L Porteau-Cassard, L Zabraniecki, C Dromer, B Fournié
{"title":"图卢兹-珀潘教学医院的后备学校项目。144例患者的评估。","authors":"L Porteau-Cassard, L Zabraniecki, C Dromer, B Fournié","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Unlabelled: </strong>This article reports our experience with a five-day back school program focusing on active exercises, safe lifting, and occupational therapy.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>The medical charts of 144 back school patients were reviewed retrospectively. Age, gender, type of low back pain, radiological findings, impact on work and psychological well-being, surgical history, and history of prior back school experience were recorded on the first and last back school session days (D1 and D5), after six months (M6), and after 12 months (M12). Efficacy was evaluated based on the number of days off work, Schöber's index, a visual analog scale pain score, and scores evaluating the active exercise, safe lifting, and occupational therapy techniques taught during the back school course.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All evaluation scores were significantly better on D5 than on D1. This effect was sustained over time. The pain score fell by 50% between D1 and D5 (32.6 +/- 23.1 versus 16.3 +/- 18.5) and remained low at M6 and M12 (18.1 +/- 19.5 and 14.8 +/- 19.3) The number of days off work fell dramatically from baseline to M6 (51.2 +/- 63.8 vs 9.8 +/- 38.8) and remained low at M12. Forty-four patients were lost-to-follow-up between D5 and M6.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Back school interventions are helpful in preventing recurrences of low back pain. Our promising data deserve to be confirmed in a larger study involving quality of life assessments, determination of the number of physician visits for low back pain during the M0-M6 and M6-M12 periods, and a comprehensive evaluation after 18 months.</p>","PeriodicalId":79371,"journal":{"name":"Revue du rhumatisme (English ed.)","volume":"66 10","pages":"477-83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A back school program at the Toulouse-Purpan teaching hospital. Evaluation of 144 patients.\",\"authors\":\"L Porteau-Cassard, L Zabraniecki, C Dromer, B Fournié\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Unlabelled: </strong>This article reports our experience with a five-day back school program focusing on active exercises, safe lifting, and occupational therapy.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>The medical charts of 144 back school patients were reviewed retrospectively. Age, gender, type of low back pain, radiological findings, impact on work and psychological well-being, surgical history, and history of prior back school experience were recorded on the first and last back school session days (D1 and D5), after six months (M6), and after 12 months (M12). Efficacy was evaluated based on the number of days off work, Schöber's index, a visual analog scale pain score, and scores evaluating the active exercise, safe lifting, and occupational therapy techniques taught during the back school course.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All evaluation scores were significantly better on D5 than on D1. This effect was sustained over time. The pain score fell by 50% between D1 and D5 (32.6 +/- 23.1 versus 16.3 +/- 18.5) and remained low at M6 and M12 (18.1 +/- 19.5 and 14.8 +/- 19.3) The number of days off work fell dramatically from baseline to M6 (51.2 +/- 63.8 vs 9.8 +/- 38.8) and remained low at M12. Forty-four patients were lost-to-follow-up between D5 and M6.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Back school interventions are helpful in preventing recurrences of low back pain. Our promising data deserve to be confirmed in a larger study involving quality of life assessments, determination of the number of physician visits for low back pain during the M0-M6 and M6-M12 periods, and a comprehensive evaluation after 18 months.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79371,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revue du rhumatisme (English ed.)\",\"volume\":\"66 10\",\"pages\":\"477-83\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revue du rhumatisme (English ed.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revue du rhumatisme (English ed.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
未注明:这篇文章报告了我们五天的返校课程的经验,重点是积极锻炼、安全举重和职业治疗。患者与方法:回顾性分析144例背校患者的病历资料。年龄、性别、腰痛类型、放射学表现、对工作和心理健康的影响、手术史和以前的背部学校经历记录在第一次和最后一次背部学校课程日(D1和D5)、6个月后(M6)和12个月后(M12)。疗效评估基于休假天数,Schöber指数,视觉模拟量表疼痛评分,以及评估积极运动,安全举重和背部学校课程中教授的职业治疗技术的评分。结果:D5组各指标评分均显著高于D1组。这种影响持续了一段时间。疼痛评分在D1和D5之间下降了50% (32.6 +/- 23.1 vs 16.3 +/- 18.5),在M6和M12时仍然很低(18.1 +/- 19.5和14.8 +/- 19.3)。休假天数从基线急剧下降到M6 (51.2 +/- 63.8 vs 9.8 +/- 38.8),在M12时仍然很低。44例患者在D5至M6间失访。结论:背部学校干预有助于预防腰痛复发。我们有希望的数据值得在更大的研究中得到证实,包括生活质量评估,确定M0-M6和M6-M12期间腰痛的医生就诊次数,以及18个月后的综合评估。
A back school program at the Toulouse-Purpan teaching hospital. Evaluation of 144 patients.
Unlabelled: This article reports our experience with a five-day back school program focusing on active exercises, safe lifting, and occupational therapy.
Patients and methods: The medical charts of 144 back school patients were reviewed retrospectively. Age, gender, type of low back pain, radiological findings, impact on work and psychological well-being, surgical history, and history of prior back school experience were recorded on the first and last back school session days (D1 and D5), after six months (M6), and after 12 months (M12). Efficacy was evaluated based on the number of days off work, Schöber's index, a visual analog scale pain score, and scores evaluating the active exercise, safe lifting, and occupational therapy techniques taught during the back school course.
Results: All evaluation scores were significantly better on D5 than on D1. This effect was sustained over time. The pain score fell by 50% between D1 and D5 (32.6 +/- 23.1 versus 16.3 +/- 18.5) and remained low at M6 and M12 (18.1 +/- 19.5 and 14.8 +/- 19.3) The number of days off work fell dramatically from baseline to M6 (51.2 +/- 63.8 vs 9.8 +/- 38.8) and remained low at M12. Forty-four patients were lost-to-follow-up between D5 and M6.
Conclusion: Back school interventions are helpful in preventing recurrences of low back pain. Our promising data deserve to be confirmed in a larger study involving quality of life assessments, determination of the number of physician visits for low back pain during the M0-M6 and M6-M12 periods, and a comprehensive evaluation after 18 months.