muskel-Skelett-System vor Beschwerden und Erkrankungen geschützt werden soll (Primärprävention). Beschäftigte mit MSB oder MSE, die vor einer Verschlimmerung bzw. Manifestierung einer Erkrankung bewahrt werden sollen bzw. die eine Teilhabe an beruflichen Tätigkeiten wiedererlangen sollen. o Versorgungsbereich (s. DELBI-Kriterium 3) Der Versorgungsbereich ist die arbeits-und betriebsmedizinische Beratung und Vorsorge sowie die ergonomische Arbeitsgestaltung zum Erhalt der Arbeitsfähigkeit, die Vermeidung von Manifestation und Verschlimmerung arbeitsbedingter Muskel-Skelett-Erkrankungen und -Beschwerden sowie die berufliche Wiedereingliederung. o Anwenderzielgruppe/Adressaten (s. DELBI-Kriterium 6) Die Leitlinie richtet sich an Betriebsärztinnen und Betriebsärzte, Arbeitsmedizinerinnen und Arbeitsmediziner, Ergonominnen und Ergonomen, Fachkräfte für Arbeitssicherheit, Arbeitgeberinnen und Arbeitgeber und dient zur Information für alle weiteren Akteurinnen und Akteure des praktischen Arbeitsschutzes. 2. Zusammensetzung der Leitliniengruppe: Beteiligung von Interessensgruppen o Repräsentativität der Leitliniengruppe: Beteiligte Berufsgruppen (s. DELBI-Kriterium 4) Die Mitglieder der Leitliniengruppe sind Ärztinnen und Ärzte sowie Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler aus den Bereichen Arbeitsmedizin, Arbeitswissenschaft, Ergonomie, Arbeitsschutz, Biomechanik, Orthopädie, Orthopädische Chirurgie und Unfallchirurgie, Neurologie, Schmerzforschung sowie Sozialmedizin und Prävention. Zudem sind Vertreter der Deutschen Gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung, verschiedener Berufsgenossenschaften, der Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin und aus dem Bereich der Rehabilitation mit einem hohen Bezug zur beruflichen Praxis in der Leitliniengruppe vertreten.