A randomised controlled trial evaluating an alternative mouse and forearm support on upper body discomfort and musculoskeletal disorders among engineers. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the effects of two workstation interventions on upper body pain and incident musculoskeletal disorders among computer operators. A randomised controlled trial of postural interventions for prevention of musculoskeletal symptoms among computer users. A randomized controlled trial to prevent patient lift and transfer injuries of health care workers. Robotic-assisted rehabilitation of the upper limb after acute stroke. An exploratory trial of preventative rehabilitation on shoulder disability and quality of life in patients following neck dissection surgery. Effects of Ergorest arm supports on muscle strain and wrist positions during the use of the mouse and keyboard in work with visual display units: a work site intervention. The effectiveness of a work style intervention and a lifestyle physical activity intervention on the recovery from neck and upper limb symptoms in computer workers. Effects of constraint-induced therapy versus bilateral arm training on motor performance, daily functions, and quality of life in stroke survivors.
The aim of this intervention study was to determine the effects of an alternative mouse and/or a forearm support board on the change in upper body discomfort scores and the development of incident musculoskeletal disorders.
                This randomised controlled intervention trial followed 206 engineers for one year. Participants were randomised to receive (1) a conventional mouse only, (2) an alternative mouse only, (3) a forearm support board, or (4) an alternative mouse plus forearm support board. Outcome measures included weekly upper body discomfort scores and incident musculoskeletal disorders.
                During the study, 42 participants were diagnosed with an incident musculoskeletal disorder. The group that received the forearm support board experienced a reduction in their right upper extremity discomfort (beta-coefficient -0.35, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.03) in comparison to those who did not receive a forearm board. The group that received the alternative mouse had a protective, but non-significant (p = 0.20), effect on incident cases of right upper extremity musculoskeletal disorders (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.34) and a non-significant reduction in neck/shoulder discomfort (beta-coefficient -0.23, 95% CI -0.056 to 0.10) in comparison to those who received a conventional mouse.
                In engineers who use a computer for more than 20 h per week, a forearm support board may reduce right upper extremity discomfort attributed to computer use. Call centre work with computers is associated with increased rates of upper body pain and musculoskeletal disorders.
                This one year, randomised controlled intervention trial evaluated the effects of a wide forearm support surface and a trackball on upper body pain severity and incident musculoskeletal disorders among 182 call centre operators at a large healthcare company. Participants were randomised to receive (1) ergonomics training only, (2) training plus a trackball, (3) training plus a forearm support, or (4) training plus a trackball and forearm support. Outcome measures were weekly pain severity scores and diagnosis of incident musculoskeletal disorder in the upper extremities or the neck/shoulder region based on physical examination performed by a physician blinded to intervention. Analyses using Cox proportional hazard models and linear regression models adjusted for demographic factors, baseline pain levels, and psychosocial job factors.
                Post-intervention, 63 participants were diagnosed with one or more incident musculoskeletal disorders. Hazard rate ratios showed a protective effect of the armboard for neck/shoulder disorders (HR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.97) after adjusting for baseline pain levels and demographic and psychosocial factors. The armboard also significantly reduced neck/shoulder pain (p = 0.01) and right upper extremity pain (p = 0.002) in comparison to the control group. A return-on-investment model predicted a full return of armboard and installation costs within 10.6 months.
                Providing a large forearm support combined with ergonomic training is an effective intervention to prevent upper body musculoskeletal disorders and reduce upper body pain associated with computer work among call centre employees. To examine the effect of two workstation and postural interventions on the incidence of musculoskeletal symptoms among computer users.
                Randomised controlled trial of two distinct workstation and postural interventions (an alternate intervention and a conventional intervention) among 376 persons using computer keyboards for more than 15 hours per week. The incidence of neck/shoulder symptoms and hand/arm symptoms during six months of follow up among individuals in the intervention groups was compared to the incidence in computer users who did not receive an intervention (comparison group). For individuals in the intervention groups, study staff adjusted workstations, where possible, and trained individuals to assume the intervention postures. Individuals reported musculoskeletal symptoms in a weekly diary. Participants who reported discomfort intensity of 6 or greater on a 0-10 visual analogue scale or who reported musculoskeletal symptoms requiring use of analgesic medication were considered symptomatic.
