The Effectiveness and Safety of Utilizing Mobile Phone-Based Programs for Rehabilitation After Lumbar Spinal Surgery: Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

• Published in: JMIR mHealth and uHealth 2019-02, Vol.7 (2), p.e10201-e10201
• Main Authors: Hou, Jingyi, Yang, Rui, Yang, Yaping, Tang, Yiyong, Deng, Haiquan, Chen, Zhong, Wu, Yanfeng, Shen, Huiyong
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; China; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain - rehabilitation; Low Back Pain - surgery; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery; Lumbosacral Region - injuries; Lumbosacral Region - surgery; Male; Middle Aged; Mobile Applications - standards; Mobile Applications - statistics & numerical data; Original Paper; Orthopedic Procedures - methods; Orthopedic Procedures - rehabilitation; Patient Safety - standards; Patient Safety - statistics & numerical data; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life - psychology; Rehabilitation - instrumentation; Rehabilitation - methods; Rehabilitation - standards; Surveys and Questionnaires
• ISSN: 2291-5222; 2291-5222
• DOI: 10.2196/10201

Rehabilitation is crucial for postoperative patients with low back pain (LBP). However, the implementation of traditional clinic-based programs is limited in developing countries, such as China, because of the maldistribution of medical resources. Mobile phone-based programs may be a potential substitute for those who have no access to traditional rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of mobile phone-based rehabilitation systems in patients who underwent lumbar spinal surgery. Patients who accepted spinal surgeries were recruited and randomized into 2 groups of rehabilitation treatments: (1) a mobile phone-based eHealth (electronic health) program (EH) or (2) usual care treatment (UC). The primary outcomes were (1) function and pain status assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and (2) the visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were (1) general mental health and (2) quality of life (Likert scales, EuroQol-5 Dimension health questionnaire, and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey). All the patients were assessed preoperatively and then at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. A total of 168 of the 863 eligible patients were included and randomized in this study. Our analysis showed that the improvement of primary outcomes in the EH group was superior to the UC group at 24 months postoperatively (ODI mean 7.02, SD 3.10, P