PubMed İndeksli Açık & Kapalı Erişimli Yayınlar

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/10756

Browse

Filters

20192

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Ozkoslu, Manolya Acar

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Targeted Treatment Protocol in Patellofemoral Pain: Does Treatment Designed According to Subgroups Improve Clinical Outcomes in Patients Unresponsive to Multimodal Treatment?
    (2019) Yosmaoglu, Hayri Baran; Selfe, James; Sonmezer, Emel; Sahin, Ilknur Ezgi; Duygu, Senay Cerezci; Ozkoslu, Manolya Acar; Richards, Jim; Jenssen, Jessica; 31750786; AAA-4826-2020
    Background: Targeted intervention for subgroups is a promising approach for the management of patellofemoral pain. Hypothesis: Treatment designed according to subgroups will improve clinical outcomes in patients unresponsive to multimodal treatment. Study Design: Prospective crossover intervention. Methods: Patients with patellofemoral pain (PFP; n = 61; mean age, 27 +/- 9 years) were enrolled. Patients with PFP received standard multimodal treatment 3 times a week for 6 weeks. Patients not responding to multimodal treatment were then classified into 1 of 3 subgroups (strong, weak and tight, and weak and pronated foot) using 6 simple clinical tests. They were subsequently administered 6 further weeks of targeted intervention, designed according to subgroup characteristics. Visual analog scale (VAS), perception of recovery scale (PRS), 5-Level European Quality 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L), and self-reported version of the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs scale (S-LANSS) were used to assess pain, knee function, and quality of life before and after the interventions. Results: In total, 34% (n = 21) of patients demonstrated recovery after multimodal treatment. However, over 70% (n = 29/40) of nonresponders demonstrated recovery after targeted treatment. The VAS, PRS, S-LANSS, and EQ-5D-5L scores improved significantly after targeted intervention compared with after multimodal treatment (P < 0.001). The VAS score at rest was significantly lower in the "weak and pronated foot" and the "weak and tight" subgroups (P = 0.011 and P = 0.008, respectively). Posttreatment pain intensity on activity was significantly lower in the "strong" subgroup (P = 0.006). Conclusion: Targeted treatment designed according to subgroup characteristics improves clinical outcomes in patients unresponsive to multimodal treatment.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Effect of tele-rehabilitation on glucose control, exercise capacity, physical fitness, muscle strength and psychosocial status in patients with type 2 diabetes: A double blind randomized controlled trial
    (2019) Duruturk, Neslihan; Ozkoslu, Manolya Acar; 31014938; AAD-3908-2020
    Aim: To determine the effect of a tele-rehabilitation (TR) program on glucose control, exercise capacity, physical fitness, muscle strength and psychosocial status in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Method: Fifty type 2 DM participants were enrolled in the study and divided randomly into two groups; TR (n = 25, mean age: 52.82 +/- 11.86) or control (n =25, mean age: 53.04 +/- 10.45) group. Participants in the TR group performed breathing and callisthenic exercises, three times a week, for 6 weeks, at home by internet based video conferences. Outcome measures including, HbA1c level, 6 min walk testing, physical fitness and muscle strength dynamometer measurement, Beck Depression Inventory were performed before and after the 6 weeks. Results: HbA1c (p = 0.00), 6 min walking distance (p = 0.00), physical fitness subparameters; sit-up (p = 0.00), sit-and-reach (p = 0.04), back scratch (p = 0.00), lateral flexion right (p = 0.04), left (p = 0.00) and time up go tests (p = 0.00), muscles strength (p = 0.00); deltoideus-anterior, middle, quadriceps femoris and gluteus maximus, and depression levels (p = 0.00) changed significantly (p = 0.00) in TR groups. There were no significant improvements in control group p >0.05). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that TR interventions found to be safe and effective, and may be an alternative treatment model for type 2 DM management. In addition to these health benefits, patients and rehabilitation team may save time, labor and treatment costs by using TR. (C) 2019 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.