Search results for: Thi Huong Vu

Authors: Vu Hoang Thu Huong

Abstract:

Background: Surface electrical stimulation (SES) is a popular non-invasive approach that offers a wide range of treatments for many diseases of physical therapy. It involves applying electrical stimulation to the skin via surface electrodes to stimulate nerve fibers. SES was regularly used to treat the back and upper or lower extremities, but it was rarely used to treat the chest and abdomen. SES on the thorax and abdomen should be administered with more attention because crucial organs are under those areas (i.e., heart, lungs, liver, etc.). In these areas, safety precautions are suggested, and some SES applications might even be a contraindication. The fact that physical therapists have less experience with SES in these situations can also be attributed to these. Although a few earlier studies applied it to these settings and discovered hopeful results, none of them highlight the relationship between the intensity of SES and its depth of impact for safety considerations. Objective: To assure feasibility when using SES in these areas, the purpose of this study is to summarize the common location and intensity of those areas that have been conducted in previous studies. Method: A thorough systematic review was conducted to determine the common surface electrode position for the thorax and abdomen areas. The studies with the randomized controlled design were systematically searched using inclusion and exclusion criteria through nine electronic databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, etc., between 1975 and Dec 2021. Results: Thirty-three studies with over 1800 participants and 4 types of SES (TENS, IFC, NMES, and FES) with various categories of department hospitals were found. Following an anterior, lateral, and posterior observation, the particular SES positions found that it concentrated on 6 regions (the thoracic, abdomen, upper lateral, lower lateral, upper back, and lower back regions), and its intensity for each region was also summarized. Conclusion: This systematic review figured out the popular locations of SES in the thorax and abdominal areas as well as a summarized maximum of intensity that was found in previous studies with outstanding outcomes.

Keywords: surface electrical stimulation, electrical stimulation, thoracic, abdomen, abdominal.

Procedia PDF Downloads 55

Authors: Vu Hoang Thu Huong

Abstract:

Background and Purpose: The effects of Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (ESWT) in the participants with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) were unclear on physical performance although its effects on pain had been investiagted. This study aims to explore the effects of ESWT on pain relief and physical performance on KOA. Methods: The studies with the randomized controlled design to investigate the effects of ESWT on KOA were systematically searched using inclusion and exclusion criteria through seven electronic databases including Pubmed etc. between 1990 and Dec 2022. To summarize those data, visual analog scale (VAS) or pain scores were determined for measure of pain intensity. Range of knee motion, or the scores of physical activities including Lequesne index (LI), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were determined for measure of physical performances. The first evaluate after treatment period was define as the effect of post-treatment period or immediately effect; and the last evaluate was defined as the effect of following period or the end effect in our study. Data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 software. A significant level was set at p<0.05. Results: Eight studies (number of participant= 499) reporting the ESWT effects on mild-to-moderate severity (Grades I to III Kellgren–Lawrence) of KOA were qualified for meta-analysis. Compared with sham or placebo group, the ESWT group had a significant decrease of VAS rest score (0.90[0.12~1.67] as mean difference [95% confidence interval]) and pain score WOMAC (2.49[1.22~3.76]), and a significant improvement of physical performance with a decrease of the scores of WOMAC activities (8.18[3.97~12.39]), LI (3.47[1.68~5.26]), and KOOS (5.87[1.73~ 10.00]) in the post-treatment period. There were also a significant decrease of WOMAC pain score (2.83[2.12~3.53]) and a significant decrease of the scores of WOMAC activities (9.47[7.65~11.28]) and LI (4.12[2.34 to 5.89]) in the following period. Besides, compared with other treatment groups, ESWT also displayed the improvement in pain and physical performance, but it is not significant. Conclusions: The ESWT was effective and valuable method in pain relief as well as in improving physical activities in the participants with mild-to-moderate KOA. Clinical Relevance: There are the effects of ESWT on pain relief and the improvement of physical performance in the with KOA.

Keywords: knee osteoarthritis, extracorporeal shockwave therapy, pain relief, physical performance, shockwave

Procedia PDF Downloads 48

Authors: Sonia Butalia, Huong Luu, Alexis Guigue, Karen J. B. Martins, Khanh Vu, Scott W. Klarenbach

Abstract:

