In recent years, the interest in oxygen–ozone (O₂O₃) therapy application has considerably increased in the field of rehabilitation. Despite its widespread use in common clinical practice, the biochemical effects of O₂O₃ are still far from being understood, although its chemical properties seem to play a pivotal role in exerting its positive effects on different pathological conditions. Indeed, the effectiveness of O₂O₃ therapy might be partly due to the moderate oxidative stress produced by O₃ interactions with biological components. O₂O₃ therapy is widely used as an adjuvant therapeutic option in several pathological conditions characterized by chronic inflammatory processes and immune over-activation, and most musculoskeletal disorders share these pathophysiological processes. The present comprehensive review depicts the state-of-the-art on the mechanisms of action, safety and effectiveness of O₂O₃ therapy in the complex scenario of the management of musculoskeletal disorders. Taken together, our findings suggest that O₂O₃ therapy seems to reduce pain and improve functioning in patients affected by low back pain and knee osteoarthritis, as reported by several studies in the literature. However, to date, further studies are warranted to clearly investigate the therapeutic effects of this promising therapy on other musculoskeletal disorders in the field of rehabilitation.

Background: Neuropathic pain is an injury or disease of the central and/or peripheral somatosensory nervous system, and it has a significant impact on quality of life, especially since it is often refractory to treatment. Rehabilitative intervention is considered in various guidelines on neuropathic pain treatment, although not in an organic nor detailed way. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the most indicated therapeutic strategies, providing rehabilitative recommendations in the management of neuropathic pain. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. The scientific search, carried out until July 2020, considered guidelines in English language of the last thirteen years. Results: Six guidelines were analyzed, from which emerges that a multidisciplinary approach, comprehensive of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, should drive neuropathic pain management. A relevant role in non-pharmacological intervention is played by rehabilitation, through an adequate tailored rehabilitation program and physical therapies. Conclusion: This analysis highlights the importance of rehabilitation but also the lack of evidence on various rehabilitative practices. Arises hence the need for further studies in this field to better define a rehabilitative treatment strategy.

Background: Non-specific neck pain (NNP) affects 30–50% of the general population, and it often leads to severe disability. Several manual therapy techniques are available to reduce pain and disability and to improve cervical range of motion and functional activities. Muscle Energy Technique (MET) showed more evidence for treating such a disorder. The aim of this current scientific literature analysis was to compare the clinical effects of MET with the other manual or rehabilitative treatments for non-specific acute and chronic neck pain. Methods: The literature search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Medline, PEDro, Cochrane Database, and Google Scholar from 2010 to January 2020. Clinical trials about MET were included. The quality of the trials was assessed according to the PEDro scale. Results: Twenty-one papers according to inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected: 15 studies about non-specific acute neck pain and 6 studies about non-specific chronic neck pain. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that the MET approach has a good clinical effect on reducing neck pain in patients with acute neck pain and improves cervical range of motion in patients with chronic neck pain, and is better if combined with a traditional rehabilitative approach. This review’s findings should be considered with caution for physiotherapy practice because of the studies’ methodologic limitations. On the basis of the current available and limited evidence, clinicians could combine MET with traditional physiotherapy and other manual techniques when treating people with non-specific neck pain.

The post-COVID-19 syndrome may affect patients after the COVID-19 post-acute phase. In particular, the 69% of patients reported persistent fatigue at the discharge. To date, no clear data are available regarding the most effective rehabilitative approaches for the treatment of this condition. Thus, this systematic review aimed to evaluate the rehabilitation treatment’s efficacy on fatigue in post-COVID-19 patients. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to find longitudinal study designs presenting: post-COVID-19 patients as participants; a rehabilitative approach aimed to reduce post-COVID-19 syndrome as intervention; and fatigue intensity assessed through an evaluation tool that quantified the perceived exertion (i.e., fatigue severity scale, FSS; Borg Scale (BS); Borg Category Ratio 10, CR10; Checklist Individual Strength (CIS) fatigue scale; FACIT (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy) fatigue scale). The present systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration number CRD42021284058). Out of 704 articles, 6 studies were included. Nearly all patients showed COVID-19-related fatigue, and after the rehabilitation treatment, only 17% of subjects reported the persistency of symptoms. The overall effect size reported a −1.40 decrease in Borg Category Ratio 10 with a SE of 0.05 and a 95% CI between −1.50 and −1.30 (p < 0.001). The present systematic review and meta-analysis underlines the rehabilitation role in the fatigue reduction in patients affected by post-COVID-19 syndrome.