Objectives To compare the outcome of two methods of maternity care during the antenatal period and at delivery. One was to be midwife‐led for both antenatal care and delivery, the latter taking place in rooms similar to those in one's own home to simulate home confinement. The other would be consultant‐led with the mothers labouring in the delivery suite rooms with resuscitation equipment for both mother and baby in evidence, monitors present and a delivery bed on which both anaesthetic and obstetric procedures could be easily and safely carried out. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Leicester Royal Infirmary Maternity Hospital. Subjects Of 3510 women who were randomised, 2304 were assigned to the midwife‐led scheme and 1206 were assigned to the consultant‐led scheme. Main outcome measures Complications in the antenatal, intrapartum and postpartum periods were compared as was maternal morbidity and fetal mortality and morbidity. Satisfaction of the women with care over different periods of the pregnancy and birth were assessed. Results There were few significant differences in antepartum, intrapartum and postpartum events between the two groups. There was no difference in the percentage of mothers and babies discharged home alive and well. Generally higher levels of satisfaction with care antenatally and during labour and delivery were shown in those women allocated to midwife care.
Background Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is indicated for patients with glenohumeral arthritis. In this procedure, the humeral head and glenoid surface are replaced with prosthetic components. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is indicated for patients with glenohumeral arthritis and a poorly functioning rotator cuff. In this procedure, a glenosphere articulates with a humerosocket. While those surgeries are commonly performed, a thorough review of the literature is required to determine the areas of agreement and variations in postoperative rehabilitation. Objectives To describe the literature on rehabilitation protocols following anatomic TSA and RTSA. Methods For this systematic review, a computerized search was conducted in medical databases from inception to May 21, 2018 for relevant descriptive studies on TSA and RTSA rehabilitation protocols. The methodological index for nonrandomized studies tool and the modified Downs and Black tool for randomized controlled trials were used for assessment of the individual studies. Results Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 1 provided level I evidence, 1 provided level III evidence, 2 provided level IV evidence, and 12 provided level V evidence. Ten of the studies described rehabilitation guidelines for TSA and 6 described those for RTSA. Following TSA, the use of a sling was recommended for a duration that varied from 3 to 8 weeks, and 4 of the 10 published protocols included resisted exercise during the initial stage of healing (the first 6 weeks after surgery). Seven of 10 published protocols recommended limiting shoulder external rotation to 30° and that passive range of motion be fully restored by 12 weeks post surgery. Suggested use of a sling post RTSA varied from “for comfort only” to 6 weeks, motion parameters varied from no passive range of motion to precautionary range limits, and all protocols agreed on performing deltoid isometric exercises early post surgery. There was a high level of heterogeneity for the rehabilitation guidelines and associated precautions for both TSA and RTSA. Conclusion The majority of published protocols were descriptive in nature. Published rehabilitation strategies following TSA and RTSA are based on biomechanical principles, healing time frames, and exercise loading principles, with little consistency among protocols. There is a need to determine optimal rehabilitation approaches post TSA and RTSA based on clinical outcomes. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 5. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(5):337–346. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8616
Background Despite similar outcomes for surgery and conservative care, the number of surgeries to treat rotator cuff related shoulder pain has increased. Interventions designed to enhance treatment expectations for conservative care have been shown to improve patient expectations, but no studies have yet explored whether such interventions influence patient decisions to pursue surgery. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to examine the effect of an intervention designed to improve expectations of conservative care on the decision to have surgery. Methods We will test the effectiveness of the Patient Engagement, Education, and Restructuring of Cognitions (PEERC) intervention which is intended to change expectations regarding conservative care. The PEERC intervention will be evaluated in a randomized, pragmatic “add-on” trial, to better understand the effect the intervention has on outcomes. Ninety-four (94) participants with rotator cuff related shoulder pain referred for physical therapy will be randomized to receive either impairment-based care or impairment-based care plus PEERC. Both groups will receive impairment-based conservative treatment created by compiling the evidence associated with established, effective interventions. Participants assigned to the impairment-based care plus PEERC condition will also receive the PEERC intervention. This intervention, informed by principles of cognitive behavioral therapy, involves three components: (1) strategies to enhance engagement, (2) education and (3) cognitive restructuring and behavioral activation. Outcomes will be assessed at multiple points between enrolment and six months after discharge. The primary outcome is patient reported decision to have surgery and the secondary outcomes are pain, function, expectations and satisfaction with conservative care. Discussion Rotator cuff related shoulder pain is highly prevalent, and because conservative and surgical treatments have similar outcomes, an intervention that changes expectations about conservative care could alter patient reports of their decision to have surgery and ultimately could lead to lower healthcare costs and decreased risk of surgical complications. Trial registration This study is registered as NCT03353272 at ClincialTrials.gov.
Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty is the gold standard shoulder replacement procedure for patients with an intact rotator cuff and sufficient glenoid bone to accommodate prosthetic glenoid implant and offers reliable patient satisfaction, excellent implant longevity, and a low incidence of complications. Disparity exists in the literature regarding rehabilitation strategies following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. This article presents a consensus statement from experts in the field on rehabilitation following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. The goal of this consensus statement is to provide a current evidence-based foundation to inform the rehabilitation process after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. These guidelines apply to anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (replacement of the humeral head and glenoid), hemiarthroplasty (replacing only the humeral head), and hemiarthroplasty with glenoid reaming or resurfacing. The consensus statement integrates an extensive literature review, as well as survey results of the practice patterns of members of the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. Three stages of recovery are proposed, which initially protect and then gradually load soft tissue affected by the surgical procedure, such as the subscapularis, for optimal patient outcomes. The proposed guidelines should be used in collaboration with surgeon preferences and patient-specific factors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.