-
Musculoskeletal Care Dec 2021Knee osteoarthritis is the most common joint disease and a major cause of functional limitation and pain in adults. The aim of this literature review is to review the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Knee osteoarthritis is the most common joint disease and a major cause of functional limitation and pain in adults. The aim of this literature review is to review the existing evidence regarding the impact of exercise in people with knee osteoarthritis concerning physical and functional outcomes. The secondary aim is to provide both healthcare professionals and patients with updated and high-quality recommendations for the management of this condition.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed at Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science databases, limiting the studies to English, French and Portuguese language, from 2010 to May 2020. Eligible studies were randomized control trials or clinical control trials that compared an intervention consisting of an exercise programme in adult participants with knee osteoarthritis against no intervention.
RESULTS
A total of 4499 studies were retrieved and 19 articles met the inclusion criteria. Beneficial effects of exercise were found on pain and strength. Regarding function, functional performance and quality of life, evidence is controversial. Both strengthening and aerobic exercise showed positive effects and both aquatic and land-based programmes presented improvement of pain, physical function and quality of life. Relatively to stretching, plyometric and proprioception training, no concrete conclusions can be taken.
CONCLUSION
Exercise programmes appear to be safe and effective in knee osteoarthritis patients, mainly regarding pain and strength improvement. Pilates, aerobic and strengthening exercise programmes performed for 8-12 weeks, 3-5 sessions per week; each session lasting 1 h appear to be effective. Both aquatic and land-based programmes show comparable and positive effects.
Topics: Adult; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33666347
DOI: 10.1002/msc.1538 -
Acta Reumatologica Portuguesa Jul 2019The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to know, based on the available randomized controlled trials, if the non-surgical and non-pharmacological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to know, based on the available randomized controlled trials, if the non-surgical and non-pharmacological interventions commonly used for knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients are effective and which are the most effective ones.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
RCTs were identified through electronic databases respecting the following terms to guide the search strategy: PICO (Patients - Humans with knee OA; Intervention - Non-surgical and non-pharmacological interventions; Comparison - Pharmacological, surgical, placebo, no intervention, or other non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions; Outcomes - Pain, physical function and patient global assessment). The methodological quality of the selected publications was evaluated using the PEDro and GRADE scales. Additionally, a meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan. Only studies with similar control group, population characteristics, outcomes, instruments and follow-up, were compared in each analysis.
RESULTS
Initially, 52 RCTs emerge however, after methodological analysis, only 39 had sufficient quality to be included. From those, only 5 studies meet the meta-analysis criteria. Exercise (especially resistance training) had the best positive effects on knee OA patients. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields and Moxibustion showed to be the most promising interventions from the others. Balance Training, Diet, Diathermy, Hydrotherapy, High Level Laser Therapy, Interferential Current, Mudpack, Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation, Musculoskeletal Manipulations, Shock Wave Therapy, Focal Muscle Vibration, stood out, however more studies are needed to fully recommend their use. Other interventions did not show to be effective or the results obtained were heterogeneous.
CONCLUSIONS
Exercise is the best intervention for knee OA patients. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields and Moxibustion showed to be the most promising interventions from the others options available.
Topics: Humans; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Physical Therapy Modalities; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31356585
DOI: No ID Found -
Efficacy of sonic and ultrasonic activation during endodontic treatment: a Meta-analysis of studies.Acta Odontologica Scandinavica Nov 2022To ensure a successful endodontic treatment, it is important to have a proper disinfection of the root canal. The current study compares the root canal cleanliness and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To ensure a successful endodontic treatment, it is important to have a proper disinfection of the root canal. The current study compares the root canal cleanliness and smear layer score between sonic and ultrasonic activation.
METHOD
Systematic literature review was implemented, using 12 databases. All studies comparing the efficacy of sonic and ultrasonic activation and reporting at least one outcome of interest were included.
RESULTS
At the apical level, pooling the data in the random-effects model (I=64%, ) revealed a statistically significant lower smear layer score within the sonic activation group (MD-0.48; 95% CI-0.92, -0.04; ). Furthermore, there was a statistically significant lower push-out bond strength value among the sonic group, in contrast to the ultrasonic group at the middle (MD-0.69; 95% CI-1.13, -0.25; ) and at the apical levels (MD-0.78; 95% CI-1.09, -0.46; ) of the root canal.
