Rehabilitation of Patients with Hip Joint Arthroplasty (Late Post-surgery Period - Hospital Rehabilitation)

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Investigating the Pain-Relieving Effect of Interferential Current on Musculoskeletal Pain

BACKGROUND

Interferential current is one of the most common electrotherapeutic modalities used in the treatment of painful conditions. Patients seeking medical help to reduce their musculoskeletal pain can be treated using interferential current.

OBJECTIVE

The current review aimed to analyze the recently available information regarding the efficacy of interferential current in alleviating the pain of musculoskeletal origin.

METHODS

This study used Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, and EBSCOas as data sources. The initial selection of the studies, thorough assessment of the full articles, and extraction of the necessary study characteristics were carried out by two independent reviewers. Another two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of each included trial against 39 criteria. These criteria were integrated from several popular scales. Pain intensity-measured using the visual analog scale, numeric pain rating scale, or McGill Pain Questionnaire-was the outcome of interest.

RESULTS

This review included 35 trials of variable methodological quality from which 19 trials were selected for the meta-analysis. In general, interferential current alone versus placebo demonstrated a significant pain-relieving effect. On the other hand, interferential current showed no significant difference when added to standard treatment compared with placebo plus standard treatment or standard treatment alone. Similarly, interferential current showed no significant difference when compared with other single interventions (laser, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, cryotherapy).

CONCLUSIONS

Interferential current alone is better than placebo at discharge. However, the low number of studies raises suspicions about this conclusion. Interferential current alone or added to other interventions is not more effective than comparative treatments in relieving musculoskeletal pain.

Benefits of Combining Physical Therapy with Occupational Therapy in Hip Arthroplasty

(1) Background: Hip arthroplasty (HA) is a surgery that replaces the damaged hip joint with an artificial implant called a hip prosthesis. The increase in life expectancy correlated with the population aging level, to which the increase in the number of prosthetic interventions among the young population is added, translates to the imperative need to analyze the quality of life beyond the immediate postoperative period. Strict adherence to an individualized rehabilitation program (IRP), and adapted to each patient, is followed by an improved quality of life. The main goal is the recovery of the patient with HA. This study was aimed to demonstrate that an IRP, represented by physical therapy associated with occupational therapy, improves the quality of life of patients with HA; (2) Methods: In this study, conducted between 2019 and 2021, 50 patients with HA were divided into two groups: study group-group A (25 subjects compliant with the IRP) and control group-group B (25 subjects, non-compliance with the IRP). To evaluate the two study groups, we monitored the evolution of the modified Harris hip score (mHHS) in both hips (arthroplasty hip (AH), contra lateral hip (CH)), for four months, respectively 30 days before the surgery (T0) and at 90 days after the surgery (T1); (3) Results: We notice significant differences in mHHS values at 90 days-T1 after surgery, both on AH in favor of subjects from group A vs. group B (p = 0.030) and on CH, where mHHS values were statistically higher in group A compared to group B (p < 0.001). The results of our study outline at T1 moment, both on the AH (p = 0.030) and on the CH (p < 0.001), the fact that mHHS values were statistically higher in patients included in group A compared to group B. In terms of the results for mHHS, comparing AH with CH, it is noted that the number of subjects who had a good or excellent mHHS result in group A versus group B is statistically significant in the case of CH (group A: 23 (92%) vs. group B: 11 (44%), p = 0.039); (4) Conclusions: The study reveals clear advantages of HA in both hips, both in subjects who complied with the IRP and those who did not comply; the higher therapeutic benefits of IRP are outlined at the level of CH compared to AH; in patients who comply with the IRP, the mHHS parameters that have improved in both CH and AH are pain, leaning, and shoes and socks activities; in addition, limping was reduced in CH.