Pre-exercise and acute movement-evoked pain trajectories during a 24-week outdoor walking program for knee osteoarthritis (WALK).

Objectives: Exploring (1) pre-exercise and acute movement-evoked pain (AMEP) during an outdoor walking program in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA); and (2) comparing baseline physical performance and AMEP flares initiated by walking between participants with either a higher or lower attendance rate. Methods: Individuals with knee OA were prescribed a 24-week walking program, including one unsupervised walk and two supervised walk classes per week. Participants self-reported knee pain on a numerical rating scale (NRS; 0-10) before and after each supervised class. Mixed-effects models were used to investigate trajectories over time for pre-exercise pain and AMEP change (post-minus pre-exercise pain; positive value indicates flare-up). Baseline physical performance (6 tests) and AMEP flares were compared between participants with higher (attending ≥70% of supervised classes) and lower attendance rates. Results: Of 24 participants commencing the program, 7 (29%) withdrew. Over 24 weeks, pre-exercise pain improved by 1.20 NRS (95% CI -1.41 to -0.99), with estimated largest per class improvements during the first 8 weeks (-0.05 (-0.06 to -0.03) and plateauing around 20-weeks. The AMEP was estimated to improve by 0.19 NRS (95% CI -0.38 to -0.004) over 24-weeks, with improvements plateauing around 12-weeks. Participants with lower attendance (n â€‹= â€‹11) scored poorer on all physical performance tests and experienced a slight increase in AMEP during the first two weeks of the program. Conclusions: Participants improved in pre-exercise pain and AMEP in the first 20 and 12 weeks, respectively. Despite supervision, physical performance and AMEP flares may have contributed to lower attendance. Trial registration number: 12618001097235.

Evaluating Osteoarthritis Management Programs: outcome domain recommendations from the OARSI Joint Effort Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To develop sets of core and optional recommended domains for describing and evaluating Osteoarthritis Management Programs (OAMPs), with a focus on hip and knee Osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: We conducted a 3-round modified Delphi survey involving an international group of researchers, health professionals, health administrators and people with OA. In Round 1, participants ranked the importance of 75 outcome and descriptive domains in five categories: patient impacts, implementation outcomes, and characteristics of the OAMP and its participants and clinicians. Domains ranked as "important" or "essential" by ≥80% of participants were retained, and participants could suggest additional domains. In Round 2, participants rated their level of agreement that each domain was essential for evaluating OAMPs: 0 = strongly disagree to 10 = strongly agree. A domain was retained if ≥80% rated it ≥6. In Round 3, participants rated remaining domains using same scale as in Round 2; a domain was recommended as "core" if ≥80% of participants rated it ≥9 and as "optional" if ≥80% rated it ≥7. RESULTS: A total of 178 individuals from 26 countries participated; 85 completed all survey rounds. Only one domain, "ability to participate in daily activities", met criteria for a core domain; 25 domains met criteria for an optional recommendation: 8 Patient Impacts, 5 Implementation Outcomes, 5 Participant Characteristics, 3 OAMP Characteristics and 4 Clinician Characteristics. CONCLUSION: The ability of patients with OA to participate in daily activities should be evaluated in all OAMPs. Teams evaluating OAMPs should consider including domains from the optional recommended set, with representation from all five categories and based on stakeholder priorities in their local context.