CONCLUSIONS
Sonic activation accomplished advancement relative to ultrasonic agitation in removing the smear layer, while ultrasonic activation resulted in significant cohesion between the sealers and the dentine tubules, decreasing the vulnerability of apical leakage and tooth fracture.
Topics: Humans; Smear Layer; Root Canal Irrigants; Root Canal Preparation; Dental Pulp Cavity; Ultrasonics; Sodium Hypochlorite; Therapeutic Irrigation; Edetic Acid; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
PubMed: 35430959
DOI: 10.1080/00016357.2022.2061591 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2023Evidence regarding the management of several aspects of cerebral palsy improved in recent years. Still, discrepancies are reported in clinical practice. Italian...
BACKGROUND
Evidence regarding the management of several aspects of cerebral palsy improved in recent years. Still, discrepancies are reported in clinical practice. Italian professionals and stakeholders expressed the need of setting up updated, evidenced-based, shared statements, to address clinical practice in cerebral palsy rehabilitation. The objective of the present study was to provide an updated overview of the state of knowledge, regarding the management and motor rehabilitation of children and young people with cerebral palsy, as the framework to develop evidence-based recommendations on this topic.
METHODS
Guidelines and systematic reviews were searched, relative to evidence-based management and motor treatment, aimed at improving gross motor and manual function and activities, in subjects with cerebral palsy, aged 2-18 years. A systematic search according to the Patients Intervention Control Outcome framework was executed on multiple sites. Independent evaluators provided selection and quality assessment of the studies and extraction of data.
RESULTS
Four guidelines, 43 systematic reviews, and three primary studies were included. Agreement among guidelines was reported relative to the general requirements of management and motor treatment. Considering the subject's multidimensional profile, age and developmentally appropriate activities were recommended to set individual goals and interventions. Only a few approaches were supported by high-level evidence (i.e., bimanual therapy and constraint-induced movement therapy to enhance manual performance). Several task-specific active approaches, to improve gross motor function and gait, were reported (mobility and gait training, cycling, backward gait, and treadmill), based on low-level evidence. Increasing daily physical activity and countering sedentary behavior were advised. Based on the available evidence, non-invasive brain stimulation, virtual reality, action-observation therapy, hydrotherapy, and hippotherapy might be complementary to task or goal-oriented physical therapy programs.
CONCLUSION
A multiple-disciplinary family-centered evidence-based management is recommended. All motor rehabilitation approaches to minors affected by cerebral palsy must share the following fundamental characteristics: engaging active involvement of the subject, individualized, age and developmentally appropriate, goal-directed, skill-based, and preferably intensive and time-limited, but suitable for the needs and preferences of the child or young person and their family, and feasible considering the implications for themselves and possible contextual limitations.
