Rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair is crucial for functional recovery and for minimizing the risk of retear. There are two rehabilitation protocols (early and traditional) and the debate about which is the best is open. This umbrella review aimed to compare the effect of these rehabilitation protocols in terms of reduction in pain, functional recovery, and retear risk. We selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2012 and 2022 dealing with the aim. Nineteen systematic reviews were included. No significant differences were found between early and traditional protocols in terms of pain reduction. Early rehabilitation provided better short-term results regarding Range of Motion improvement, but long-term functional outcomes were similar. Retear risk remains a significant concern for the early protocol. We found major differences between the analyzed protocols. This review suggests that both protocols are useful to recover global shoulder function, but the standard protocol has a greater safety profile for larger tears. On the other hand, the early protocol may be preferable for smaller lesions, allowing a faster recovery and having less impact on medical costs. Further research is needed to identify optimal rehabilitation strategies tailored to the individual patient’s needs and characteristics.

The knee is an essential part of our body, and identifying its injuries is crucial since it can significantly affect quality of life. To date, the preferred way of evaluating knee injuries is through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which is an effective imaging technique that accurately identifies injuries. The issue with this method is that the high amount of detail that comes with MRIs is challenging to interpret and time consuming for radiologists to analyze. The issue becomes even more concerning when radiologists are required to analyze a significant number of MRIs in a short period. For this purpose, automated tools may become helpful to radiologists assisting them in the evaluation of these images. Machine learning methods, in being able to extract meaningful information from data, such as images or any other type of data, are promising for modeling the complex patterns of knee MRI and relating it to its interpretation. In this study, using a real-life imaging protocol, a machine-learning model based on convolutional neural networks used for detecting medial meniscus tears, bone marrow edema, and general abnormalities on knee MRI exams is presented. Furthermore, the model’s effectiveness in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity is evaluated. Based on this evaluation protocol, the explored models reach a maximum accuracy of 83.7%, a maximum sensitivity of 82.2%, and a maximum specificity of 87.99% for meniscus tears. For bone marrow edema, a maximum accuracy of 81.3%, a maximum sensitivity of 93.3%, and a maximum specificity of 78.6% is reached. Finally, for general abnormalities, the explored models reach 83.7%, 90.0% and 84.2% of maximum accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, respectively.

Parkinson’s disease is the second most common neurodegenerative disease worldwide, characterized by bradykinesia, rigidity, tremor, and postural instability. These symptoms often lead to significant postural deformities and an increased risk of falls, severely impacting the quality of life. Conventional rehabilitation methods have shown benefits, but recent advancements suggest that virtual reality (VR) could offer a promising alternative. This scoping review aims to analyze the current literature to evaluate the effectiveness of VR in the postural rehabilitation of patients with PD. A scientific literature search was performed using the following databases: PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane, and Google Scholar, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English. Our selection criteria included studies that compared VR-based rehabilitation to traditional methods regarding posture-related outcomes. We identified and analyzed nine RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. The results consistently demonstrated that VR-based rehabilitation leads to greater improvements in balance and gait compared to conventional therapy. Key findings include significant enhancements in balance confidence and postural control and a reduction in fall rates. The superior efficacy of VR-based rehabilitation can be attributed to its engaging and immersive nature, which enhances patient motivation and adherence to therapy. VR allows for precise, repeatable training scenarios tailored to individual patient needs, providing a safe environment to practice and improve motor skills. In conclusion, VR-based rehabilitation represents an innovative approach with substantial potential to improve the quality of life for PD patients. However, limitations such as small sample sizes and short intervention durations in existing studies highlight the need for larger multicenter trials with longer follow-up periods to confirm these findings.

Rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair is crucial for functional recovery and for minimizing the risk of retear. There are two rehabilitation protocols (early and traditional) and the debate about which is the best is still open. This umbrella review aimed to compare the effect of these rehabilitation protocols in terms of reduction of pain, functional recovery and retear risk. We selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2012 to 2022 dealing with the aim. Nineteen systematic reviews were included. No significant differences were found between early and traditional protocols in terms of pain reduction. Early rehabilitation provided better short-term results regarding Range of Motion improvement, but long-term functional outcomes were similar. Retear risk remains a significant concern for the early protocol. We found major differences between the analyzed protocols. This review suggests that both protocols are useful to recover global shoulder function, but the standard protocol has a greater safety profile for larger tears. On the other hand, the early protocol may be preferable for smaller lesions, allowing a faster recovery and having less impact on medical costs. Further research is needed to identify optimal rehabilitation strategies tailored to the individual patient's needs and characteristics.

Background: Superior cluneal nerve (SCN) entrapment is frequently underrecognized as a contributor to chronic Low Back Pain (cLBP) and gluteal pain. Musculoskeletal ultrasound may reveal surrogate markers indicative of a biomechanical entrapment environment. The primary objective was the prevalence of the ultrasound marker triad (Copeman Nod-ules-CN, thoracolumbar fascia-TLF thickening > 3 mm, and iliac enthesophytes. Secondary objectives included mean TLF thickness and its correlation with numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) and Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions scores (DN4). Methods: In this single-center, cross-sectional observational pilot study, we enrolled 12 patients with cLBP (>12 weeks) localized to the SCN distribution and a healthy control group (12). Ultrasound measurements included TLF thickness in longitudinal and transverse planes, TLF convexity loss, iliac crest enthesophytes, and CN. Statistical analyses comprised Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher exact test, Spearman rank correlation, and multivariate logistic regression. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: The ultrasound marker triad (CN, iliac enthesophytes, and TLF thickening > 3 mm) demonstrated high diagnostic specificity: individually, CN were present in 91.7% of patients vs. 8.3% of controls (p < 0.001), iliac enthesophytes in 58.3% vs. 0% (p = 0.005), TLF thickening > 3 mm in 41.7% of patients vs. 0% of controls (p < 0.001)and TLF convexity loss in 100% vs. 75% (p = 0.03). Mean TLF thickness was significantly greater in patients—3.53 ± 0.46 mm longitudinal and 3.42 ± 0.39 mm transverse—compared with controls (2.61 ± 0.28 mm and 2.50 ± 0.32 mm; both p < 0.001). TLF thickness correlated strongly with NPRS (Spearman rho = 0.825; p = 0.001) but not with DN4. Logistic regression demonstrated that the marker triad accounted for 67% of NPRS variance (R² = 0.67). Conclusions: Ultrasound-detected fascial alterations and enthesopathic changes act as reliable surrogate markers for SCN entrapment and correlate strongly with nociceptive pain severity. The absence of correlation with neuropathic pain scores suggests a predominant fascial-muscular biomechanical mechanism rather than direct nerve damage. Incorporating this non-invasive protocol into clinical practice may enhance diagnostic precision and inform targeted rehabilitative strategies. Future multicenter, prospective studies with larger cohorts are warranted to validate these findings and establish standardized ultrasound criteria.

We thank Dr. Kiral for a thoughtful and constructive commentary, with which we largely agree. Surrogate biomechanical markers and direct visualisation of the SCN are complementary rather than competing: the markers were intended to extend diagnostic support to the many settings and patients in whom direct visualisation is not easy to achieve, whether for patient-related reasons or because high-resolution equipment and dedicated expertise are not universally available. We agree that these findings are supportive rather than primary diagnostic markers, and that their value may lie in the triad within a clinically pre-selected population rather than in any single sign. The nociceptive–neuropathic distinction the author emphasises is itself one of the central conclusions of our study.