Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common rheumatic disease of the musculoskeletal system, with the knee as the most affected joint. The number of people with OA of the knee is likely to increase due to the ageing society and the obesity epidemic. The predominant clinical symptom of knee OA is pain, which is described as worsening by activity and relieving by rest. Knee instability has been recognized as an important clinical feature in persons with knee OA. Pain and knee instability are associated with limitations in performing daily activities. Non-pharmacological options in the management of knee OA consist of education, weight loss, exercise, braces and physical therapy. Knee bracing has been recommended by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). Valgus knee braces designed to decrease loads on the medial compartment of the knee for patients with varus alignment are the most common. It has been shown however, that valgus bracing may have little or no effect on pain and physical functioning, and adherence to this treatment in patients with knee OA is low.Because of ease of use and access, lack of complications and low cost, soft knee braces are commonly used in persons with knee OA. However, the evidence for efficacy of soft knee bracing on pain and activity limitations in knee OA is limited. Therefore, it is important to strengthen the evidence of using a soft brace to reduce pain and activity limitations as well as to evaluate the efficacy of soft knee bracing on knee instability in persons with knee OA. There is also debate about the effectiveness of soft braces in other affected joints of the lower extremity and in conditions other than OA such as rheumatoid arthritis.Objectives: The aim of the study will be to evaluate the effect of wearing a soft brace on dynamic knee instability in patients with OA of the knee.Methods: Persons with knee OA and self-reported knee instability from the Amsterdam Osteoarthritis cohort participated in a single-session lab-experimental study. A within-subject design was used, comparing no brace versus brace, and comparing a non-tight versus a tight brace (standard fit). The primary outcome measure was dynamic knee instability, expressed by the Perturbation Response (PR), i.e., a biomechanics based measure reflecting deviation in the mean knee varus-valgus angle after a controlled mechanical perturbation, standardized to the mean (SD) varus-valgus angle during level walking. Linear mixed-effect model analysis was used to evaluate the effect of a brace on dynamic knee instability.Results: The wearing of a soft brace reduced the knee instability significantly during perturbed walking. Results will also be presented from the literature search and from the lab-experimental study.Conclusion: Wearing a soft brace reduces dynamic knee instability in patients with knee OA. However, longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate the clinical implications of wearing a soft brace.
ObjectiveFirst, to make an inventory of activity limitations commonly reported by knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Second, to evaluate treatment outcome using the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) and compare it to the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function subscale (WOMAC-pf).DesignAn observational study with assessments before and immediately after multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Five hundred and thirteen patients used the PSFS, a patient-reported tool to identify activity limitations and score the patient's ability to perform the activity on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), to report three activities in which they were limited. Frequencies and percentages of their highest-prioritized activity were calculated and categorized according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Paired-samples T-tests were used to analyze the change in ability to perform the activities. Effect sizes of PSFS and WOMAC-pf were compared.ResultsMost patients indicated limitations in walking, walking up/down stairs, prolonged standing, and standing up from a chair. Following these common activities, 26 different activities were identified. The majority of these highest-prioritized activities fell under the first-level ICF category of Mobility. The ability to perform all activities significantly improved after treatment. Effect sizes ranged between 0.60 and 0.97 and were greater than the effect size of the WOMAC-pf (0.41).ConclusionKnee OA patients who undergo multidisciplinary rehabilitation exhibit improvements in performing daily activities. The PSFS is a valuable tool to evaluate patient-specific activity limitations and seems to capture improvements in activity limitations beyond the WOMAC-pf.
BACKGROUND: We recently developed a model of stratified exercise therapy, consisting of (i) a stratification algorithm allocating patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) into one of the three subgroups ('high muscle strength subgroup' representing a post-traumatic phenotype, 'low muscle strength subgroup' representing an age-induced phenotype, and 'obesity subgroup' representing a metabolic phenotype) and (ii) subgroup-specific exercise therapy. In the present study, we aimed to test the construct validity of this algorithm.METHODS: Data from five studies (four exercise therapy trial cohorts and one cross-sectional cohort) were used to test the construct validity of our algorithm by 63 a priori formulated hypotheses regarding three research questions: (i) are the proportions of patients in each subgroup similar across cohorts? (15 hypotheses); (ii) are the characteristics of each of the subgroups in line with their proposed underlying phenotypes? (30 hypotheses); (iii) are the effects of usual exercise therapy in the 3 subgroups in line with the proposed effect sizes? (18 hypotheses).RESULTS: Baseline data from a total of 1211 patients with knee OA were analyzed for the first and second research question, and follow-up data from 584 patients who were part of an exercise therapy arm within a trial for the third research question. In total, the vast majority (73%) of the hypotheses were confirmed. Regarding our first research question, we found similar proportions in each of the three subgroups across cohorts, especially for three cohorts. Regarding our second research question, subgroup characteristics were almost completely in line with the proposed underlying phenotypes. Regarding our third research question, usual exercise therapy resulted in similar, medium to large effect sizes for knee pain and physical function for all three subgroups.CONCLUSION: We found mixed results regarding the construct validity of our stratification algorithm. On the one hand, it is a valid instrument to consistently allocate patients into subgroups that aligned our hypotheses. On the other hand, in contrast to our hypotheses, subgroups did not differ substantially in effects of usual exercise therapy. An ongoing trial will assess whether this algorithm accompanied by subgroup-specific exercise therapy improves clinical and economic outcomes.
MULTIFILE
