Clinical Utility and Patient Compliance With Mobile Applications for Home-Based Rehabilitation Following Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Adam Cole, Matthew W Parry, Alex Tang, Frank Vazquez, Tan Chen
{"title":"Clinical Utility and Patient Compliance With Mobile Applications for Home-Based Rehabilitation Following Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.","authors":"Adam Cole, Matthew W Parry, Alex Tang, Frank Vazquez, Tan Chen","doi":"10.1177/21925682241282278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective chart review.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) via open or minimally invasive (MI) techniques is commonly performed. Mobile applications for home-based therapy programs have grown in popularity. The purpose of this study was to (1) compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between postoperative patients who were the most and least compliant in using the mobile-based rehabilitation programs, (2) compare PROMs between open vs MI-TLIF cohorts, and (3) quantify overall compliance rates of home-based rehabilitation programs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review was performed. Patients were automatically enrolled in the rehabilitation program. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were collected. Patients were separated into two study groups. Compliance rate was calculated as the difference between the number of active participants at the preoperative phase and final follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>220 patients were included. Average follow-up time was 23.2 months. No difference was found in the change in (∆) PROMIS scores (<i>P</i> = 0.261) or ∆ODI scores (<i>P</i> = 0.690) regardless of patient compliance. No difference was found in outcome scores between open vs MI-TLIF techniques stratified by download compliance (downloaded, DL+; did not download, DL-) and phone reminder compliance (set reminder, R+; did not set reminder, R-) postoperatively. Both cohorts demonstrated clinical improvement exceeding minimal clinically important difference at final follow-up. Overall patient compliance was 71% at final postoperative follow up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Despite high long-term compliance and rising popularity, mobile applications for home-based postoperative rehabilitation programs have low clinical utility in patients undergoing TLIF.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241282278","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective chart review.

Objectives: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) via open or minimally invasive (MI) techniques is commonly performed. Mobile applications for home-based therapy programs have grown in popularity. The purpose of this study was to (1) compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between postoperative patients who were the most and least compliant in using the mobile-based rehabilitation programs, (2) compare PROMs between open vs MI-TLIF cohorts, and (3) quantify overall compliance rates of home-based rehabilitation programs.

Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed. Patients were automatically enrolled in the rehabilitation program. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were collected. Patients were separated into two study groups. Compliance rate was calculated as the difference between the number of active participants at the preoperative phase and final follow-up.

Results: 220 patients were included. Average follow-up time was 23.2 months. No difference was found in the change in (∆) PROMIS scores (P = 0.261) or ∆ODI scores (P = 0.690) regardless of patient compliance. No difference was found in outcome scores between open vs MI-TLIF techniques stratified by download compliance (downloaded, DL+; did not download, DL-) and phone reminder compliance (set reminder, R+; did not set reminder, R-) postoperatively. Both cohorts demonstrated clinical improvement exceeding minimal clinically important difference at final follow-up. Overall patient compliance was 71% at final postoperative follow up.

Conclusion: Despite high long-term compliance and rising popularity, mobile applications for home-based postoperative rehabilitation programs have low clinical utility in patients undergoing TLIF.

经椎间孔腰椎椎体融合术后居家康复移动应用的临床实用性和患者依从性。
研究设计回顾性病历审查:通过开放或微创(MI)技术进行经椎间孔腰椎椎体融合术(TLIF)是常见的手术方式。用于家庭治疗项目的移动应用程序越来越受欢迎。本研究的目的是:(1) 比较使用移动康复项目依从性最高和最低的术后患者的患者报告结果指标(PROMs);(2) 比较开放式和微创式 TLIF 患者的 PROMs;(3) 量化家庭康复项目的总体依从率:方法: 对病历进行回顾性分析。患者自动加入康复计划。收集了患者报告结果测量信息系统(PROMIS)和Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)评分。患者被分为两个研究组。依从率按术前阶段积极参与者人数与最终随访人数之差计算。平均随访时间为 23.2 个月。无论患者依从性如何,PROMIS (∆) 评分(P = 0.261)或 ∆ODI 评分(P = 0.690)的变化均无差异。根据下载依从性(已下载,DL+;未下载,DL-)和电话提醒依从性(已设置提醒,R+;未设置提醒,R-)对术后开放式与 MI-TLIF 技术的结果评分进行分层,未发现两者之间存在差异。在最终随访中,两组患者的临床改善均超过了最小临床重要差异。术后最终随访时,患者的总体依从性为 71%:尽管长期依从性很高,而且越来越受欢迎,但在接受TLIF手术的患者中,基于家庭的术后康复计划移动应用的临床实用性较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信