PubMed: 37305763
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1171224 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pathology relating to mandibular wisdom teeth is a frequent presentation to oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth is a common operation. The indications for surgical removal of these teeth are alleviation of local pain, swelling and trismus, and also the prevention of spread of infection that may occasionally threaten life. Surgery is commonly associated with short-term postoperative pain, swelling and trismus. Less frequently, infection, dry socket (alveolar osteitis) and trigeminal nerve injuries may occur. This review focuses on the optimal methods in order to improve patient experience and minimise postoperative morbidity.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the relative benefits and risks of different techniques for surgical removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 8 July 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library; 2019, Issue 6), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 July 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 July 2019). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical techniques for the removal of mandibular wisdom teeth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors were involved in assessing the relevance of identified studies, evaluated the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We used risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data in parallel-group trials (or Peto odds ratios if the event rate was low), odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data in cross-over or split-mouth studies, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data. We took into account the pairing of the split-mouth studies in our analyses, and combined parallel-group and split-mouth studies using the generic inverse-variance method. We used the fixed-effect model for three studies or fewer, and random-effects model for more than three studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 62 trials with 4643 participants. Several of the trials excluded individuals who were not in excellent health. We assessed 33 of the studies (53%) as being at high risk of bias and 29 as unclear. We report results for our primary outcomes below. Comparisons of different suturing techniques and of drain versus no drain did not report any of our primary outcomes. No studies provided useable data for any of our primary outcomes in relation to coronectomy. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether envelope or triangular flap designs led to more alveolar osteitis (OR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 1.23; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.06; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), or permanent altered tongue sensation (Peto OR 4.48, 95% CI 0.07 to 286.49; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). In terms of other adverse effects, two studies reported wound dehiscence at up to 30 days after surgery, but found no difference in risk between interventions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the use of a lingual retractor affected the risk of permanent altered sensation compared to not using one (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.82; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). None of our other primary outcomes were reported by studies included in this comparison. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether lingual split with chisel is better than a surgical hand-piece for bone removal in terms of wound infection (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Alveolar osteitis, permanent altered sensation, and other adverse effects were not reported. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in alveolar osteitis according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.09; 1 study) or irrigation volume (high versus low; RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02; 1 study), or whether there is any difference in postoperative infection according to irrigation method (mechanical versus manual: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 study) or irrigation volume (low versus high; RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.37; 1 study) (all very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent altered sensation and adverse effects. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether primary or secondary wound closure led to more alveolar osteitis (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.40; 3 studies; low-certainty evidence), wound infection (RR 4.77, 95% CI 0.24 to 96.34; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), or adverse effects (bleeding) (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.47; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These studies did not report permanent sensation changes. Placing platelet rich plasma (PRP) or platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in sockets may reduce the incidence of alveolar osteitis (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67; 2 studies), but the evidence is of low certainty. Our other primary outcomes were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this 2020 update, we added 27 new studies to the original 35 in the 2014 review. Unfortunately, even with the addition of these studies, we have been unable to draw many meaningful conclusions. The small number of trials evaluating each comparison and reporting our primary outcomes, along with methodological biases in the included trials, means that the body of evidence for each of the nine comparisons evaluated is of low or very low certainty. Participant populations in the trials may not be representative of the general population, or even the population undergoing third molar surgery. Many trials excluded individuals who were not in good health, and several excluded those with active infection or who had deep impactions of their third molars. Consequently, we are unable to make firm recommendations to surgeons to inform their techniques for removal of mandibular third molars. The evidence is uncertain, though we note that there is some limited evidence that placing PRP or PRF in sockets may reduce the incidence of dry socket. The evidence provided in this review may be used as a guide for surgeons when selecting and refining their surgical techniques. Ongoing studies may allow us to provide more definitive conclusions in the future.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Drainage; Dry Socket; Humans; Lip; Mandible; Middle Aged; Molar, Third; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sensation Disorders; Surgical Flaps; Surgical Wound Infection; Therapeutic Irrigation; Tongue; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted; Wound Closure Techniques; Young Adult
PubMed: 32712962
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004345.pub3 -
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Jun 2022Water therapies as hydrotherapy, balneotherapy or aqua therapy are often used in the relief of disease- and treatment-associated symptoms of cancer patients. Yet, a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Water therapies as hydrotherapy, balneotherapy or aqua therapy are often used in the relief of disease- and treatment-associated symptoms of cancer patients. Yet, a systematic review for the evidence of water therapy including all cancer entities has not been conducted to date.
PURPOSE
Oncological patients often suffer from symptoms which in patients with other diseases are successfully treated with water therapy. We want to gather more information about the benefits and risks of water therapy for cancer patients.
METHOD
In May 2020, a systematic search was conducted searching five electronic databases (Embase, Cochrane, PsychInfo, CINAHL and PubMed) to find studies concerning the use, effectiveness and potential harm of water therapy on cancer patients.
RESULTS
Of 3165 search results, 10 publications concerning 12 studies with 430 patients were included in this systematic review. The patients treated with water therapy were mainly diagnosed with breast cancer. The therapy concepts included aqua lymphatic therapy, aquatic exercises, foot bathes and whole-body bathes. Outcomes were state of lymphedema, quality of life, fatigue, BMI, vital parameters, anxiety and pain. The quality of the studies was assessed with the AMSTAR2-instrument, the SIGN-checklist and the IHE-Instruments. The studies had moderate quality and reported heterogeneous results. Some studies reported significantly improved quality of life, extent of lymphedema, neck and shoulder pain, fatigue and BMI while other studies did not find any changes concerning these endpoints.
