According to the results of this study the Schroth exercise program applied in the clinic under physiotherapist supervision was superior to the home exercise and control groups; additionally, we observed that scoliosis progressed in the control group, which received no treatment.

No abstract

The aim of the study was to compare the effects of low-intensity exercise programs for lower extremities, either supervised or at home, on pain, muscle strength, balance and the hemodynamic parameters of knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. This randomized study included 78 patients with knee OA in 2 groups of supervised and home-based exercise program. Exercises were applied to the first group in the clinic as a group exercise program and were demonstrated to the second group to be performed at home. Before and after the 6-week exercise program, assessment was made of pain, quadriceps and hamstring muscle strengths, 6-min walk test (6MWT), and non-invasive hemodynamic parameters. Results of the 78 patients, 56 completed the study. Pain, muscle strength, and 6MWT scores showed significant improvements in both groups. There were also significant differences in the amount of change in pain and muscle strength (pain: p = 0.041, Rqdc: 0.009, Lqdc: 0.013, Rhms: 0.04) which indicated greater improvements in the supervised group. The balance scores of supervised group showed a significant improvement (p = 0.009). No significant change was determined in hemodynamic parameters of either group. Conclusion according to the results of this study showed that low-intensity lower extremity exercises conducted in a clinic under the supervision of a physiotherapist were more effective than home-based exercises in reducing post-activity pain levels and improving quadriceps and right hamstring muscle strength. Both the supervised and home exercise programs were seen to be effective in reducing rest pain and increasing 6 MW distance in knee osteoarthritis patients.

No abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze the risk factors contributing to the misdiagnosis of perilunate injuries.MethodsThe study included patients who had perilunate dislocation or fracture dislocation correctly or incorrectly diagnosed on initial examination between 2008 and 2014. Data related to the length of time until correct diagnosis of the perilunate injury; cause of injury; presence of associated fractures, polytrauma or concomitant trauma in the ipsilateral upper extremity; time between injury and first presentation; first treatment applied; presence of ligamentous perilunar injuries only or fracture and dislocation; inadequate radiographic assessment; and experience of the physicians were recorded and analyzed.ResultsA total of 44 wrists were included in the study. Of those, 10 (22.7%) wrists (mean patient age: 44.4 years [28 ± 58 years]) with perilunate injuries were misdiagnosed in the initial evaluation. All of the risk factors were found to be similar between the group of patients with correct initial diagnosis and missed diagnosis group, except for the experience of the orthopedic surgeon assessing the injury (p = 0.0001). Of the surgeons who missed the diagnosis, 70% reported that it was their first encounter with a perilunate injury.ConclusionThe results of this study indicated that lack of experience was the most important factor in the misdiagnosis of perilunate fracture dislocation or isolated dislocation. Level of Evidence: Level IV, diagnostic study.