scholarly journals The effect of isokinetic training on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: clinical traial

Author(s):  
Amaneh Abdollahi ◽  
Bijan Goodarzi ◽  
Seyed Kazem Shakoori
2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1337.2-1337
Author(s):  
T. W. Swinnen ◽  
M. Willems ◽  
I. Jonkers ◽  
F. P. Luyten ◽  
J. Vanrenterghem ◽  
...  

Background:The personal and societal burden of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) urges the research community to identify factors that predict its onset and progression. A mechanistic understanding of disease is currently lacking but needed to develop targeted interventions. Traditionally, risk factors for KOA are termed ‘local’ to the joint or ‘systemic’ referring to whole-body systems. There are however clear indications in the scientific literature that contextual factors such as socioeconomic position merit further scientific scrutiny, in order to justify a more biopsychosocial view on risk factors in KOA.Objectives:The aims of this systematic literature review were to assess the inclusion of socioeconomic factors in KOA research and to identify the impact of socioeconomic factors on pain and function in KOA.Methods:Major bibliographic databases, namely Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane, were independently screened by two reviewers (plus one to resolve conflicts) to identify research articles dealing with socioeconomic factors in the KOA population without arthroplasty. Included studies had to quantify the relationship between socioeconomic factors and pain or function. Main exclusion criteria were: a qualitative design, subject age below 16 years and articles not written in English or Dutch. Methodological quality was assessed via the Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized (ROB-II) and non-randomized intervention studies (ROBIN-I) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies. Due to heterogeneity of studies with respect to outcomes assessed and analyses performed, no meta-analysis was performed.Results:Following de-duplication, 7639 articles were available for screening (120 conflicts resolved without a third reader). In 4112 articles, the KOA population was confirmed. 1906 (25%) were excluded because of knee arthroplasty and 1621 (21%) because of other issues related to the population definition. Socioeconomic factors could not be identified in 4058 (53%) papers and were adjusted for in 211 (3%) articles. In the remaining papers covering pain (n=110) and/or function (n=81), education (62%) and race (37%) were most frequently assessed as socioeconomic factors. A huge variety of mainly dichotomous or ordinal socioeconomic outcomes was found without further methodological justification nor sensitivity analysis to unravel the impact of selected categories. Although the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) was the most popular instrument to assess pain and function, data pooling was not possible as socioeconomic factors estimates were part of multilevel models in most studies. Overall results showed that lower education and African American race were consistent predictors of pain and poor function, but those effects diminished or disappeared when psychological aspects (e.g. discrimination) or poverty estimates were taken into account. When function was assessed using self-reported outcomes, the impact of socioeconomic factors was more clear versus performance-based instruments. Quality of research was low to moderate and the moderating or mediating impact of socioeconomic factors on intervention effects in KOA is understudied.Conclusion:Research on contextual socioeconomic factors in KOA is insufficiently addressed and their assessment is highly variable methodologically. Following this systematic literature review, we can highlight the importance of implementing a standardised and feasible set of socioeconomic outcomes in KOA trials1, as well as the importance of public availability of research databases including these factors. Future research should prioritise the underlying mechanisms in the effect of especially education and race on pain and function and assess its impact on intervention effects to fuel novel (non-)pharmacological approaches in KOA.References:[1]Smith TO et al. The OMERACT-OARSI Core Domain Set for Measurement in Clinical Trials of Hip and/or Knee Osteoarthritis J Rheumatol 2019. 46:981–9.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.


2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 230949902199606
Author(s):  
Takeshi Mochizuki ◽  
Koichiro Yano ◽  
Katsunori Ikari ◽  
Ken Okazaki

Purpose: This study investigated the clinical effects of different patellar components without being affected by the femoral component design in total knee arthritis (TKA) for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: In total, 48 patients with OA who met the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology for OA were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to two groups according to the usage of patellar component design for TKA (medialized dome type [dome group] or medialized anatomic type [anatomic group]). To evaluate the clinical outcomes for TKA, knee range of motion (ROM), pain intensity of 0–100 mm visual analog scale (pain VAS), and the Japanese Knee Osteoarthritis Measure (JKOM) score were obtained at baseline and year 1. Results: The difference in knee ROM, pain VAS, or total JKOM score at year 1 was not significant between the dome and anatomic groups ( p = 0.398, 0.733 and 0.536, respectively). Moreover, similar results were obtained for changes in knee ROM, pain VAS, or total JKOM scores from baseline. In both groups, the pain VAS and total JKOM scores were significantly improved at year 1. Conclusion: Both dome and anatomic groups in TKA are significantly effective for pain and function using the JKOM score. However, their efficacy did not differ, according to the JKOM score. Results of this study are rare information focusing on the patellar component design and provide one of the insights into the TKA clinical management.


2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatima Abourazzak ◽  
Sofia Talbi ◽  
Faiza Lazrak ◽  
Hamida Azzouzi ◽  
Nassia Aradoini ◽  
...  

PM&R ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. S162
Author(s):  
Eduardo E. Rocha ◽  
Erika M. Suzigan ◽  
Joao EP. Almeida ◽  
Mauricio A. Luz

2004 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 716-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven A. Mazzuca ◽  
Mark C. Page ◽  
Russell D. Meldrum ◽  
Kenneth D. Brandt ◽  
Satham Petty-Saphon

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (12) ◽  
pp. 1666-1675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu-Lu Lin ◽  
Yong-Ting Li ◽  
Jian-Feng Tu ◽  
Jing-Wen Yang ◽  
Ning Sun ◽  
...  

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture for pain relief and function improvement in patients with knee osteoarthritis and to determine the feasibility of an eight-week acupuncture intervention. Design: Pilot randomized controlled trial. Setting: Three teaching hospitals in China. Subjects: Patients with knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren grade II or III). Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to an eight-week (three sessions per week) intervention of either traditional Chinese acupuncture or sham acupuncture. Main measures: The primary outcome was response rate—the proportion of patients achieving score ⩾36% decrease in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and function at week 8 compared with baseline. Secondary outcomes included pain, function and quality of life. Results: Of 42 patients randomized, 36 (85.7%) completed the study. There was no significant difference in response rate between the traditional Chinese acupuncture and control groups: 61.9% (13 of 21) versus 42.9% (9 of 21) achieved score ⩾36% decrease in WOMAC pain and function at week 8 ( P = 0.217). The sum of WOMAC pain and function scores at week 8 was 11.6 (9.1) in the traditional Chinese acupuncture group compared with 16.3 (10.9) in the control group ( P = 0.183). There was no significant difference between groups. Three adverse events were recorded and were classified as mild. Conclusion: It showed that three sessions per week acupuncture intervention of knee osteoarthritis was feasible and safe. No difference was observed between groups due to small sample size. Larger (sample size ⩾ 296) randomized controlled trials of this intervention appear justified.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document