CONCLUSION
Due to the very heterogeneous results and methodical limitations of the included studies, a clear statement regarding the effectiveness of water therapy on cancer patients is not possible.
Topics: Balneology; Breast Neoplasms; Fatigue; Female; Humans; Hydrotherapy; Lymphedema; Quality of Life; Water
PubMed: 35171330
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-022-03947-w -
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders Jun 2020The aquatic environment has unique properties, such a buoyancy, turbulence, hydrostatic pressure, and resistance, which can be used to gain a range of exercise benefits.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aquatic environment has unique properties, such a buoyancy, turbulence, hydrostatic pressure, and resistance, which can be used to gain a range of exercise benefits. During the last decade, hydrotherapy has spread in a very heterogeneous rehabilitation field. However, the efficacy of this kind of rehabilitation is not clear in scientific literature. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the qualitative and quantitative results of physical therapy treatments in an aquatic setting for individuals with Multiple Sclerosis.
METHOD
PRISMA guidelines were used to carry out the systematic review and meta-analysis. Three bibliographic databases were searched: MEDLINE, PEDro, and the Cochrane Library. Papers included in the study have the following characteristics: (a) a randomized controlled trial design of research and (b) published in English. The quality of the clinical trials included were evaluated according to a Jadad score and through meta-analysis.
RESULTS
After the elimination of duplicates, 116 records were screened. Among these, 11 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were included in the systematic review. Ten of these were involved in the meta-analysis. From the qualitative analysis, a larger number of studies were found with a high level of quality. Most of the results of the quantitative analysis were statistically significant (p< 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Aquatic physical therapy is a valid means of rehabilitation for people with Multiple Sclerosis. The integration of this methodological approach with conventional physical therapy is recommended. Nevertheless, more studies, a larger number of participants, and short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up are required to confirm current results.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Humans; Hydrotherapy; Multiple Sclerosis; Neurological Rehabilitation; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 32114368
DOI: 10.1016/j.msard.2020.102022 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Although various solutions have been recommended for cleansing wounds, normal saline is favoured as it is an isotonic solution and is not thought to interfere with the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although various solutions have been recommended for cleansing wounds, normal saline is favoured as it is an isotonic solution and is not thought to interfere with the normal healing process. Tap water is commonly used in community settings for cleansing wounds because it is easily accessible, efficient and cost-effective; however, there is an unresolved debate about its use.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of water for wound cleansing.
SEARCH METHODS
For this fifth update, in May 2021 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed wound cleansing using different types of water (e.g. tap water, distilled, boiled) compared with no cleansing or with other solutions (e.g. normal saline). For this update, we excluded quasi-RCTs, thereby removing some studies which had been included in the previous version of the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently carried out trial selection, data extraction and GRADE assessment of the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials in this update including a total of 2504 participants ranging in age from two to 95 years. Participants in the trials experienced open fractures, surgical wounds, traumatic wounds, anal fissures and chronic wounds. The trials were conducted in six different countries with the majority conducted in India and the USA. Three trials involving 148 participants compared cleansing with tap water with no cleansing. Eight trials involving 2204 participants assessed cleansing with tap water compared with cleansing with normal saline. Two trials involving 152 participants assessed cleansing with distilled water compared with cleansing with normal saline. One trial involving 51 participants also assessed cleansing with cooled boiled water compared with cleansing with normal saline, and cleansing with distilled water compared with cleansing with cooled boiled water. Wound infection: no trials reported on wound infection for the comparison cleansing with tap water versus no cleansing. For all wounds, eight trials found the effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline is uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.19); very low-certainty evidence. Two trials comparing the use of distilled water with normal saline for cleansing open fractures found that the effect on the number of fractures that were infected is uncertain (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.09); very low-certainty evidence. One trial compared the use of cooled boiled water with normal saline for cleansing open fractures and found that the effect on the number of fractures infected is uncertain (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.87); very low-certainty evidence. This trial also compared the use of distilled water with cooled boiled water and found that the effect on the number of fractures infected is uncertain (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.47); very low-certainty evidence. Wound healing: results from three trials comparing the use of tap water with no wound cleansing demonstrated there may be little or no difference in the number of wounds that did not heal between the groups (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.14); low-certainty evidence. The effect of tap water compared with normal saline is uncertain; two trials were pooled (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.07) but the certainty of the evidence is very low. Results from one study comparing the use of distilled water with normal saline for cleansing open fractures found that there may be little or no difference in the number of fractures that healed (RR could not be estimated, all wounds healed); the certainty of the evidence is low. Reduction in wound size: the effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline on wound size reduction is uncertain (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.68); the certainty of the evidence is very low. Rate of wound healing: the effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline on wound healing rate is uncertain (mean difference (MD) -3.06, 95% CI -6.70 to 0.58); the certainty of the evidence is very low.
