Browsing articles tagged with "Ejercicio Archives - Updates en Rehabilitación"

Entrenamiento de fuerza y ejercicio aeróbico en enfermedades musculares.

DM2 Histopathology

Distrofia miotónica- histopatología

Se ha publicado una actualización de la Cochrane sobre el entrenamiento de fuerza y ejercicio aeróbico en enfermedades musculares.
Se incluyen dos ensayos sobre el entrenamiento de fuerza en personas con distrofia muscular facioescapulohumeral y distrofia miotónica (101 participantes), dos ensayos de entrenamiento de fuerza combinado con ejercicios aeróbicos en personas con miopatía mitocondrial (18 participantes) y distrofia miotónica tipo I (35 participantes) y una prueba de ejercicio aeróbico en pacientes con polimiositis y dermatomiositis (14 participantes).
Estos ensayos mostraron que el entrenamiento de fuerza de intensidad moderada en personas con distrofia miotónica o con distrofia muscular facioescapulohumeral, y con ejercicios aeróbicos en pacientes con dermatomiositis o polimiositis parece no provocar daño muscular.
El entrenamiento de fuerza combinado con ejercicio aeróbico parece ser seguro en la distrofia miotónica tipo I y puede ser eficaz en el aumento de la resistencia en las personas con miopatía mitocondrial.
La evidencia sugiere que el entrenamiento de fuerza no es perjudicial en personas con distrofia facioescapulohumeral, distrofia miotónica, trastornos mitocondriales y dermatomiositis y polimiositis, pero más investigación es necesaria para determinar el beneficio potencial.

Podéis leer el artículo en: Strength training and aerobic exercise training for muscle disease


Mostrar resumen »

Strength training or aerobic exercise programmes might optimise muscle and cardiorespiratory function and prevent additional disuse atrophy and deconditioning in people with a muscle disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2004.Objectives:
To examine the safety and efficacy of strength training and aerobic exercise training in people with a muscle disease.Search strategy:
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (July 2012), CENTRAL (2012 Issue 3 of 4), MEDLINE (January 1946 to July 2012), EMBASE (January 1974 to July 2012), EMBASE Classic (1947 to 1973) and CINAHL (January 1982 to July 2012).Selection criteria:
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing strength training or aerobic exercise programmes, or both, to no training, and lasting at least six weeks, in people with a well-described diagnosis of a muscle disease.We did not use the reporting of specific outcomes as a study selection criterion.

Data collection and analysis:
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data obtained from the full text-articles and from the original investigators. We collected adverse event data from included studies.

Main results:
We included five trials (170 participants). The first trial compared the effect of strength training versus no training in 36 people with myotonic dystrophy. The second trial compared aerobic exercise training versus no training in 14 people with polymyositis and dermatomyositis. The third trial compared strength training versus no training in a factorial trial that also compared albuterol with placebo, in 65 people with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD). The fourth trial compared combined strength training and aerobic exercise versus no training in 18 people with mitochondrial myopathy. The fifth trial compared combined strength training and aerobic exercise versus no training in 35 people with myotonic dystrophy type 1.

In both myotonic dystrophy trials and the dermatomyositis and polymyositis trial there were no significant differences between training and non-training groups for primary and secondary outcome measures. The risk of bias of the strength training trial in myotonic dystrophy and the aerobic exercise trial in polymyositis and dermatomyositis was judged as uncertain, and for the combined strength training and aerobic exercise trial, the risk of bias was judged as adequate. In the FSHD trial, for which the risk of bias was judged as adequate, a +1.17 kg difference (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 2.16) in dynamic strength of elbow flexors in favour of the training group reached statistical significance. In the mitochondrial myopathy trial, there were no significant differences in dynamic strength measures between training and non-training groups. Exercise duration and distance cycled in a submaximal endurance test increased significantly in the training group compared to the control group. The differences in mean time and mean distance cycled till exhaustion between groups were 23.70 min (95% CI 2.63 to 44.77) and 9.70 km (95% CI 1.51 to 17.89), respectively. The risk of bias was judged as uncertain. In all trials, no adverse events were reported.

Authors’ conclusions:
Moderate-intensity strength training in myotonic dystrophy and FSHD and aerobic exercise training in dermatomyositis and polymyositis and myotonic dystrophy type I appear to do no harm, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude that they offer benefit. In mitochondrial myopathy, aerobic exercise combined with strength training appears to be safe and may be effective in increasing submaximal endurance capacity. Limitations in the design of studies in other muscle diseases prevent more general conclusions in these disorders.

