Sarah C Milne1,2,3, Louise A Corben1,3,4,5, Nellie Georgiou-Karistianis3, Martin B Delatycki1,3,5,6, Eppie M Yiu1,5,7. 1. 1 Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 2. 2 Kingston Centre, Monash Health, Cheltenham, Victoria, Australia. 3. 3 Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia. 4. 4 Monash Medical Centre, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia. 5. 5 The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 6. 6 Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 7. 7 The Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of genetic degenerative ataxia is currently based on symptom management and maintenance of function. However, utilization of rehabilitation is limited due to a lack of evidence supporting its efficacy. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review evaluated rehabilitation interventions for individuals with genetic degenerative ataxia. In addition, long-term outcomes from rehabilitation and optimal duration and intensity of rehabilitation were examined. METHODS: A comprehensive search of 4 databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PEDro, and Cochrane) identified randomized, nonrandomized controlled, and cohort studies published from inception through to January 2016. The studies included at least one measure examining function, ataxia, balance, or gait. Methodological quality was assessed with the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Hierarchy of Evidence and the randomized controlled trials were rated according to the PEDro scale. RESULTS: Seventeen studies met eligibility criteria. Five randomized controlled trials were included; however, the majority were classified as level III-3 and IV studies. Of 292 participants included, 148 had autosomal dominant ataxia, and 85 had autosomal recessive ataxia. Rehabilitation interventions included coordination and balance training, multifaceted inpatient rehabilitation, a cycling regime, balance exercises with technology assisted biofeedback, respiratory muscle training, and treadmill training. Two studies examined adjuncts to rehabilitation. Fifteen of the 17 studies demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in at least 1 outcome measuring ataxia, function, gait, or balance. Less than half of the studies included assessment of long-term outcomes and follow-up time frames varied considerably. CONCLUSION: There is consistent evidence that rehabilitation improves function, mobility, ataxia, and balance in genetic degenerative ataxia.
BACKGROUND: Treatment of genetic degenerative ataxia is currently based on symptom management and maintenance of function. However, utilization of rehabilitation is limited due to a lack of evidence supporting its efficacy. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review evaluated rehabilitation interventions for individuals with genetic degenerative ataxia. In addition, long-term outcomes from rehabilitation and optimal duration and intensity of rehabilitation were examined. METHODS: A comprehensive search of 4 databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PEDro, and Cochrane) identified randomized, nonrandomized controlled, and cohort studies published from inception through to January 2016. The studies included at least one measure examining function, ataxia, balance, or gait. Methodological quality was assessed with the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Hierarchy of Evidence and the randomized controlled trials were rated according to the PEDro scale. RESULTS: Seventeen studies met eligibility criteria. Five randomized controlled trials were included; however, the majority were classified as level III-3 and IV studies. Of 292 participants included, 148 had autosomal dominant ataxia, and 85 had autosomal recessive ataxia. Rehabilitation interventions included coordination and balance training, multifaceted inpatient rehabilitation, a cycling regime, balance exercises with technology assisted biofeedback, respiratory muscle training, and treadmill training. Two studies examined adjuncts to rehabilitation. Fifteen of the 17 studies demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in at least 1 outcome measuring ataxia, function, gait, or balance. Less than half of the studies included assessment of long-term outcomes and follow-up time frames varied considerably. CONCLUSION: There is consistent evidence that rehabilitation improves function, mobility, ataxia, and balance in genetic degenerative ataxia.
Authors: Pierre Cabaraux; Sunil K Agrawal; Huaying Cai; Rocco Salvatore Calabro; Carlo Casali; Loic Damm; Sarah Doss; Christophe Habas; Anja K E Horn; Winfried Ilg; Elan D Louis; Hiroshi Mitoma; Vito Monaco; Maria Petracca; Alberto Ranavolo; Ashwini K Rao; Serena Ruggieri; Tommaso Schirinzi; Mariano Serrao; Susanna Summa; Michael Strupp; Olivia Surgent; Matthis Synofzik; Shuai Tao; Hiroo Terasi; Diego Torres-Russotto; Brittany Travers; Jaimie A Roper; Mario Manto Journal: Cerebellum Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Marie Beaudin; Mario Manto; Jeremy D Schmahmann; Massimo Pandolfo; Nicolas Dupre Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Jennifer J Carr; Joyce Lalara; Gayangwa Lalara; Gloria O'Hare; Libby Massey; Nick Kenny; Kate E Pope; Alan R Clough; Anne Lowell; Ruth N Barker Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jennifer J Carr; Joyce Lalara; Gayangwa Lalara; Moira Smith; Jennifer Quaill; Alan R Clough; Anne Lowell; Ruth N Barker Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Helen Hartley; Elizabeth Cassidy; Lisa Bunn; Ram Kumar; Barry Pizer; Steven Lane; Bernie Carter Journal: Cerebellum Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.847
Authors: Georgios P D Argyropoulos; Kim van Dun; Michael Adamaszek; Maria Leggio; Mario Manto; Marcella Masciullo; Marco Molinari; Catherine J Stoodley; Frank Van Overwalle; Richard B Ivry; Jeremy D Schmahmann Journal: Cerebellum Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 3.847