COSTS
two trials reported cost analyses but the cost-effectiveness of tap water compared with the use of normal saline is uncertain; the certainty of the evidence is very low. Pain: results from one study comparing the use of tap water with no cleansing for acute and chronic wounds showed that there may be little or no difference in pain scores. The certainty of the evidence is low. Patient satisfaction: results from one study comparing the use of tap water with no cleansing for acute and chronic wounds showed that there may be little or no difference in patient satisfaction. The certainty of evidence is low. The effect of cleansing with tap water compared with normal saline is uncertain as the certainty of the evidence is very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
All the evidence identified in the review was low or very low certainty. Cleansing with tap water may make little or no difference to wound healing compared with no cleansing; there are no data relating to the impact on wound infection. The effects of cleansing with tap water, cooled boiled water or distilled water compared with cleansing with saline are uncertain, as is the effect of distilled water compared with cooled boiled water. Data for other outcomes are limited across all the comparisons considered and are either uncertain or suggest that there may be little or no difference in the outcome.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Child; Child, Preschool; Drinking Water; Fractures, Open; Humans; Middle Aged; Pain; Saline Solution; Sodium Chloride; Therapeutic Irrigation; Wound Infection; Young Adult
PubMed: 36103365
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003861.pub4 -
Brain Sciences Jun 2020Rett syndrome is a rare genetic disorder that affects brain development and causes severe mental and physical disability. This systematic review analyzes the most recent... (Review)
Review
Rett syndrome is a rare genetic disorder that affects brain development and causes severe mental and physical disability. This systematic review analyzes the most recent evidence concerning the role of physical therapy in the management of individuals with Rett syndrome. The review was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. A total of 17319 studies were found in the main scientific databases. Applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 22 studies were admitted to the final phase of the review. Level of evidence of the included studies was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine-Levels of Evidence guide. Nine approaches to physical therapy for patients with Rett syndrome were identified: applied behavior analysis, conductive education, environmental enrichment, traditional physiotherapy with or without aids, hydrotherapy, treadmill, music therapy, computerized systems, and sensory-based treatment. It has been reported that patients had clinically benefited from the analysed approaches despite the fact that they did not have strong research evidence. According to the results, a multimodal individualized physical therapy program should be regularly recommended to patients with Rett syndrome in order to preserve autonomy and to improve quality of life. However, more high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.
PubMed: 32630125
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci10070410 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a syndrome characterised by episodes of apnoea (complete cessation of breathing) or hypopnoea (insufficient breathing) during sleep.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a syndrome characterised by episodes of apnoea (complete cessation of breathing) or hypopnoea (insufficient breathing) during sleep. Classical symptoms of the disease - such as snoring, unsatisfactory rest and daytime sleepiness - are experienced mainly by men; women report more unspecific symptoms such as low energy or fatigue, tiredness, initial insomnia and morning headaches. OSA is associated with an increased risk of occupational injuries, metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, mortality, and being involved in traffic accidents. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) - delivered by a machine which uses a hose and mask or nosepiece to deliver constant and steady air pressure- is considered the first treatment option for most people with OSA. However, adherence to treatment is often suboptimal. Myofunctional therapy could be an alternative for many patients. Myofunctional therapy consists of combinations of oropharyngeal exercises - i.e. mouth and throat exercises. These combinations typically include both isotonic and isometric exercises involving several muscles and areas of the mouth, pharynx and upper respiratory tract, to work on functions such as speaking, breathing, blowing, sucking, chewing and swallowing.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of myofunctional therapy (oropharyngeal exercises) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Trials Register (date of last search 1 May 2020). We found other trials at web-based clinical trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that recruited adults and children with a diagnosis of OSA.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed our confidence in the evidence by using GRADE recommendations. Primary outcomes were daytime sleepiness, morbidity and mortality.
