Search

BackgroundFall risk in the elderly is a major public health issue due to the injury-related consequences and the risk of associated long-term disability. However, delivering preventive interventions in usual clinical practice still represents a challenge.AimTo evaluate the efficacy of a multiple-component combined with a multifactorial personalized intervention in reducing fall rates in a mixed population of community-dwelling elderly compared to usual care.DesignRandomized Controlled Trial (NCT03592420, clinicalTrials.gov).SettingOutpatients in two Italian centers.Population403 community-dwelling elderly at moderate-to-high fall risk, including subjects with Parkinson's Disease and stroke.MethodsAfter the randomization, the described interventions were administered to the intervention group (n = 203). The control group (n = 200) received usual care and recommendations to minimize fall risk factors. In addition, each participant received a fall diary, followed by 12 monthly phone calls. The primary endpoint was the total number of falls in each group over 12 months, while the secondary endpoints were other fall-related indicators recorded at one year. In addition, participants' functioning was assessed at baseline (T1) and 3-month (T3).Results690 falls were reported at 12 months, 48.8% in the intervention and 51.2% in the control group, with 1.66 (± 3.5) and 1.77 (± 3.2) mean falls per subject, respectively. Subjects with ≥ 1 fall and ≥2 falls were, respectively, 236 (58.6%) and 148 (36.7%). No statistically significant differences were observed between groups regarding the number of falls, the falling probability, and the time to the first fall. According to the subgroup analysis, no significant differences were reported. However, a statistically significant difference was found for the Mini-BESTest (p = 0.004) and the Fullerton Advanced Balance Scale (p = 0.006) for the intervention group, with a small effect size (Cohen's d 0.26 and 0.32, respectively), at T1 and T3 evaluations.ConclusionsThe intervention was ineffective in reducing the number of falls, the falling probability, and the time to the first fall at 12 months in a mixed population of community-dwelling elderly. A significant improvement for two balance indicators was recorded in the intervention group. Future studies are needed to explore different effects of the proposed interventions to reduce falls and consequences.

In Italy, at present, a well-known problem is inhomogeneous provision of rehabilitative services, as stressed by MoH, requiring appropriate criteria and parameters to plan rehabilitation actions. According to the Italian National Rehabilitation Plan, Comorbidity, Disability and Clinical Complexity should be assessed to define the patient's real needs. However, to date, clinical complexity is still difficult to measure with shared and validated tools. The study aims to psychometrically validate the Italian Rehabilitation Complexity Scale-Extended v13 (RCS-E v13), in order to meet the guidelines requirements. An observational multicentre prospective cohort study, involving 8 intensive rehabilitation facilities of the Emilia-Romagna Region and 1712 in-patients, [823 male (48%) and 889 female (52%), mean age 68.34 years (95% CI 67.69-69.00 years)] showing neurological, orthopaedic and cardiological problems, was carried out. The construct and concurrent validity of the RCS-E v13 was confirmed through its correlation to Barthel Index (disability) and Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (comorbidity) and appropriate admission criteria (not yet published), respectively. Furthermore, the factor analysis indicated two different components ("Basic Care or Risk-Equipment" and "Medical-Nursing Needs and Therapy Disciplines") of the RCS-E v13. In conclusion, the Italian RCS-E v13 appears to be a useful tool to assess clinical complexity in the Italian rehab scenario case-mix and its psychometric validation may have an important clinical rehabilitation impact allowing the assessment of the rehabilitation needs considering all three dimensions (disability, comorbidity and clinical complexity) as required by the Guidelines and the inhomogeneity could be reduced.

Surgical resection appears to be the most effective treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer. Recent studies suggest that perioperative pulmonary rehabilitation improves functional capacity, reduces mortality and postoperative complications and enhances recovery and quality of life in operated patients. Our aim is to analyse and identify the most recent evidence-based physical exercise interventions, performed before or after surgery. We searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO. We included randomised controlled trials aimed at assessing efficacy of exercise-training programmes; physical therapy interventions had to be described in detail in order to be reproducible. Characteristics of studies and programmes, results and outcome data were extracted. Six studies were included, one describing preoperative rehabilitation and three assessing postoperative intervention. It seems that the best preoperative physical therapy training should include aerobic and strength training with a duration of 2–4 weeks. Although results showed improvement in exercise performance after preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation, it was not possible to identify the best preoperative intervention due to paucity of clinical trials in this area. Physical training programmes differed in every postoperative study with conflicting results, so comparison is difficult. Current literature shows inconsistent results regarding preoperative or postoperative physical exercise in patients undergoing lung resection. Even though few randomised trials were retrieved, treatment protocols were difficult to compare due to variability in design and implementation. Further studies with larger samples and better methodological quality are urgently needed to assess efficacy of both preoperative and postoperative exercise programmes.