Rehabilitation Interventions in Head and Neck Cancer: A Scoping Review.

Am J Phys Med Rehabil

From the Department of Supportive Care Medicine, City of Hope Orange County Lennar Foundation Cancer Center, California (JTC); Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, New York (ME); Rehabilitation Department, Instituto do Cancer, Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil (VL); Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada (LC); Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Canada (LC); Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada (LEW); Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth Houston, Houston, Texas (CG); Department of Palliative, Rehabilitation, and Integrative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (AN-H); Research Medical Library, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (KJK); Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona (SCP); and Department of Medicine, Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada (DML).

Published: March 2024

Objective: The aim of the study is to identify and appraise current evidence for rehabilitation interventions in head and neck cancer.

Design: A previously published scoping review spanning 1990 through April 2017 was updated through January 11, 2023 and narrowed to include only interventional studies (Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(12):2381-2388). Included studies had a majority head and neck cancer population and rehabilitation-specific interventions. Pairs of authors extracted data and evaluated study quality using the PEDro tool. Results were organized by intervention type.

Results: Of 1338 unique citations, 83 studies with 87 citations met inclusion criteria. The median study sample size was 49 (range = 9-399). The most common interventions focused on swallow (16 studies), jaw (11), or both (6), followed by whole-body exercise (14) and voice (10). Most interventions took place in the outpatient setting (77) and were restorative in intent (65 articles). The overall study quality was fair (median PEDro score 5, range 0-8); none were of excellent quality (PEDro >9).

Conclusions: Most head and neck cancer rehabilitation interventions have focused on restorative swallow and jaw exercises and whole-body exercise to address dysphagia, trismus, and deconditioning. More high-quality evidence for head and neck cancer rehabilitation interventions that address a wider range of impairments and activity and social participation limitations during various cancer care phases is urgently needed to reduce head and neck cancer-associated morbidity.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000002384DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

head neck
24
rehabilitation interventions
16
neck cancer
16
interventions head
8
scoping review
8
study quality
8
quality pedro
8
interventions focused
8
whole-body exercise
8
cancer rehabilitation
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!