MAIN RESULTS
We found nine studies eligible for inclusion in this review and nine ongoing studies. The nine included RCTs analysed a total of 347 participants, 69 of them women and 13 children. The adults' mean ages ranged from 46 to 51, daytime sleepiness scores from eight to 14, and severity of the condition from mild to severe OSA. The studies' duration ranged from two to four months. None of the studies assessed accidents, cardiovascular diseases or mortality outcomes. We sought data about adverse events, but none of the included studies reported these. In adults, compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy: probably reduces daytime sleepiness (Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), MD (mean difference) -4.52 points, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -6.67 to -2.36; two studies, 82 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may increase sleep quality (MD -3.90 points, 95% CI -6.31 to -1.49; one study, 31 participants; low-certainty evidence); may result in a large reduction in Apnoea-Hypopnoea Index (AHI, MD -13.20 points, 95% CI -18.48 to -7.93; two studies, 82 participants; low-certainty evidence); may have little to no effect in reduction of snoring frequency but the evidence is very uncertain (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) -0.53 points, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.03; two studies, 67 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and probably reduces subjective snoring intensity slightly (MD -1.9 points, 95% CI -3.69 to -0.11 one study, 51 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to waiting list, myofunctional therapy may: reduce daytime sleepiness (ESS, change from baseline MD -3.00 points, 95% CI -5.47 to -0.53; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); result in little to no difference in sleep quality (MD -0.70 points, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.61; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence); and reduce AHI (MD -6.20 points, 95% CI -11.94 to -0.46; one study, 25 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to CPAP, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.30 points, 95% CI -1.65 to 2.25; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence); and may increase AHI (MD 9.60 points, 95% CI 2.46 to 16.74; one study, 54 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to CPAP plus myofunctional therapy, myofunctional therapy alone may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.56 to 2.96; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase AHI (MD 10.50 points, 95% CI 3.43 to 17.57; one study, 49 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to respiratory exercises plus nasal dilator strip, myofunctional therapy may result in little to no difference in daytime sleepiness (MD 0.20 points, 95% CI -2.46 to 2.86; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence); probably increases sleep quality slightly (-1.94 points, 95% CI -3.17 to -0.72; two studies, 97 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD -3.80 points, 95% CI -9.05 to 1.45; one study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to standard medical treatment, myofunctional therapy may reduce daytime sleepiness (MD -6.40 points, 95% CI -9.82 to -2.98; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase sleep quality (MD -3.10 points, 95% CI -5.12 to -1.08; one study, 26 participants; low-certainty evidence). In children, compared to nasal washing alone, myofunctional therapy and nasal washing may result in little to no difference in AHI (MD 3.00, 95% CI -0.26 to 6.26; one study, 13 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to sham therapy, myofunctional therapy probably reduces daytime sleepiness and may increase sleep quality in the short term. The certainty of the evidence for all comparisons ranges from moderate to very low, mainly due to lack of blinding of the assessors of subjective outcomes, incomplete outcome data and imprecision. More studies are needed. In future studies, outcome assessors should be blinded. New trials should recruit more participants, including more women and children, and have longer treatment and follow-up periods.
Topics: Apnea; Child; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Exercise; Female; Humans; Isotonic Contraction; Male; Middle Aged; Myofunctional Therapy; Oropharynx; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Snoring; Therapeutic Irrigation; Waiting Lists
PubMed: 33141943
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013449.pub2