Search

Background: Evaluation of how Motor Imagery and conventional therapy (physiotherapy or occupational therapy) compare to conventional therapy only in their effects on clinically relevant outcomes during rehabilitation of persons with stroke. Design: Systematic review of the literature Methods: We conducted an electronic database search in seven databases in August 2005 and also hand-searched the bibliographies of studies that we selected for the review. Two reviewers independently screened and selected all randomized controlled trials that compare the effects of conventional therapy plus Motor Imagery to those of only conventional therapy on stroke patients. The outcome measurements were: Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment upper extremity score (66 points) and Action Research Arm Test upper extremity score (57 points). Due to the high variability in the outcomes, we could not pool the data statistically. Results: We identified four randomized controlled trials from Asia and North America. The quality of the included studies was poor to moderate. Two different Motor imagery techniques were used (three studies used audiotapes and one study had occupational therapists apply the intervention). Two studies found significant effects of Motor Imagery in the Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment: Differences between groups amounted to 11.0 (1.0 to 21.0) and 3.2 (-4 to 10.3) respectively and in the Action Research Arm Test 6.1 (-6.2 to 18.4) and 15.8 (0.5 to 31.0) respectively. One study did not find a significant effect in the Fugl-Meyer Stroke Assessment and Color trail Test (p = 0.28) but in the task-related outcomes (p > 0.001). Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that Motor imagery provides additional benefits to conventional physiotherapy or occupational therapy. However, larger and methodologically sounder studies should be conducted to assess the benefits of Motor imagery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To use the concept of benchmarking to establish robust and standardized outcome references after pancreatico-duodenectomy (PD)., Background: Best achievable results after PD are unknown. Consequently, outcome comparisons among different cohorts, centers or with novel surgical techniques remain speculative., Methods: This multicenter study analyzes consecutive patients (2012-2015) undergoing PD in 23 international expert centers in pancreas surgery. Outcomes in patients without significant comorbidities and major vascular resection (benchmark cases) were analyzed to establish 20 outcome benchmarks for PD. These benchmarks were tested in a cohort with a poorer preoperative physical status (ASA class ≥3) and a cohort treated by minimally invasive approaches., Results: Two thousand three hundred seventy-five (38%) low-risk cases out of a total of 6186 PDs were analyzed, disclosing low in-hospital mortality (≤1.6%) but high morbidity, with a 73% benchmark morbidity rate cumulated within 6 months following surgery. Benchmark cutoffs for pancreatic fistulas (B-C), severe complications (≥ grade 3), and failure-to-rescue rate were 19%, 30%, and 9%, respectively. The ASA ≥3 cohort showed comparable morbidity but a higher in hospital-mortality (3% vs 1.6%) and failure-to-rescue rate (16% vs 9%) than the benchmarks. The proportion of benchmark cases performed varied greatly across centers and continents for both open (9%-93%) and minimally invasive (11%-62%) PD. Centers operating mostly on complex PD cases disclosed better results than those with a majority of low-risk cases., Conclusion: The proposed outcome benchmarks for PD, established in a large-scale international patient cohort and tested in 2 different cohorts, may allow for meaningful comparisons between different patient cohorts, centers, countries, and surgical techniques.