This record should be cited as: Voet NBM, van der Kooi EL, Riphagen II, Lindeman E, van Engelen BGM, Geurts ACH. Strength training and aerobic exercise training for muscle disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD003907. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003907.pub4
Assessed as up to date: July 2, 2012
- See more at:


Ejercicio para mejorar los resultados tras fractura vertebral osteoporótica

EjercicioLos investigadores de la Cochrane realizaron una revisión de los efectos del ejercicio en personas con fracturas vertebrales osteoporóticas.
Siete estudios con un total de 488 personas cumplieron los criterios de inclusión.
Las conclusiones fueron:

En  los  Cochrane Summaries reflejaron lo siguiente (en términos sencillos):


Mostrar Abstract »


Vertebral fractures are associated with increased morbidity (e.g., pain, reduced quality of life), and mortality. Therapeutic exercise is a non-pharmacologic conservative treatment that is often recommended for patients with vertebral fractures to reduce pain and restore functional movement.


Our objectives were to evaluate the benefits and harms of exercise interventions of four weeks or greater (alone or as part of a physical therapyintervention) versus non-exercise/non-active physicaltherapy intervention, no intervention or placeboon the incidence of future fractures and adverse events among adults with ahistory of osteoporotic vertebral fracture(s). We were also examined the effects of exercise on the following secondary outcomes: falls, pain, posture,physical function, balance,mobility, muscle function,quality of life and bone mineral densityof the lumbar spine or hip measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA).We also reported exercise adherence.

Search strategy:

We searched the following databases: The Cochrane Library ( Issue 11 of 12, November 2011), MEDLINE (2005 to 2011), EMBASE(1988 to November 23, 2011), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, 1982 to November 23, 2011), AMED (1985 to November 2011), and PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database,, 1929 to November 23, 2011. Ongoing and recently completed trials were identified by searching the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to December 2009). Conference proceedings were searched via ISI and SCOPUS, and targeted searches of proceedings of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Search terms or MeSH headings included terms such as vertebral fracture AND exercise OR physical therapy.

Selection criteria:

We considered all randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials comparing exercise or active physical therapy interventions with placebo/non-exercise/non-active physical therapy interventions or no intervention implemented in individuals with a history of vertebral fracture and evaluating the outcomes of interest.

Data collection and analysis:

Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data using a pre-tested data abstraction form. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, or third party adjudication. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate each study. Studies were grouped according to duration of follow-up (i.e., a) four to 12 weeks; b) 16 to 24 weeks; and c) 52 weeks); a study could be represented in more than one group depending on the number of follow-up assessments. For continuous data, we report mean differences (MDs) of the change or percentage change from baseline. Data from two studies were pooled for oneoutcome using a fixed-effect model.

Main results:

Seven trials (488 participants, four male participants) were included. Substantial variability across the seven trials prevented any meaningful pooling of data for most outcomes. No trials assessed the effect of exercise on incident fractures, adverse events or incident falls. Individual trials reported that exercise could improve pain, performance on the Timed Up and Go test, walking speed, back extensor strength, trunk muscle endurance, and quality of life. However, the findings should be interpreted with caution given that there were also reports of no significant difference between exercise and control groups for pain, Timed Up and Go test performance, trunk extensor muscle strength and quality of life. Pooled analyses from two studies revealed a significant between-group difference in favour of exercise for Timed Up and Go performance (MD -1.13 seconds, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.85 to -0.42, P = 0.002). Individual studies also reported no significant between-group differences for posture or bone mineral density. Adherence to exercise varied across studies. The risk of bias across all studies was variable; low risk across most domains in four studies, and unclear or high risk in most domains for three studies.

Authors’ conclusions:

No definitive conclusions can be made regarding the benefits of exercise for individuals with vertebral fracture. Although individual trials did report benefits for some pain, physical function and quality of life outcomes, the findings should be interpreted with caution given that findings were inconsistent and the quality of evidence was very low. The small number of trials and variability across trials limited our ability to pool outcomes or make conclusions. Evidence regarding the effects of exercise after vertebral fracture, particularly for men, is scarce. A high-quality randomized trial is needed to inform exercise prescription for individuals with vertebral fractures.

