Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Comparison of effects between telerehabilitation and in-person rehabilitation after breast cancer surgery: a randomized controlled study |
de Aviz LBdN, Alves CF, Fonte CLD, Correa LDNR, Progenio RCS, Guedes LJL, Neves LMT, Rassy Carneiro S |
Integrative Cancer Therapies 2024 Jan-Dec;23:15347354241256314 |
clinical trial |
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects between telerehabilitation and in-person rehabilitation on physical function, pain and quality of life in patients with breast cancer after surgery. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, and parallel study that involved post-surgical oncological breast surgery patients who were female and aged between 18 and 70 years. The study was conducted in an outpatient environment, and the participants were randomized using a computer system. Population was divided into 2 groups: G1 (n = 20), who received face-to-face care, and G2 (n = 24), who received telerehabilitation. Participants were followed for 15 and 45 days postoperatively. The study's primary outcomes were based on 44 patients (n = 44). Values of changes in quality of life, range of motion (ROM), muscle strength, and upper limb functionality were compared for both groups during the 15 to 45 day postoperative. RESULTS: Both groups exhibited progressive improvements in range of motion, muscle strength, functionality, and quality of life over time (15- and 45-days post-operatively (PO)), indicating a positive response to treatment. Patients in G2 demonstrated more significant improvements in range of motion and muscle strength, as well as better functionality and quality of life compared to G1, particularly after 45 days PO. Additionally, G2 exhibited a more significant reduction in fatigue after 45 days PO. CONCLUSIONS: Telerehabilitation is a viable option with good usability, and has been shown to produce results similar to in-person physiotherapy in most cases, and even superior in some. Long-term intervention studies are needed for the development of telerehabilitation.
|