                There were no significant differences in the incidence of musculoskeletal symptoms among the three intervention groups. Twenty two (18.5%) participants in the alternate intervention group, 25 (20.2%) in the conventional intervention group, and 25 (21.7%) in the comparison group developed incident arm or hand symptoms. Thirty eight (33.3%) participants in the alternate intervention group, 36 (31.0%) in the conventional intervention group, and 33 (30.3%) in the comparison group developed incident neck or shoulder symptoms. Compliance with all components of the intervention was attained for only 25-38% of individuals, due mainly to the inflexibility of workstation configurations.
                This study provides evidence that two specific workplace postural interventions are unlikely to reduce the risk of upper extremity musculoskeletal symptoms among computer users. Randomized controlled trial (RCT).
                To compare the effectiveness of training and equipment to reduce musculoskeletal injuries, increase comfort, and reduce physical demands on staff performing patient lifts and transfers at a large acute care hospital.
                Back injury to nursing staff during patient handling tasks is a major issue in health care. The value of mechanical assistive devices in reducing injuries to these workers is unclear.
                This three-armed RCT consisted of a "control arm," a "safe lifting" arm, and a "no strenuous lifting" arm. A medical, surgical, and rehabilitation ward were each randomly assigned to each arm. Both intervention arms received intensive training in back care, patient assessment, and handling techniques. Hence, the "safe lifting" arm used improved patient handling techniques using manual equipment, whereas the "no strenuous lifting" arm aimed to eliminate manual patient handling through use of additional mechanical and other assistive equipment.
                Frequency of manual patient handling tasks was significantly decreased on the "no strenuous lifting" arm. Self-perceived work fatigue, back and shoulder pain, safety, and frequency and intensity of physical discomfort associated with patient handling tasks were improved on both intervention arms, but staff on the mechanical equipment arm showed greater improvements. Musculoskeletal injury rates were not significantly altered.
                The "no strenuous lifting" program, which combined training with assured availability of mechanical and other assistive patient handling equipment, most effectively improved comfort with patient handling, decreased staff fatigue, and decreased physical demands. The fact that injury rates were not statistically significantly reduced may reflect the less sensitive nature of this indicator compared with the subjective indicators. To investigate whether early therapy with a novel robotic device can reduce motor impairment and enhance functional recovery of poststroke patients with hemiparetic and hemiplegic upper limb.
                A single-blind randomized controlled trial, with an 8-month follow-up.
                Neurologic department and rehabilitation hospital.
                Thirty-five patients with acute (< or =1 wk of onset), unilateral, ischemic embolic, or thrombotic stroke.
                Patients of both groups received the same dose and length per day of standard poststroke multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups. The experimental group (n=17) received additional early sensorimotor robotic training, 4 hours a week for 5 weeks; the control group (n=18) was exposed to the robotic device, 30 minutes a week, twice a week, but the exercises were performed with the unimpaired upper limb. Training by robot consisted of peripheral manipulation of the shoulder and elbow of the impaired limb, correlated with visual stimuli.
                The Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) of upper-extremity function (shoulder/elbow and coordination and wrist/hand subsections) to measure each trained limb segment; the Medical Research Council (MRC) score to measure the strength of muscle force during 3 actions: shoulder abduction (MRC deltoid), elbow flexion (MRC biceps), and wrist flexion (MRC wrist flexors); the FIM instrument and its motor component; and the Trunk Control Test (TCT) and Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS).
                Compared with the patients in the control group, the experimental group showed significant gains in motor impairment and functional recovery of the upper limb after robot therapy, as measured by the MRC deltoid (P< or =.05) and biceps (P<.05) scores, the FMA for the proximal upper arm (P<.05), the FIM instrument (P<.05), and the FIM motor score (P<.01); these gains were also sustained at the 3- and 8-month follow-up. The FMA and MRC wrist flexor test findings did not differ statistically either at the end of training or at the follow-up sessions. We found no significant differences in MAS and TCT in either group in any of the evaluations. No adverse effects occurred and the robotic approach was very well accepted.
