Effect of a Simple Exercise Program on Hospitalization-Associated Disability in Older Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectiveHospitalization-associated disability [HAD, ie, the loss of ability to perform ≥1 basic activities of daily living (ADLs) independently at discharge] is a frequent condition among older patients. The present study assessed whether a simple inpatient exercise program decreases HAD incidence in acutely hospitalized very old patients.DesignIn this randomized controlled trial (Activity in Geriatric Acute Care) participants were assigned to a control or intervention group and were assessed at baseline, admission, discharge, and 3 months thereafter.Setting and ParticipantsIn total, 268 patients (mean age 88 years, range 75–102) admitted to an acute care for older patients unit of a public hospital were randomized to a control (n = 125) or intervention (exercise) group (n = 143).MethodsBoth groups received usual care, and patients in the intervention group also performed simple supervised exercises (walking and rising from a chair, for a total duration of ∼20 minutes/day). We measured ADL function (Katz index) and incident HAD at discharge and after 3 months (primary outcome) and Short Physical Performance Battery, ambulatory capacity, number of falls, rehospitalization, and death during a 3-month follow-up (secondary outcomes).ResultsMedian duration of hospitalization was 7 days (interquartile range 4 days). The intervention group had a lower risk of HAD with reference to both baseline [odds ratio (OR) 0.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17–0.76, P = .007] and admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10–0.89, P = .030). A trend toward an improved ADL function at discharge vs admission was found in the intervention group compared with controls (OR 0.32; 95% CI ‒0.04 to 0.68; P = .083). No between-group differences were noted for the other endpoints (all P > .05).Conclusion and ImplicationsA simple inpatient exercise program decreases risk of HAD in acutely hospitalized, very old patients.     

Are hand biomechanics affected following radial forearm flap harvest? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Donor site morbidity following radial forearm flap (RFF) harvest remains a controversial issue. The aim of this meta-analysis was to answer the question “Are the range of wrist movements (range of motion, ROM) and hand strength affected after RFF harvesting?” The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched (to December 2019). Self-controlled studies evaluating hand biomechanics after RFF harvest were included. Weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random-effects model. The outcome variables were ROM, forearm movements, grip, and pinch strengths. Thirteen studies involving a total of 335 patients were included. With the exception of grip strength and supination, which showed statistically significant reductions of about 2.40 kg and 2.86° (P < 0.05), all other ROM, forearm movements, and pinch strengths showed an insignificant difference when the operated hand was compared to the non-operated hand (P > 0.05). Regression analysis showed that the method of donor site closure and size of the donor site defect had an insignificant impact on hand biomechanics. This study confirms the lack of discernible biomechanical morbidity after RFF transfer. The minimal reduction in hand biomechanics after RFF is considered to be clinically negligible.     

Tester and testing procedure influence clinically determined gait speed

BackgroundThere is a clinical need to be able to reliably detect meaningful changes (0.1 to 0.2 m/s) in usual gait speed (UGS) considering reduced gait speed is associated with morbidity and mortality.Research questionWhat is the impact of tester on UGS assessment, and the influence of test repetition (trial 1 vs. 2), timing method (manual stopwatch vs. automated timing), and starting condition (stationary vs. dynamic start) on the ability to detect changes in UGS and fast gait speed (FGS)?MethodsUGS and FGS was assessed in 725 participants on a 8-m course with infrared timing gates positioned at 0, 2, 4 and 6 m. Testing was performed by one of 13 testers trained by a single researcher. Time to walk 4-m from a stationary start (i.e. from 0-m to 4-m) was measured manually using a stopwatch and automatically via the timing gates at 0-m and 4-m. Time taken to walk 4-m with a dynamic start was measured during the same trial by recording the time to walk between the timing gates at 2-m and 6-m (i.e. after 2-m acceleration).ResultsTesters differed for UGS measured using manual vs. automated timing (p = 0.02), with five and two testers recording slower and faster UGS using manual timing, respectively. 95% limits of agreement for trial 1 vs. 2, manual vs. automated timing, and dynamic vs. stationary start ranged from ±0.15 m/s to ±0.20 m/s, coinciding with the range for a clinically meaningful change. Limits of agreement for FGS were larger ranging from ±0.26 m/s to ±0.35 m/s.SignificanceRepeat testing of UGS should performed by the same tester or using an automated timing method to control for tester effects. Test protocol should remain constant both between and within participants as protocol deviations may result in detection of an artificial clinically meaningful change.