# Aquatic therapy in congenital malformation during the use of external fixator for bone lengthening: It is possible?

## TL;DR

The study explores whether aquatic therapy is a safe and effective rehabilitation method for children with congenital malformations using external fixators for bone lengthening.

## Contribution

This study is the first to describe the use of aquatic therapy in rehabilitation for congenital malformations with external fixators.

## Key findings

- Aquatic therapy is a safe treatment option for individuals with congenital malformations using external fixators.
- There is no association between diagnosis, fixator type/location, and rehabilitation outcomes.
- Infection was the most common adverse effect, but most patients completed aquatic therapy.

## Abstract

•Description of the rehabilitation of individuals with congenital malformations, with external fixator in aquatic therapy.•There is no association between diagnosis, type, and location of the external fixator, with the outcomes evaluated.•Aquatic therapy is a safe treatment option for the population studied.

Description of the rehabilitation of individuals with congenital malformations, with external fixator in aquatic therapy.

There is no association between diagnosis, type, and location of the external fixator, with the outcomes evaluated.

Aquatic therapy is a safe treatment option for the population studied.

The objective of this study is to describe the rehabilitation of individuals with Congenital Malformations (CMF) during the use of an External Fixator (EF) in Aquatic Therapy (AT) and to analyze the association between diagnosis, EF type and location with rehabilitation process outcomes, surgical intervention, and adverse effects.

This retrospective study included 29 medical records from which the personal and rehabilitation data of the patient were collected. The AT used was described and the outcome variables were associated. The medical records were selected by screening the database of the CMF clinic at the AACD. The inclusion criteria were participants with CMF who used EF treated between 2011 and 2019 of both genders and without age restriction. The exclusion criteria were incomplete medical record data or not undergoing AT while using EF. The extracted data included diagnosis, gender, age, EF type and location, objective of the surgery, adverse events, surgical interventions, time of rehabilitation in AT, physiotherapeutic objectives, and rehabilitation process outcomes in AT.

The mean age of the participants was 12.1 ± 3.99 years, with male predominance (55 %) and hemimelia cases (37 %). The most used EF was circular (51 %), located in the femur (37 %), and the main objective of surgery was bone lengthening (52 %). The most recurrent adverse effect was infection (62 %) and 76 % completed AT. There was no association between the variables analyzed.

It was possible to describe CMF rehabilitation with EF in AT. There was no association between the variables analyzed.