                Patients who received robotic therapy in addition to conventional therapy showed greater reductions in motor impairment and improvements in functional abilities. Robotic therapy may therefore effectively complement standard rehabilitation from the start, by providing therapeutic support for patients with poststroke plegic and paretic upper limb. Patients commonly develop shoulder disability and reduction in quality of life (QOL) following neck dissection surgery. There is a lack of studies investigating the impact of preventative rehabilitation to prevent shoulder disability in this population. An exploratory trial was undertaken to investigate this gap in the head and neck cancer literature. Thirty-two subjects were randomly assigned to either one of two groups: early physiotherapy for a period of 3 months following surgery and current routine inpatient care and advice. Blinded measurement of shoulder function and QOL were recorded pre-operatively and at 1 year following surgery. No difference was found using between-group analysis (Mann-Whitney U-Test) for any outcome measures observed. Descriptive data analysis suggests that subjects receiving early physiotherapy had a perception of increased physical well-being when compared with subjects receiving routine care. There may be some clinical significance that subjects receiving a course of physiotherapy did appear to rate their physical well-being higher than those subjects not undergoing rehabilitation. Further research to investigate the preventative effects of physiotherapy on this population should consider the use of head and neck cancer-specific outcome measurement of both shoulder disability and QOL.
                © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. The effects of Ergorest arm supports on wrist angles and musculoskeletal strain in the neck-shoulder-arm region and electrical activity in the shoulder and arm muscles were studied during typing or the use of the mouse in work with a visual display unit (VDU). Twenty-one women were randomized into 3 groups (1 arm support, 2 arm supports, and control). Measurements were carried out before and after the 6-week intervention. The wrist extension of the mouse hand, the muscle activity of the trapezius muscle, and the subjective discomfort ratings indicated that 2 arm supports were better than 1 in work with a mouse. The Ergorest arm support alleviates muscle and joint strain in VDU work when used for both arms. This study assessed the effectiveness of a single intervention targeting work style and a combined intervention targeting work style and physical activity on the recovery from neck and upper limb symptoms. Computer workers with frequent or long-term neck and upper limb symptoms were randomised into the work style group (WS, n=152), work style and physical activity group (WSPA, n=156), or usual care group (n=158). The WS and WSPA group attended six group meetings. All meetings focused on behavioural change with regard to body posture, workplace adjustment, breaks and coping with high work demands (WS and WSPA group) and physical activity (WSPA group). Pain, disability at work, days with symptoms and months without symptoms were measured at baseline and after 6 (T1) and 12 months (T2). Self-reported recovery was assessed at T1/T2. Both interventions were ineffective in improving recovery. The work style intervention but not the combined intervention was effective in reducing all pain measures. These effects were present in the neck/shoulder, not in the arm/wrist/hand. For the neck/shoulder, the work style intervention group also showed an increased recovery-rate. Total physical activity increased in all study groups but no differences between groups were observed. To conclude, a group-based work style intervention focused on behavioural change was effective in improving recovery from neck/shoulder symptoms and reducing pain on the long-term. The combined intervention was ineffective in increasing total physical activity. Therefore we cannot draw conclusions on the effect of increasing physical activity on the recovery from neck and upper limb symptoms. This study investigated the relative effects of distributed constraint-induced therapy (CIT) and bilateral arm training (BAT) on motor performance, daily function, functional use of the affected arm, and quality of life in patients with hemiparetic stroke.
                A total of 60 patients were randomized to distributed CIT, BAT, or a control intervention of less specific but active therapy. Each group received intensive training for 2 hours/day, 5 days/week, for 3 weeks. Pretreatment and posttreatment measures included the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA), Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Motor Activity Log (MAL), and Stroke Impact Scale (SIS). The proximal and distal scores of FMA were used to examine separate upper limb (UL) elements of movement.
                The distributed CIT and BAT groups showed better performance in the overall and the distal part score of the FMA than the control group. The BAT group exhibited greater gains in the proximal part score of the FMA than the distributed CIT and control groups. Enhanced performance was found for the distributed CIT group in the MAL, the subtest of locomotion in the FIM, and certain domains of the SIS (eg, ADL/IADL).
                BAT may uniquely improve proximal UL motor impairment. In contrast, distributed CIT may produce greater functional gains for the affected UL in subjects with mild to moderate chronic hemiparesis.
We found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the use of arm support with alternative mouse may reduce the incidence of neck/shoulder MSDs, but not right upper limb MSDs. Moreover, we found moderate-quality evidence to suggest that the incidence of neck/shoulder and right upper limb MSDs is not reduced when comparing alternative and conventional mouse with and without arm support. However, given there were multiple comparisons made involving a number of interventions and outcomes, high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions clearly. While we found very-low- to low-quality evidence to suggest that other ergonomic interventions do not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb and neck, this was limited by the paucity and heterogeneity of available studies. This review highlights the need for high-quality RCTs examining the prevention of MSDs of the upper limb and neck.