Giangregorio LM, MacIntyre NJ, Thabane L, Skidmore CJ, Papaioannou A.
Exercise for improving outcomes after osteoporotic vertebral fracture.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD008618. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008618.pub2

Efectividad del Pilates en Lumbalgia crónica

Se ha publicado una nueva revisión de revisiones sistemáticas sobre el uso del Pilates en la lumbalgia crónica.
La recomendación de la realización de Pilates (u otras formas de ejercicios de tonificación y estiramientos selectivos – Tai Chi, Yoga, etc) en patología lumbar se  ha ido generalizando.

La evidencia actual es bastante pobre (podéis leer un metaanálisis sobre Pilates y Lumbalgia inespecífica en éste mismo blog), pero es una forma de intentar aumentar la adherencia a la terapia física y puede ser bastante útil tras programas de Rehabilitación supervisados (no como sustituto general de éstos).

Pilates y rehabilitación lumbalgia


BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Jan 19;13:7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-7.
Effectiveness of Pilates exercise in treating people with chronic low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews.
Wells C, Kolt GS, Marshall P, Hill B, Bialocerkowski A.

Las revisiones sistemáticas (RS) aportan recomendaciones clínicas prácticas que están basadas en evaluaciones de evidencia primaria. Cuando RS con el mismo propósito obtienen diferentes conclusiones, resulta difícil identificar cual de ellas ha producido los hallazgos más creíbles y robustos.
Este estudio examina 5 RS que han evaluado la efectividad de los ejercicios tipo Pilates en pacientes con dolor lumbar crónico. Se usa un proceso de 4 niveles para interpretar los hallazgos de las revisiones, que incluye comparación de las preguntas a investigar, estudios primarios y nivel y calidad de la evidencia de las revisiones. Dos revisores independientes evalúan el nivel de evidencia y la calidad metodológica de las RS. Otros 2 revisores evalúan los mismos niveles, pero usando la jerarquía de evidencia del National Health and Medical Research Council y el Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews respectivamente. Los desacuerdos fueron resueltos por un tercer investigador.
Se logró un alto nivel de consenso entre los revisores. Se observan hallazgos conflictivos en los 5 RS en relación con la efectividad del Pilates para reducir el dolor y la discapacidad en pacientes con dolor lumbar crónico. Los autores de las RS incluyeron estudios primarios que no responden a sus preguntas en relación con el tratamiento o características de la población. Se identifican un total de 10 estudios primarios en las 5 RS. Sólo 2 de ellos se incluyeron en todas las revisiones, debido a los diferentes criterios de inclusión en relación con la fecha de publicación y el estatus, definición de Pilates y calidad metodológica. El nivel de evidencia de las RS fue bajo debido al diseño metodológico de los estudios primarios. La calidad metodológica de las RS varió. Las que incluían un meta-análisis lograban resultados más altos.
Existe evidencia no concluyente de que el Pilates sea efectivo en la reducción de dolor y discapacidad en pacientes con dolor lumbar crónico, lo que se debe al escaso número y pobre calidad metodológica de los estudios primarios. El Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews aporta un método útil para evaluar la calidad metodológica de las RS. Sin embargo, los resultados individuales de cada ítem deberían ser revisados además de los resultados totales, de manera que no se manifiesten errores metodológicos sistemáticos y los resultados sean interpretados de forma apropiada.



¿El ejercicio previo a la artroplastia de rodilla y cadera reduce dolor y mejora la función?

Se ha publicado una revisión sistemática y metanálisis sobre la intervención pre-cirugia de protesis de rodilla y cadera basada en el ejercicio físico y sus implicaciones en los resultados (sobre todo dolor y función).
18 estudios cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Los pacientes tenían edades promedio de entre 60 y 80 años y la mayoría de los estudios tenían más mujeres que hombres.
Los ejercicios realizados por los grupos de intervención incluían ejercicios de tonificación, flexibilidad y ejercicio aeróbico y en la mayoría de estudios se añadían programas educacionales.

Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013 Jan;94(1):164-76. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.08.211. Epub 2012 Sep 4.
Does exercise reduce pain and improve physical function before hip or knee replacement surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Gill SD, McBurney H.




Podéis ver el abstract en: ¿El ejercicio reduce el dolor y mejora la función física antes de la artroplastia de cadera o de rodilla? Una revisión sistemática y meta-análisis de ensayos controlados aleatorios