A pilot randomized controlled trial evaluating outdoor community walking for knee osteoarthritis: walk.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining outdoor walking on knee osteoarthritis (KOA) clinical outcomes and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) structural changes. METHOD: This was a 24-week parallel two-arm pilot RCT in Tasmania, Australia. KOA participants were randomized to either a walking plus usual care group or a usual care control group. The walking group trained 3 days/week. The primary outcome was feasibility assessed by changes being required to the study design, recruitment, randomization, program adherence, safety, and retention. Exploratory outcomes were changes in symptoms, physical performance/activity, and MRI measures. RESULTS: Forty participants (mean age 66 years (SD 1.4) and 60% female) were randomized to walking (n = 24) or usual care (n = 16). Simple randomization resulted in a difference in numbers randomized to the two groups. During the study, class sizes were reduced from 10 to 8 participants to improve supervision, and exclusion criteria were added to facilitate program adherence. In the walking group, total program adherence was 70.0% and retention 70.8% at 24 weeks. The walking group had a higher number of mild adverse events and experienced clinically important improvements in symptoms (e.g., visual analogue scale (VAS) knee pain change in the walking group: - 38.7 mm [95% CI - 47.1 to - 30.3] versus usual care group: 4.3 mm [- 4.9 to 13.4]). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the feasibility of a full-scale RCT given acceptable adherence, retention, randomization, and safety, and recruitment challenges have been identified. Large symptomatic benefits support the clinical usefulness of a subsequent trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 12618001097235. Key Points • This pilot study is the first to investigate the effects of an outdoor walking program on knee osteoarthritis clinical outcomes and MRI joint structure, and it indicates that a full-scale RCT is feasible. • The outdoor walking program (plus usual care) resulted in large improvements in self-reported knee osteoarthritis symptoms compared to usual care alone. • The study identified recruitment challenges, and the manuscript explores these in more details and provides recommendations for future studies.

Osteoarthritis year in review 2022: rehabilitation.

This year in review presents key highlights from research relating to osteoarthritis (OA) rehabilitation published from the 1st April 2021 to the 18th March 2022. To identify studies for inclusion in the review, an electronic database search was carried out in Medline, Embase and CINAHLplus. Following screening, included studies were grouped according to their predominant topic area, including core OA rehabilitation treatments (education, exercise, weight loss), adjunctive treatments, novel and emerging treatments or research methods, and translation of rehabilitation evidence into practice. Studies of perceived high clinical importance, quality, or controversy in the field were selected for inclusion in the review. Headline findings include: the positive role of technology to support remote delivery of core OA rehabilitation treatments, the importance of delivering educational interventions alongside exercise, the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a stepped approach to exercise, controversy around the potential mechanisms of action of exercise, mixed findings regarding the use of splinting for thumb base OA, increasing research on blood flow restriction training as a potential new intervention for OA, and evidence that the beneficial effects from core OA treatments seen in randomised controlled trials can be seen when implemented in clinical practice. A consistent finding across several recently published systematic reviews is that randomised controlled trials testing OA rehabilitation interventions are often small, with some risk of bias. Whilst future research is warranted, it needs to be large scale and robust, to enable definitive answers to important remaining questions in the field of OA rehabilitation.

Recommendations for the delivery of therapeutic exercise for people with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis. An international consensus study from the OARSI Rehabilitation Discussion Group.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-informed recommendations to support the delivery of best practice therapeutic exercise for people with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: A multi-stage, evidence-informed, international multi-disciplinary consensus process that included: 1) a narrative literature review to synthesise existing evidence; 2) generation of evidence-informed proposition statements about delivery of exercise for people with knee and/or hip OA by an international multi-disciplinary expert panel, with statements refined and analysed thematically; 3) an e-Delphi survey with the expert panel to gain consensus on the most important statements; 4) a final round of statement refinement and thematic analysis to group remaining statements into domains. RESULTS: The expert panel included 318 members (academics, health care professionals and exercise providers, patient representatives) from 43 countries. Final recommendations comprised 54 specific proposition statements across 11 broad domains: 1) use an evidence-based approach; 2) consider exercise in the context of living with OA and pain; 3) undertake a comprehensive baseline assessment with follow-up; 4) set goals; 5) consider the type of exercise; 6) consider the dose of exercise; 7) modify and progress exercise; 8) individualise exercise; 9) optimise the delivery of exercise; 10) focus on exercise adherence; and 11) provide education about OA and the role of exercise. CONCLUSION: The breadth of issues identified as important by the international diverse expert panel highlights that delivering therapeutic exercise for OA is multi-dimensional and complex.

