Dataset Information

Hip abductor strengthening in patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Globally osteoarthritis of the knee is a leading cause of disability. Hip abductor strength and activation are essential for maintaining postural balance during transfers and are related to joint loading and progression during weight-bearing activities. Strength deficits in the hip abductors might cause a reduction in the lower extremity force generation, thereby causing stress on the medial tibiofemoral joint. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of hip abductor strengthening on knee joint loading, knee pain and functional outcome measures in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Methods

Database such as Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database and PEDro were reviewed to recognize the trials published in English from inception to December 2020. Randomized controlled trials that studied the effectiveness of hip abductor strengthening in subjects with knee osteoarthritis and its impact on knee joint loading, knee pain and functional outcome measures were included. RevMan 5.4 was used for meta-analysis and forest plot construction. Quality assessment of the included studies was carried out using the PEDro scale.

Results and discussion

The search yielded 260 results of which 29 full-text articles were screened. The review includes 7 randomized controlled trials and 3 studies with good methodological quality were included for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis of the articles favored hip abductor strengthening intervention over the control group. Hip abductor strengthening had significantly reduced the VAS [ SMD = -0.60[-0.88, -0.33] p < 0.0001]at 95% CI and improved the WOMAC scores [SMD - 0.75[-1.05,-0.45] p < 0.0001] at 95% CI. All of the included studies concluded that strengthening the hip abductor muscle had a positive impact on knee pain and functional outcomes.

Conclusion

The current study found high-quality evidence to support the use of hip abductor muscle strengthening exercises as a rehabilitative treatment for subjects with knee osteoarthritis.

Trial registration

CRD42021256251 .

SUBMITTER: Thomas DT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9241212 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOsteoarthritis (OA) is common and burdensome for patients and health care systems. Our study purpose was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of DMOADs in adults with knee and hip osteoarthritis.MethodsWe searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Knowledge without language, publication, or date restrictions from inception through November 2018 for randomized controlled trials assessing 12 classes of DMOADs with at least 12 months of follow-up. Therapeutic effects were evaluated with pairwise and network meta-analysis. Outcomes included pain, function, minimum joint space width or cartilage volume, radiographic progression, and total joint replacement. Analyses were also performed for drug safety.ResultsTwenty-eight randomized controlled trials with 11,890 patients were included. Glucosamine and chondroitin minimally improved both structure (minimum joint width or cartilage volume: network results: glucosamine: SMD 0.16; 95% CI [0.04, 0.28], chondroitin: SMD 0.21 [0.10, 0.32]) and symptoms (glucosamine: pain: - 0.15 [- 0.25, - 0.05]; function: - 0.17 [- 0.28, - 0.07], chondroitin: pain: - 0.06 [- 0.15, 0.03], and function: - 0.15 [- 0.26, - 0.03]). Strontium demonstrated improvement in structure (minimum joint width or cartilage volume: 0.20 [0.02, 0.38]), and vitamin D on symptoms (pain: - 0.15 [- 0.27, -0.03]; function: - 0.18 [- 0.31, - 0.06]). Although doxycycline also demonstrated a favorable efficacy ranking, its safety profile was poor (withdrawal: network relative risk 1.69 [1.03, 2.75]). The therapeutic effects of other medications were not ranked as highly.DiscussionGlucosamine and chondroitin yielded statistically significant but clinically questionable long-term benefit on structure and symptoms, though both had favorable safety profiles. Strontium improved structure, and vitamin D improved symptoms. Although doxycycline had a favorable efficacy ranking, its safety profile was poor. None of the 12 classes of drugs appears to have long-term clinically significant benefit.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of viscosupplementation for pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sourcesSearches were conducted of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases from inception to 11 September 2021. Unpublished trials were identified from the grey literature and trial registries.Eligibility criteria for study selectionRandomised trials comparing viscosupplementation with placebo or no intervention for knee osteoarthritis treatment.Main outcome measuresThe prespecified primary outcome was pain intensity. Secondary outcomes were function and serious adverse events. Pain and function were analysed as standardised mean differences (SMDs). The prespecified minimal clinically important between group difference was -0.37 SMD. Serious adverse events were analysed as relative risks.MethodsTwo reviewers independently extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias of trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The predefined main analysis was based only on large, placebo controlled trials with ≥100 participants per group. Summary results were obtained through a random effects meta-analysis model. Cumulative meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis under a random effects model were also performed.Results169 trials provided data on 21 163 randomised participants. Evidence of small study effects and publication biases was observed for pain and function (Egger's tests with P<0.001 and asymmetric funnel plots). Twenty four large, placebo controlled trials (8997 randomised participants) included in the main analysis of pain indicated that viscosupplementation was associated with a small reduction in pain intensity compared with placebo (SMD -0.08, 95% confidence interval -0.15 to -0.02), with the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval excluding the minimal clinically important between group difference. This effect corresponds to a difference in pain scores of -2.0 mm (95% confidence interval -3.8 to -0.5 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Trial sequential analysis for pain indicated that since 2009 there has been conclusive evidence of clinical equivalence between viscosupplementation and placebo. Similar conclusions were obtained for function. Based on 15 large, placebo controlled trials on 6462 randomised participants, viscosupplementation was associated with a statistically significant higher risk of serious adverse events than placebo (relative risk 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.98).ConclusionStrong conclusive evidence indicates that viscosupplementation leads to a small reduction in knee osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo, but the difference is less than the minimal clinically important between group difference. Strong conclusive evidence indicates that viscosupplementation is also associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events compared with placebo. The findings do not support broad use of viscosupplementation for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021236894.

