Background: Despite a shared purpose of improving functional capacity, the principles of progressive resistance training (PRT) and balance and motor control training (BMCT) are fundamentally different. Objectives: To investigate the effects of PRT and BMCT on gait performance and fatigue impact in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Methods: A multi-center, single-blinded, cluster-randomized controlled trial with two intervention groups (PRT and BMCT) and a control group (CON). The interventions lasted 10 weeks. A total of 71 participants with impaired mobility (Timed 25-Foot Walk (T25FW) > 5 seconds or Six Spot Step Test (SSST) > 8 seconds) were enrolled. Primary outcomes were the T25FW and the SSST. Fatigue impact, self-perceived gait function, 6-minute walk, balance, and muscle strength were secondary outcomes. Results: In total, 83% completed the study. The primary comparisons showed that BMCT, but not PRT, improved T25FW, SSST, and self-perceived gait function when compared to CON. Secondary comparisons showed that BMCT improved SSST more than PRT, while T25FW did not differ. Both BMCT and PRT reduced the fatigue impact. Finally, the effect of BMCT was superior to PRT on dynamic balance, while PRT was superior to BMCT on knee extensor muscle strength. Conclusion: BMCT, but not PRT, was superior to CON in improving gait performance, while both BMCT and PRT reduced fatigue.

No abstract

No abstract

Background The available literature does not present a “gold standard” for post‐operative pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this prospective observational study was to explore and document post‐operative pain treatment, including outcomes, in a large cohort of patients undergoing THA at five different Danish hospitals. Methods This prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study of 501 THA patients was performed at five different hospitals in the Capital Region and at the Region Zealand in Denmark, from April 2014 to April 2016. The study had two co‐primary outcomes: Pain during mobilisation at 6 hours post‐operatively (numeric rating scale [NRS] [0‐10]) and morphine consumption 0‐24 hours post‐operatively. Results A large variety of analgesic treatments were used at the included hospitals and none of the hospitals used the same non‐opioid basic analgesic regimen. For all patients at all hospitals, the NRS–pain level during mobilisation at 6 hours was 5 (3‐6), (median [interquartile range]) and the 24‐hour intravenous morphine (eqv) consumption was 25 mg (18‐35). Although some statistically significant differences between hospitals were found for morphine use, no non‐opioid analgesic regimen demonstrated consistent clinically relevant superior efficacy. In general, pain levels at rest were low to moderate and pain during mobilisation was moderate. Conclusions Analgesic treatment routines differed between hospitals. Pain levels, however, did not differ substantially and were in general low at rest and moderate during mobilisation. No non‐opioid analgesic treatment demonstrated consistent analgesic superiority.

No abstract