Comparative effect of two educational videos on self-efficacy and kinesiophobia in people with knee osteoarthritis: an online randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare change in self-efficacy for managing knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain and kinesiophobia after watching an educational video based on an empowerment and participatory discourse with a video based on a disease and impairment discourse. DESIGN: Two-arm randomised controlled trial with participants aged ≥45 years with knee pain (n = 589). Participants completed both baseline and follow-up outcomes and watched one randomly-allocated video (12-minute duration) during one 30-45-minute session within a single online survey. The experimental video presented evidence-based knee OA information using design and language that aimed to empower people and focus on activity participation to manage OA, while the control video presented similar information but with a disease and impairment focus. Primary outcome measures were Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale pain subscale (range 0-10) and Brief Fear of Movement Scale for OA (range 6-24). Secondary outcomes were expectations about prognosis and physical activity benefits, perceived importance and motivation to be physically active, knee OA knowledge, hopefulness for the future, level of concern and perceived need for surgery. RESULTS: Compared to control (n = 293), the experimental group (n = 296) showed improved self-efficacy for managing OA pain (mean difference 0.4 [95%CI 0.2, 0.6] units) and reduced kinesiophobia (1.6 [1.1, 2.0] units). The experimental group also demonstrated greater improvements in all secondary outcomes apart from hopefulness, which was high in both groups. CONCLUSION: An educational video based on an empowerment and participatory discourse improved pain self-efficacy and reduced kinesiophobia in people with knee OA more than a video based on a disease and impairment discourse. CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration NCT05156216, Universal trial number U1111-1269-6143.

Effect of foot orthoses vs sham insoles on first metatarsophalangeal joint osteoarthritis symptoms: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare contoured foot orthoses to sham flat insoles for first MTP joint OA walking pain. DESIGN: This was a participant- and assessor-blinded, sham-controlled, multi-centre randomized clinical trial set in community-based private practices. Eighty-eight adults aged ≥45 years with symptomatic radiographic first MTP joint OA were randomized to receive contoured foot orthoses (n = 47) or sham flat insoles (n = 41), worn at all times when wearing shoes for 12 weeks. Primary outcome was change in first MTP joint walking pain (11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), 0-10) over 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional first MTP joint and foot pain measures, physical function, quality of life and physical activity. Separate linear regression models for primary and secondary outcomes on treatment group were fit, adjusting for the outcome at baseline and podiatrist. Other measures included adverse events. RESULTS: 88 participants were randomized and 87 (99%) completed the 12-week primary outcome. There was no evidence foot orthoses were superior to sham insoles for reducing pain (mean difference -0.3 NRS units (95% CI -1.2 to 0.6), p = 0.53). Similarly, foot orthoses were not superior to sham on any secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Adverse events were generally minor and transient. CONCLUSION: Contoured foot orthoses are no more effective than flat sham insoles for the clinical management of first MTP joint OA. Given the dearth of evidence on treatments for first MTP joint OA, further research is needed to identify effective management approaches for this common and debilitating condition.

Walking-related knee contact forces and associations with knee pain across people with mild, moderate and severe radiographic knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate knee contact forces (KCFs), and their relationships with knee pain, across grades of radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA) severity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional exploratory analysis of 164 participants with medial knee OA. Radiographic severity was classified as mild (grade 2), moderate (grade 3) or severe (grade 4) using the Kellgren & Lawrence (KL) scale. Walking knee pain was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale. External knee adduction moment (external KAM) and internal muscle forces were used to calculate medial, lateral and total KCFs using a musculoskeletal computational model. Force-time series across stance phase of gait were compared across KL grades using Statistical Parametric Mapping. Associations between KCFs and pain across KL grades were assessed using linear models. RESULTS: Medial KCFs during early and middle stance were higher in participants with KL3 and KL4 compared to those with KL2. In contrast, lateral KCFs were higher in those with KL2 compared to KL3 and KL4 in middle to late stance. The external loading component (i.e., KAM) of the medial KCF during middle to late stance was also greater in participants with KL3 and KL4 compared to those with KL2, whereas the internal (i.e., muscle) component was greater in those with KL3 and KL4 compared to KL3 during early stance. There were no associations between medial KCF and knee pain in any KL grade. CONCLUSIONS: Medial and lateral KCFs differ between mild, moderate and severe radiographic knee OA but are not associated with knee pain severity for any radiographic OA grade.

How does hip osteoarthritis differ from knee osteoarthritis?

Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are leading causes of global disability. Most research to date has focused on the knee, with results often extrapolated to the hip, and this extends to treatment recommendations in clinical guidelines. Extrapolating results from research on knee OA may limit our understanding of disease characteristics specific to hip OA, thereby constraining development and implementation of effective treatments. This review highlights differences between hip and knee OA with respect to prevalence, prognosis, epigenetics, pathophysiology, anatomical and biomechanical factors, clinical presentation, pain and non-surgical treatment recommendations and management.

"It's the single best thing I've done in the last 10 years": a qualitative study exploring patient and dietitian experiences with, and perceptions of, a multi-component dietary weight loss program for knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Explore patient and dietitian experiences with a multi-component dietary weight loss program for knee osteoarthritis to understand enablers and challenges to success at 6-months. DESIGN: Qualitative study embedded within a randomised controlled trial. Semi-structured individual interviews with 24 patients with knee osteoarthritis who undertook, and five dietitians who supervised, a weight management program (involving a ketogenic very low calorie diet (VLCD), video consultations, educational resources) over 6 months. Data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Five themes were developed: (1) ease and convenience of program facilitated adherence (structure and simplicity of the meal replacements; not feeling hungry on diet; convenience of consulting via video) (2) social and professional support crucial for success (encouragement from partner, family, and friends; guidance from, and accountability to, dietitian; anxiety around going at it alone) (3) program was engaging and motivating (determination to stick to program; rapid weight loss helped motivation) (4) holistic nature of program was important (suite of high-quality educational resources; exercise important to compliment weight loss) (5) rewarding experience and lifelong impact (improved knee pain and function; positive lifestyle change). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and dietitians described positive experiences with the weight management program, valuing its simplicity, effectiveness, and convenience. Support from dietitians and a comprehensive suite of educational resources, incorporated with an exercise program, were considered crucial for success. Findings suggest this multi-component dietary program is an acceptable weight loss method in people with knee osteoarthritis that may benefit symptoms. Strategies for supporting long-term independent weight management should be a focus of future research.

Can pain flares in knee osteoarthritis be predicted?

Objectives: This study examined whether risk factors for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) pain such as age, gender, body mass index (BMI), baseline pain, and other putative risk factors for knee osteoarthritis pain flares (KOAF) (e.g. knee buckling, injury, mood/stress/social support scores, and footwear) could predict KOAF.Method: People with KOA and previous history of KOAF were selected from a 3 month web-based longitudinal study. KOAF was defined as an increase of ≥ 2 points on a numeric rating scale (compared with background pain) which resolved within 20 days. Predictors assessed at baseline were gender, age, duration of KOA, BMI, pain, knee injury (7 days before), knee buckling (2 days before), Lubben Social Support, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain score (ICOAP), Positive/Negative Affect Score, and footwear stability/heel height. Outcome was occurrence of any KOAF during the ensuing 30 days. The combined ability of the above variables to predict occurrence of any KOAF was evaluated by multiple logistic regression with a 10-fold cross-validation method to build and internally validate the model. Variables that assessed similar domains were eliminated using receiver operating characteristics curve assessment for best fit.Results: Complete data were available for 313 people (66.6% female, mean ± sd age 62.3 ± 8.2 years, BMI 29.7 ± 6.5 kg/m2). Increasing age, years of osteoarthritis, BMI, background/worst levels of pain, knee injury, knee buckling, ICOAP, and footwear category/heel height significantly predicted the occurrence of KOAF during the following 30 days, with an area under the curve of 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.67-0.80).Conclusion: A combination of risk factors assessed at baseline, including exposures with potential to vary, successfully predicts the KOAF in the ensuing 30 days.

Association of weather factors with the risk of pain exacerbations in people with hip osteoarthritis.