Project description:BackgroundExercise is an effective treatment for osteoarthritis. However, the effect may vary from one patient (or study) to another.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of exercise and its potential determinants for pain, function, performance, and quality of life (QoL) in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA).MethodsWe searched 9 electronic databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE Ovid, PEDro, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and Google Scholar) for reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise-only interventions with usual care. The search was performed from inception up to December 2017 with no language restriction. The effect size (ES), with its 95% confidence interval (CI), was calculated on the basis of between-group standardised mean differences. The primary endpoint was at or nearest to 8 weeks. Other outcome time points were grouped into intervals, from<1 month to?18 months, for time-dependent effects analysis. Potential determinants were explored by subgroup analyses. Level of significance was set at P?0.10.ResultsData from 77 RCTs (6472 participants) confirmed statistically significant exercise benefits for pain (ES 0.56, 95% CI 0.44-0.68), function (0.50, 0.38-0.63), performance (0.46, 0.35-0.57), and QoL (0.21, 0.11-0.31) at or nearest to 8 weeks. Across all outcomes, the effects appeared to peak around 2 months and then gradually decreased and became no better than usual care after 9 months. Better pain relief was reported by trials investigating participants who were younger (mean age<60 years), had knee OA, and were not awaiting joint replacement surgery.ConclusionsExercise significantly reduces pain and improves function, performance and QoL in people with knee and hip OA as compared with usual care at 8 weeks. The effects are maximal around 2 months and thereafter slowly diminish, being no better than usual care at 9 to 18 months. Participants with younger age, knee OA and not awaiting joint replacement may benefit more from exercise therapy. These potential determinants, identified by study-level analyses, may have implied ecological bias and need to be confirmed with individual patient data.

Project description:BackgroundMusculoskeletal multimorbidity is common and coexisting lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) has been reported. The aim of this review was to report the prevalence of multimorbid degenerative LSS with knee or hip OA based on clinical and/or imaging case definitions.MethodsLiterature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL up to May 2021. Studies involving adults with cross-sectional data to estimate the prevalence of co-occurring LSS with knee or hip OA were included. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Results were stratified according to index and comorbid condition, and by case definitions (imaging, clinical, and combined).ResultsTen studies from five countries out of 3891 citations met the inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 44 to 2,857,999 (median 230) and the mean age in the included studies range from 61 to 73 years (median 66 years). All studies were from secondary care or mixed settings. Nine studies used a combined definition of LSS and one used a clinical definition. Imaging, clinical, and combined case definitions of knee and hip OA were used. The prevalence of multimorbid LSS and knee or hip OA ranged from 0 to 54%, depending on the specified index condition and case definitions used. Six studies each provided prevalence data for index LSS and comorbid knee OA (prevalence range: 5 to 41%) and comorbid hip OA (prevalence range: 2 to 35%). Two studies provided prevalence data for index knee OA and comorbid LSS (prevalence range 17 to 54%). No studies reporting prevalence data for index hip OA and comorbid LSS were found. Few studies used comparable case definitions and all but one study were rated as high risk of bias.ConclusionsThere is evidence that multimorbid LSS with knee or hip OA occurs in people (0 to 54%), although results are based on studies with high risk of bias and surgical populations. Variability in LSS and OA case definitions limit the comparability of studies and prevalence estimates should therefore be interpreted with caution.Review registrationPROSPERO ( CRD42020177759 ).

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.