{"title":"下肢截肢患者接受血液透析的康复效果:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Yoshitaka Wada, Yohei Otaka, Yuki Senju, Hiroshi Hosokawa, Takamichi Tohyama, Hirofumi Maeda, Masahiko Mukaino, Seiko Shibata, Satoshi Hirano","doi":"10.2340/jrmcc.v5.2525","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the functional outcomes of patients with lower limb amputations receiving haemodialysis and those not receiving haemodialysis.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Patients with lower limb amputation who were admitted to a convalescent rehabilitation ward between January 2018 and December 2021.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary outcome was the effectiveness of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) during hospitalisation in the ward. Secondary outcomes included the total and subtotal (motor/cognitive) FIM scores at discharge, gain in the total and subtotal (motor/cognitive) FIM scores, K-level at discharge, length of hospital stay in the ward, rehabilitation time, and discharge destination. Outcomes were compared between the non-haemodialysis and haemodialysis groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 28 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 67.0 [11.9] years; men, 20) were enrolled in this study. Among them, 11 patients underwent haemodialysis. The FIM effectiveness was significantly higher in the non-haemodialysis group than in the haemodialysis group (median [interquartile range], 0.78 [0.72 - 0.81] vs 0.65 [0.28 - 0.75], <i>p</i> = 0.038). The amount of rehabilitation and all secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with lower limb amputation who were receiving haemodialysis had poorer FIM effectiveness than those not receiving haemodialysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":73929,"journal":{"name":"Journal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/44/19/JRMCC-5-2525.PMC9707531.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"REHABILITATION OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH LOWER LIMB AMPUTATION RECEIVING HAEMODIALYSIS: A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY.\",\"authors\":\"Yoshitaka Wada, Yohei Otaka, Yuki Senju, Hiroshi Hosokawa, Takamichi Tohyama, Hirofumi Maeda, Masahiko Mukaino, Seiko Shibata, Satoshi Hirano\",\"doi\":\"10.2340/jrmcc.v5.2525\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the functional outcomes of patients with lower limb amputations receiving haemodialysis and those not receiving haemodialysis.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Patients with lower limb amputation who were admitted to a convalescent rehabilitation ward between January 2018 and December 2021.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The primary outcome was the effectiveness of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) during hospitalisation in the ward. Secondary outcomes included the total and subtotal (motor/cognitive) FIM scores at discharge, gain in the total and subtotal (motor/cognitive) FIM scores, K-level at discharge, length of hospital stay in the ward, rehabilitation time, and discharge destination. Outcomes were compared between the non-haemodialysis and haemodialysis groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 28 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 67.0 [11.9] years; men, 20) were enrolled in this study. Among them, 11 patients underwent haemodialysis. The FIM effectiveness was significantly higher in the non-haemodialysis group than in the haemodialysis group (median [interquartile range], 0.78 [0.72 - 0.81] vs 0.65 [0.28 - 0.75], <i>p</i> = 0.038). The amount of rehabilitation and all secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with lower limb amputation who were receiving haemodialysis had poorer FIM effectiveness than those not receiving haemodialysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/44/19/JRMCC-5-2525.PMC9707531.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2340/jrmcc.v5.2525\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of rehabilitation medicine. Clinical communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/jrmcc.v5.2525","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
REHABILITATION OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH LOWER LIMB AMPUTATION RECEIVING HAEMODIALYSIS: A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY.
Objective: To compare the functional outcomes of patients with lower limb amputations receiving haemodialysis and those not receiving haemodialysis.
Design: A retrospective cohort study.
Patients: Patients with lower limb amputation who were admitted to a convalescent rehabilitation ward between January 2018 and December 2021.
Methods: The primary outcome was the effectiveness of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) during hospitalisation in the ward. Secondary outcomes included the total and subtotal (motor/cognitive) FIM scores at discharge, gain in the total and subtotal (motor/cognitive) FIM scores, K-level at discharge, length of hospital stay in the ward, rehabilitation time, and discharge destination. Outcomes were compared between the non-haemodialysis and haemodialysis groups.
Results: A total of 28 patients (mean [standard deviation] age, 67.0 [11.9] years; men, 20) were enrolled in this study. Among them, 11 patients underwent haemodialysis. The FIM effectiveness was significantly higher in the non-haemodialysis group than in the haemodialysis group (median [interquartile range], 0.78 [0.72 - 0.81] vs 0.65 [0.28 - 0.75], p = 0.038). The amount of rehabilitation and all secondary outcomes were not significantly different between the groups (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Patients with lower limb amputation who were receiving haemodialysis had poorer FIM effectiveness than those not receiving haemodialysis.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
