Dataset Information

Does weight loss reduce the incidence of total knee and hip replacement for osteoarthritis?-A prospective cohort study among middle-aged and older adults with overweight or obesity.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aims to investigate the association between weight change and total knee or hip replacement (TKR or THR) for OA among middle-aged and older adults with overweight or obesity.

Method

Weight data were collected in 2006-2009 and in 2010 from the 45 and Up Study-a population-based cohort aged ≥45 years in New South Wales, Australia. Participants were included if they had a baseline body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m² and no history of TKR or THR. Weight change was categorised into four groups: >7.5% loss; >5-7.5% loss; stable (≤5% change) and >5% gain. Hospital admission data were linked to identify TKR and THR for OA, and multivariable Cox regression was used to assess risk of TKR and THR.

Results

Of 23,916 participants, 2139 lost >7.5% weight, 1655 lost 5-7.5% weight, and 4430 gained >5% weight. Over 5.2 years, 1009 (4.2%) underwent TKR and 483 (2.0%) THR. Compared to weight-stable, weight loss of >7.5% was associated with reduced risk of TKR after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, socioeconomic and lifestyle factors (hazard ratio 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.87), but had no association with THR. Weight loss of 5-7.5% was not associated with altered risk of either TKR or THR. Weight gain was associated with increased risk of THR after adjusting for confounders, but not TKR.

Conclusion

This study suggests that a weight loss target >7.5% is required to reduce the risk of TKR in adults with overweight or obesity. Weight gain should be avoided as it increases the risk of THR.

SUBMITTER: Jin X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8310800 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Reduced external knee adduction moments in the second half of stance after total hip replacement have been reported in hip osteoarthritis patients. This reduction is thought to shift the load from the medial to the lateral knee compartment and as such increase the risk for knee osteoarthritis. The knee adduction moment is a surrogate for the load distribution between the medial and lateral compartments of the knee and not a valid measure for the tibiofemoral contact forces which are the result of externally applied forces and muscle forces. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the distribution of the tibiofemoral contact forces over the knee compartments in unilateral hip osteoarthritis patients 1 year after receiving a primary total hip replacement differs from healthy controls. Musculoskeletal modeling on gait was performed in OpenSim using the detailed knee model of Lerner et al. (2015) for 19 patients as well as for 15 healthy controls of similar age. Knee adduction moments were calculated by the inverse dynamics analysis, medial and lateral tibiofemoral contact forces with the joint reaction force analysis. Moments and contact forces of patients and controls were compared using Statistical Parametric Mapping two-sample t-tests. Knee adduction moments and medial tibiofemoral contact forces of both the ipsi- and contralateral leg were not significantly different compared to healthy controls. The contralateral leg showed 14% higher medial tibiofemoral contact forces compared to the ipsilateral (operated) leg during the second half of stance. During the first half of stance, the lateral tibiofemoral contact force of the contralateral leg was 39% lower and the ratio 32% lower compared to healthy controls. In contrast, during the second half of stance the forces were significantly higher (39 and 26%, respectively) compared to healthy controls. The higher ratio indicates a changed distribution whereas the increased lateral tibiofemoral contact forces indicate a higher lateral knee joint loading in the contralateral leg in OA patients after total hip replacement (THR). Musculoskeletal modeling using a detailed knee model can be useful to detect differences in the load distribution between the medial and lateral knee compartment which cannot be verified with the knee adduction moment.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of technology-assisted rehabilitation following total hip/knee replacement (THR/TKR). METHODS:Six electronic databases were searched without language or time restrictions for relevant studies: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro); from inception to November 7th, 2018. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion criteria to select eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effectiveness of technology-based interventions, compared with usual care or no intervention for people undergoing THR/TKR. Two reviewers independently extracted trial details (e.g. patients' profile, intervention, outcomes, attrition and adverse events). Study methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. Quality of evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS:We identified 21 eligible studies assessing telerehabilitation, game- or web-based therapy. There were 17 studies (N?=?2188) in post-TKR rehabilitation and 4 studies (N?=?783) in post-THR rehabilitation. Compared to usual care, technology-based intervention was more effective in reducing pain (mean difference (MD): -?0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI): -?0.48, -?0.02; moderate evidence) and improving function measured with the timed up-and-go test (MD: -7.03; 95% CI: -?11.18, -?2.88) in people undergoing TKR. No between-group differences were observed in rates of hospital readmissions or treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in those studies. CONCLUSION:There is moderate-quality of evidence showed technology-assisted rehabilitation, in particular, telerehabilitation, results in a statistically significant improvement in pain; and low-quality of evidence for the improvement in functional mobility in people undergoing TKR. The effects were however too small to be clinically significant. For THR, there is very limited low-quality evidence shows no significant effects.