Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

We compared the effectiveness of home telerehabilitation with conventional rehabilitation following knee replacement surgery (total knee arthroplasty, TKA). Forty-eight patients (mean age 66 years) who received TKA were recruited prior to discharge from hospital after surgery and were randomly assigned to telerehabilitation or usual care. Telerehabilitation sessions (16 per participant over two months) were conducted by trained physiotherapists using videoconferencing to the patient's home via an Internet connection (512 kbit/s upload speed). Disability and function were measured using standardized outcome measures in face-to-face evaluations at three times (prior to and at the end of treatment, and four months after the end of treatment). Clinical outcomes improved significantly for all subjects in both groups between endpoints. Some variables showed larger improvements in the usual care group two months post-discharge from therapy than in the telerehabilitation group. Home telerehabilitation is at least as effective as usual care, and has the potential to increase access to therapy in areas with high speed Internet services.

BackgroundRehabilitation provided through home visits is part of the continuum of care after discharge from hospital following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). As demands for rehabilitation at home are growing and becoming more difficult to meet, in-home telerehabilitation has been proposed as an alternate service delivery method. However, there is a need for robust data concerning both the effectiveness and the cost of dispensing in-home telerehabilitation.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to document, analyze, and compare real costs of two service delivery methods: in-home telerehabilitation and conventional home visits.MethodsThe economic analysis was conducted as part of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) on telerehabilitation for TKA, and involved data from 197 patients, post-TKA. Twice a week for 8 weeks, participants received supervised physiotherapy via two delivery methods, depending on their study group allocation: in-home telerehabilitation (TELE) and home-visit rehabilitation (VISIT). Patients were recruited from eight hospitals in the province of Quebec, Canada. The TELE group intervention was delivered by videoconferencing over high-speed Internet. The VISIT group received the same intervention at home. Costs related to the delivery of the two services (TELE and VISIT) were calculated. Student’s t tests were used to compare costs per treatment between the two groups. To take distance into account, the two treatment groups were compared within distance strata using two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs).ResultsThe mean cost of a single session was Can $93.08 for the VISIT group (SD $35.70) and $80.99 for the TELE group (SD $26.60). When comparing both groups, real total cost analysis showed a cost differential in favor of the TELE group (TELE minus VISIT: -$263, 95% CI -$382 to -$143). However, when the patient’s home was located less than 30 km round-trip from the health care center, the difference in costs between TELE and VISIT treatments was not significant (P=.25, .26, and .11 for the <10, 10-19, and 20-29 km strata, respectively). The cost of TELE treatments was lower than VISIT treatments when the distance was 30 km or more (30-49 km: $81<$103, P=.002; ≥50 km: $90<$152, P<.001).ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study of the actual costs of in-home telerehabilitation covering all subcosts of telerehabilitation and distance between the health care center and the patient’s home. The cost for a single session of in-home telerehabilitation compared to conventional home-visit rehabilitation was lower or about the same, depending on the distance between the patient’s home and health care center. Under the controlled conditions of an RCT, a favorable cost differential was observed when the patient was more than 30 km from the provider. Stakeholders and program planners can use these data to guide decisions regarding introducing telerehabilitation as a new service in their clinic.Trial RegistrationInternational Standard Registered Clinical Study Number (ISRCTN): 66285945; ...

These results suggest that the paretic maximal grip strength, normalized with the maximal grip strength on the nonaffected side, appears to be a valuable outcome measure of upper extremity function in chronic stroke subjects.

BackgroundInertial measurement of motion with Attitude and Heading Reference Systems (AHRS) is emerging as an alternative to 3D motion capture systems in biomechanics. The objectives of this study are: 1) to describe the absolute and relative accuracy of multiple units of commercially available AHRS under various types of motion; and 2) to evaluate the effect of motion velocity on the accuracy of these measurements.MethodsThe criterion validity of accuracy was established under controlled conditions using an instrumented Gimbal table. AHRS modules were carefully attached to the center plate of the Gimbal table and put through experimental static and dynamic conditions. Static and absolute accuracy was assessed by comparing the AHRS orientation measurement to those obtained using an optical gold standard. Relative accuracy was assessed by measuring the variation in relative orientation between modules during trials.FindingsEvaluated AHRS systems demonstrated good absolute static accuracy (mean error < 0.5o) and clinically acceptable absolute accuracy under condition of slow motions (mean error between 0.5o and 3.1o). In slow motions, relative accuracy varied from 2o to 7o depending on the type of AHRS and the type of rotation. Absolute and relative accuracy were significantly affected (p<0.05) by velocity during sustained motions. The extent of that effect varied across AHRS.InterpretationAbsolute and relative accuracy of AHRS are affected by environmental magnetic perturbations and conditions of motions. Relative accuracy of AHRS is mostly affected by the ability of all modules to locate the same global reference coordinate system at all time.ConclusionsExisting AHRS systems can be considered for use in clinical biomechanics under constrained conditions of use. While their individual capacity to track absolute motion is relatively consistent, the use of multiple AHRS modules to compute relative motion between rigid bodies needs to be optimized according to the conditions of operation.

As patient satisfaction is important in maintaining motivation and treatment compliance and the satisfaction of healthcare professionals must be high in order for new treatments to become mainstream in clinics, the results show that in-home telerehabilitation seems to be a promising alternative to traditional face-to-face treatments.

These results, in conjunction with evidences of clinical effectiveness and cost benefits demonstrated in the same sample of patients, strongly support the use of telerehabilitation to improve access to rehabilitation services and efficiency of service delivery after TKA.

Outcome measures in physical therapy provide the basis for determining the patient's rehabilitation needs, developing an individual intervention plan, and reassessing the evolution of the condition after therapeutic intervention. Questions surrounding the validity and reliability of outcome measures obtained in the context of telerehabilitation remain. The goal of this study was to explore which outcome measures can be used reliably in the context of telerehabilitation after discharge from an acute care hospital for lower limb orthopedic surgery. Fifteen patients recently discharged after total knee arthroplasty were evaluated by two experienced therapists. Each therapist evaluated under a given condition (face-to-face assessment, telerehabilitation assessment) eight outcome measures taken from standard clinical tests routinely used in the management of orthopedic rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty. Evaluations were measured at 1-day intervals. Telerehabilitation evaluations were conducted with a videoconference link (H.264 CoDecs with Pan, Tilt, Zoom cameras) between either the participant's home or a clinical environment and a remote clinical station over residential DSL lines at 512 kbps. Interrater agreement between the two measurement modes was analyzed using the Bland and Altman method and Kripendorff's alpha reliability estimate. The 95% confidence interval for mean difference between evaluation methods varied between -20% and 8% for knee range of motion measures, -85% and 55% for scar management, -33% and 29% for functional evaluations. Five out of the eight outcome measures showed reliability estimates of >0.80, with lowest reliability obtained for the scar assessment scale (0.34) and the highest reliability for the evaluation of the range of motion at the knee (0.87 in flexion and 0.85 in extension). Clinical variables typically measured in face-to-face evaluations can be measured successfully under telerehabilitation conditions with moderate reliability.