Comparison of telerehabilitation versus home-based video exercise in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a single-blind randomized study

Introduction Patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) have lost their access to on-site rehabilitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Telerehabilitation can be a viable approach for these patients to protect their muscle strength and functional status. The aim of this study is to compare teler...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Acta neurologica Belgica 2022-10, Vol.122 (5), p.1269-1280
Main Authors: Kenis-Coskun, Ozge, Imamoglu, Sena, Karamancioglu, Berna, Kurt, Kubra, Ozturk, Gulten, Karadag-Saygi, Evrim
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Biomedicine
Medicine/Public Health
Neurology
Neuroradiology
Neurosciences
Original
Original Article
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction Patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) have lost their access to on-site rehabilitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Telerehabilitation can be a viable approach for these patients to protect their muscle strength and functional status. The aim of this study is to compare telerehabilitation with home-based video exercises. Patients and methods Male, ambulatory DMD patients were randomized into telerehabilitation and video-exercise groups. Nineteen patients were included in the final analyses. Telerehabilitation consisted of live online exercises, while video exercise implemented a pre-recorded video as a home-based program. Both programs spanned 8 weeks, three times a week. Patients’ muscle strength with a hand-held dynamometer, Quick Motor Function Test, North-Star Ambulatory Assessment (NSAA), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) and Caregiver Burden were recorded before and after treatment. Results The 6MWT of the telerehabilitation group was391.26 ± 95.08 m before and387.75 ± 210.93 after treatment ( p  = 0.94) and 327.46 ± 103.88 m before treatment and313.77 ± 114.55 after treatment in video group ( p  = 0.63). The mean NSAA score of the telerehabilitation group were26.70 ± 8.04 before treatment and 25.20 ± 11.33 after treatment ( p  = 0.24). In the video group scores were 21.66 ± 6.65 before to 22.00 ± 8.61 after treatment ( p  = 0.87). There were no significant changes between groups at the end of the treatments. The telerehabilitation group's neck extension, bilateral shoulder abduction, and left shoulder flexion, bilateral knee flexion and extension, bilateral ankle dorsiflexion, and left ankle plantar flexion strength improved significantly and were better than the video group ( p  
ISSN:0300-9009
2240-2993
DOI:10.1007/s13760-022-01975-4