Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Osteoporos Int. 2019 Nov 12. doi: 10.1007/s00198-019-05133-0. [Epub ahead of print]

Physiotherapy rehabilitation for osteoporotic vertebral fracture-a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation (PROVE trial).

Author information

1
Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK. karen.barker@ouh.nhs.uk.
2
Physiotherapy Research Unit, Physiotherapy Department, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK. karen.barker@ouh.nhs.uk.
3
Physiotherapy Research Unit, Physiotherapy Department, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.
4
Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
5
Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
6
Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK.

Abstract

The trial compared three physiotherapy approaches: manual or exercise therapy compared with a single session of physiotherapy education (SSPT) for people with osteoporotic vertebral fracture(s). At 1 year, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups meaning there is inadequate evidence to support manual or exercise therapy.

INTRODUCTION:

To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of different physiotherapy approaches for people with osteoporotic vertebral fracture(s) (OVF).

METHODS:

>Prospective, multicentre, adaptive, three-arm randomised controlled trial. Six hundred fifteen adults with back pain, osteoporosis, and at least 1 OVF participated.

INTERVENTIONS:

7 individual physiotherapy sessions over 12 weeks focused on either manual therapy or home exercise compared with a single session of physiotherapy education (SSPT). The co-primary outcomes were quality of life and back muscle endurance measured by the QUALEFFO-41 and timed loaded standing (TLS) test at 12 months.

RESULTS:

At 12 months, there were no statistically significant differences between groups. Mean QUALEFFO-41: - 1.3 (exercise), - 0.15 (manual), and - 1.2 (SSPT), a mean difference of - 0.2 (95% CI, - 3.2 to 1.6) for exercise and 1.3 (95% CI, - 1.8 to 2.9) for manual therapy. Mean TLS: 9.8 s (exercise), 13.6 s (manual), and 4.2 s (SSPT), a mean increase of 5.8 s (95% CI, - 4.8 to 20.5) for exercise and 9.7 s (95% CI, 0.1 to 24.9) for manual therapy. Exercise provided more quality-adjusted life years than SSPT but was more expensive. At 4 months, significant changes above SSPT occurred in endurance and balance in manual therapy, and in endurance for those ≤ 70 years, in balance, mobility, and walking in exercise.

CONCLUSIONS:

Adherence was problematic. Benefits at 4 months did not persist and at 12 months, we found no significant differences between treatments. There is inadequate evidence a short physiotherapy intervention of either manual therapy or home exercise provides long-term benefits, but arguably short-term benefits are valuable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ISRCTN 49117867.

KEYWORDS:

Exercise therapy; Manual therapy; Osteoporosis; Physical therapy; Rehabilitation; Spinal fracture

PMID:
31720722
DOI:
10.1007/s00198-019-05133-0

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center