Obesity-related health conditions impose a substantial economic burden on payers due to increased healthcare use. Estimates of healthcare resource use and costs associated with obesity-related comorbidities are needed to inform policies and interventions targeting these conditions. Methods: Adults living with obesity were identified (a procedure-related body mass index code for class 2/3 obesity between 2012 and 2019 in Alberta, Canada; excluding those with bariatric surgery), and outcomes were compared over 1-year (2019/2020) between those who had and did not have specific obesity-related comorbidities. The probability of using a healthcare service (based on the odds ratio of a zero [OR-zero] cost) was compared; 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. Logistic regression and a generalized linear model with log link and gamma distribution were used for total healthcare cost comparisons ($CDN); cost ratios and estimated cost differences (95% CI) were reported. Potential socio-demographic and clinical confounders were adjusted for, and incremental cost differences were representative of a referent case. Results: A total of 220,190 adults living with obesity were included; 44% had hypertension, 25% had osteoarthritis, 24% had type-2 diabetes, 17% had cardiovascular disease, 12% had insulin resistance, 9% had chronic back pain, and 4% of females had polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). The probability of hospitalization, ED visit, and ambulatory care was higher in those with a following obesity-related comorbidity versus those without: chronic back pain (hospitalization: 1.8-times [OR-zero: 0.57 [0.55/0.59]] / ED visit: 1.9-times [OR-zero: 0.54 [0.53/0.56]] / ambulatory care visit: 2.4-times [OR-zero: 0.41 [0.40/0.43]]), cardiovascular disease (2.7-times [OR-zero: 0.37 [0.36/0.38]] / 1.9-times [OR-zero: 0.52 [0.51/0.53]] / 2.8-times [OR-zero: 0.36 [0.35/0.36]]), osteoarthritis (2.0-times [OR-zero: 0.51 [0.50/0.53]] / 1.4-times [OR-zero: 0.74 [0.73/0.76]] / 2.5-times [OR-zero: 0.40 [0.40/0.41]]), type-2 diabetes (1.9-times [OR-zero: 0.54 [0.52/0.55]] / 1.4-times [OR-zero: 0.72 [0.70/0.73]] / 2.1-times [OR-zero: 0.47 [0.46/0.47]]), hypertension (1.8-times [OR-zero: 0.56 [0.54/0.57]] / 1.3-times [OR-zero: 0.79 [0.77/0.80]] / 2.2-times [OR-zero: 0.46 [0.45/0.47]]), PCOS (not significant / 1.2-times [OR-zero: 0.83 [0.79/0.88]] / not significant), and insulin resistance (1.1-times [OR-zero: 0.88 [0.84/0.91]] / 1.1-times [OR-zero: 0.92 [0.89/0.94]] / 1.8-times [OR-zero: 0.56 [0.54/0.57]]). After fully adjusting for potential confounders, the total healthcare cost ratio was higher in those with a following obesity-related comorbidity versus those without: chronic back pain (1.54-times [1.51/1.56]), cardiovascular disease (1.45-times [1.43/1.47]), osteoarthritis (1.36-times [1.35/1.38]), type-2 diabetes (1.30-times [1.28/1.31]), hypertension (1.27-times [1.26/1.28]), PCOS (1.08-times [1.05/1.11]), and insulin resistance (1.03-times [1.01/1.04]). Conclusions: Adults with obesity who have specific disease-related health conditions have a higher probability of healthcare use and incur greater costs than those without specific comorbidities; incremental costs are larger when other obesity-related health conditions are not adjusted for. In a specific referent case, hypertension was costliest (44% had this condition with an additional annual cost of $715 [$678/$753]). If these findings hold for the Canadian population, hypertension in persons with obesity represents an estimated additional annual healthcare cost of $2.5 billion among adults living with obesity (based on an adult obesity rate of 26%). Results of this study can inform decision making on investment in interventions that are effective in treating obesity and its complications.

Keywords: administrative data, healthcare cost, obesity-related comorbidities, real world evidence

Procedia PDF Downloads 116

Authors: Sonia Butalia, Huong Luu, Alexis Guigue, Karen J. B. Martins, Khanh Vu, Scott W. Klarenbach

Abstract:

Obesity is associated with significant personal impacts on health and has a substantial economic burden on payers due to increased healthcare use. A contemporary estimate of the healthcare costs associated with obesity at the population level are lacking. This evidence may provide further rationale for weight management strategies. Methods: Adults who underwent a medical procedure between 2012 and 2019 in Alberta, Canada were categorized into the investigational cohort (had body mass index [BMI]-defined class 2 or 3 obesity based on a procedure-associated code) and the control cohort (did not have the BMI procedure-associated code); those who had bariatric surgery were excluded. Characteristics were presented and healthcare costs ($CDN) determined over a 1-year observation period (2019/2020). Logistic regression and a generalized linear model with log link and gamma distribution were used to assess total healthcare costs (comprised of hospitalizations, emergency department visits, ambulatory care visits, physician visits, and outpatient prescription drugs); potential confounders included age, sex, region of residence, and whether the medical procedure was performed within 6-months before the observation period in the partial adjustment, and also the type of procedure performed, socioeconomic status, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and seven obesity-related health conditions in the full adjustment. Cost ratios and estimated cost differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported; incremental cost differences within the adjusted models represent referent cases. Results: The investigational cohort (n=220,190) was older (mean age: 53 standard deviation [SD]±17 vs 50 SD±17 years), had more females (71% vs 57%), lived in rural areas to a greater extent (20% vs 14%), experienced a higher overall burden of disease (CCI: 0.6 SD±1.3 vs 0.3 SD±0.9), and were less socioeconomically well-off (material/social deprivation was lower [14%/14%] in the most well-off quintile vs 20%/19%) compared with controls (n=1,955,548). Unadjusted total healthcare costs were estimated to be 1.77-times (95% CI: 1.76, 1.78) higher in the investigational versus control cohort; each healthcare resource contributed to the higher cost ratio. After adjusting for potential confounders, the total healthcare cost ratio decreased, but remained higher in the investigational versus control cohort (partial adjustment: 1.57 [95% CI: 1.57, 1.58]; full adjustment: 1.21 [95% CI: 1.20, 1.21]); each healthcare resource contributed to the higher cost ratio. Among urban-dwelling 50-year old females who previously had non-operative procedures, no procedures performed within 6-months before the observation period, a social deprivation index score of 3, a CCI score of 0.32, and no history of select obesity-related health conditions, the predicted cost difference between those living with and without obesity was $386 (95% CI: $376, $397). Conclusions: If these findings hold for the Canadian population, one would expect an estimated additional $3.0 billion per year in healthcare costs nationally related to BMI-defined obesity (based on an adult obesity rate of 26% and an estimated annual incremental cost of $386 [21%]); incremental costs are higher when obesity-related health conditions are not adjusted for. Results of this study provide additional rationale for investment in interventions that are effective in preventing and treating obesity and its complications.

Keywords: administrative data, body mass index-defined obesity, healthcare cost, real world evidence

Procedia PDF Downloads 73