The highly infectious and pathogenic novel coronavirus (CoV), severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2, has emerged causing a global pandemic. Although COVID-19 predominantly affects the respiratory system, evidence indicates a multisystem disease which is frequently severe and often results in death. Long-term sequelae of COVID-19 are unknown, but evidence from previous CoV outbreaks demonstrates impaired pulmonary and physical function, reduced quality of life and emotional distress. Many COVID-19 survivors who require critical care may develop psychological, physical and cognitive impairments. There is a clear need for guidance on the rehabilitation of COVID-19 survivors. This consensus statement was developed by an expert panel in the fields of rehabilitation, sport and exercise medicine (SEM), rheumatology, psychiatry, general practice, psychology and specialist pain, working at the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre, Stanford Hall, UK. Seven teams appraised evidence for the following domains relating to COVID-19 rehabilitation requirements: pulmonary, cardiac, SEM, psychological, musculoskeletal, neurorehabilitation and general medical. A chair combined recommendations generated within teams. A writing committee prepared the consensus statement in accordance with the appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation criteria, grading all recommendations with levels of evidence. Authors scored their level of agreement with each recommendation on a scale of 0–10. Substantial agreement (range 7.5–10) was reached for 36 recommendations following a chaired agreement meeting that was attended by all authors. This consensus statement provides an overarching framework assimilating evidence and likely requirements of multidisciplinary rehabilitation post COVID-19 illness, for a target population of active individuals, including military personnel and athletes.

Background: There is growing evidence to support the use of low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) exercise in musculoskeletal rehabilitation.Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of low-load blood flow restricted (LL-BFR) training versus conventional high mechanical load resistance training (RT) on the clinical outcomes of patient’s undergoing inpatient multidisciplinary team (MDT) rehabilitation.Study design: A single-blind randomized controlled study.Methods: Twenty-eight lower-limb injured adults completed a 3-week intensive MDT rehabilitation program. Participants were randomly allocated into a conventional RT (3-days/week) or twice-daily LL-BFR training group. Outcome measurements were taken at baseline and 3-weeks and included quadriceps and total thigh muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) and volume, muscle strength [five repetition maximum (RM) leg press and knee extension test, isometric hip extension], pain and physical function measures (Y-balance test, multistage locomotion test—MSLT).Results: A two-way repeated measures analysis of variance revealed no significant differences between groups for any outcome measure post-intervention (p > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvements in mean scores for muscle CSA/volume, 5-RM leg press, and 5-RM knee extension (p < 0.01) after treatment. LL-BFR group participants also demonstrated significant improvements in MSLT and Y-balance scores (p < 0.01). The Pain scores during training reduced significantly over time in the LL-BFR group (p = 0.024), with no adverse events reported during the study.Conclusion: Comparable improvements in muscle strength and hypertrophy were shown in LL-BFR and conventional training groups following in-patient rehabilitation. The LL-BFR group also achieved significant improvements in functional capacity. LL-BFR training is a rehabilitation tool that has the potential to induce positive adaptations in the absence of high mechanical loads and therefore could be considered a treatment option for patients suffering significant functional deficits for whom conventional loaded RT is contraindicated.Trial Registration: ISRCTN Reference: ISRCTN63585315, dated 25 April 2017.

No abstract

Our data based on this exercise protocol are comparable with the few studies that record dynamic pressure during running-based exercise. There is no accepted diagnostic pressure or exercise protocol. Due to the uncertainty of diagnostic criteria, it is necessary to perform a study measuring dynamic pressures in normal asymptomatic subjects.

IntroductionIndividuals with delayed below-knee amputation have previously reported superior clinical outcomes compared with lower limb reconstruction. The UK military have since introduced a passive-dynamic ankle-foot orthosis (PDAFO) into its rehabilitation care pathway to improve limb salvage outcomes. The aims were to determine if wearing a PDAFO improves medium-term clinical outcomes and what influence does multidisciplinary team (MDT) rehabilitation have after PDAFO fitting? Also, what longitudinal changes in clinical outcomes occur with MDT rehabilitation and how do these results compare with patients with previous lower extremity trauma discharged prior to PDAFO availability?MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated levels of mobility, activities of daily living, anxiety, depression and pain in a heterogeneous group of 23 injured UK servicemen 34±11 months after PDAFO provision. We also retrospectively analysed 16 patients across four time points (pre-PDAFO provision, first, second and final inpatient admissions post-PDAFO provision) using identical outcome measures, plus the 6 min walk test.ResultsOutcomes were compared with previous below-knee limb salvage and amputees. Before PDAFO, 74% were able to walk and 4% were able to run independently. At follow-up, this increased to 91% and 57%, respectively. Mean depression and anxiety scores remained stable over time (p>0.05). After 3 weeks, all patients could walk independently (pre-PDAFO=31%). Mean 6 min walk distance significantly increased from 440±75 m (pre-PDAFO) to 533±68 m at last admission (p=0.003). The ability to run increased from 6% to 44% after one admission.ConclusionsAll functional and most psychosocial outcomes in PDAFO users were superior to previous limb salvage and comparable to previous below-knee amputees. The PDAFO facilitated favourable short-term and medium-term changes in all clinical outcome measurements.