Objectives: Our objective was to evaluate the association of weather factors with the risk of pain exacerbations in people with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA). Method: Eligible participants with symptomatic hip OA were instructed to log on to the study website and complete questionnaires every 10 days and additionally whenever they considered they were experiencing a pain exacerbation (case period) during the 90 day follow-up. Pain exacerbation was defined as an increase of two points in pain intensity on an 11-point numeric rating scale (0-10) during the follow-up compared with baseline. Each case period was anchored to four control periods within a 35 day interval using a time-stratified approach. Weather data were obtained for both periods from the publicly available meteorological database of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. We examined the association of weather factors across 72 h before the index date with the risk of pain exacerbation, using conditional logistic regression. Results: Among 252 participants recruited, 129 participants had at least one episode of pain exacerbation and were included in the analysis. A significant dose-response relationship was found between average daily temperature variation in the prior 72 h and risk of pain exacerbations (p = 0.04 for linear trend). There was no significant association between maximum daily temperature, minimum daily temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, or barometric pressure and hip pain exacerbations. Conclusion: The overall results suggest that only daily temperature variation among different weather factors was associated with hip pain exacerbations in people with symptomatic hip OA.

Exercise therapy with or without other physical therapy interventions versus placebo interventions for osteoarthritis -Systematic review.

Objective: To evaluate whether exercise therapy, with or without other physical therapy interventions, is superior to placebo intervention for osteoarthritis (OA). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE and EMBASE via OVID, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus via EBSCO were searched from inception to February 2021. Study selection: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with OA investigating an intervention involving exercise therapy with a placebo comparator. Data extraction and analysis: Data were extracted and checked for accuracy and completeness by pairs of reviewers. Primary outcomes were self-reported pain, function and quality of life (QoL). Comparative treatment effects were analysed by random effects model for short- and longer-term follow up. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Results: 13 RCTs involving 1079 patients were identified and included. Meta-analysis demonstrated improved pain (10 studies (GRADE low certainty), SMD -1.1 (95%CI -1.7 to -0.4)) and function (8 studies (GRADE low certainty), SMD -0.8 (95%CI -1.5 to -0.2)) in the short-term with exercise versus placebo, but no significant difference in the longer-term (pain 3 studies; function 3 studies). Conclusion: Current evidence demonstrates that exercise therapy is superior to placebo in the short-term for pain and function in OA. The certainty of this evidence is low to very low and further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effects.

What type of exercise is most effective for people with knee osteoarthritis and co-morbid obesity?: The TARGET randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Different exercise types may yield different outcomes in osteoarthritis (OA) subgroups. The objective was to directly compare effectiveness of two exercise programs for people with medial knee OA and co-morbid obesity. DESIGN: We performed a participant- and assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial. 128 people ≥50 years with medial knee OA and body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 were recruited from the community. Interventions were home-based non-weight bearing (NWB) quadriceps strengthening or weight bearing (WB) functional exercise for 12 weeks. Primary outcomes were change in overall knee pain (numeric rating scale, range 0-10) and difficulty with physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, 0-68) over 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included other pain measures, physical function, quality-of-life, global changes, physical performance, and lower-limb muscle strength. RESULTS: 123 (96%) participants were retained. There was no evidence of a between-group difference in change in pain (mean difference 0.73 units (95% confidence intervals (0.05,1.50)) or function (2.80 units (-1.17,6.76)), with both groups reporting improvements. For secondary outcomes, the WB group had greater improvement in quality-of-life (-0.043 units (-0.085,-0.001)) and more participants reporting global improvement (overall: relative risk 1.40 (0.98,2.01); pain 1.47 (0.97,2.24); function 1.43 (1.04,1.98). Although adverse events were minor, more NWB group participants reported ≥1 adverse event (26/66 (39%) vs 14/62 (23%), p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Both exercise types similarly improved primary outcomes of pain and function and can be recommended for people with knee OA and obesity. WB exercise may be preferred given fewer adverse events and potential additional benefits on some secondary outcomes. REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry #12617001013358, 14/7/2017).

Is a model of stratified exercise therapy by physical therapists in primary care feasible in patients with knee osteoarthritis? : a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the feasibility of a newly developed model of stratified exercise therapy in primary care for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Mixed method design (process, outcome and qualitative evaluation). SETTING: Six physical therapy practices in primary care around Amsterdam. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty eligible patients with knee OA, visiting one of the participating physical therapists (PTs). INTERVENTION: Patients were allocated to a subgroup based on a simple stratification tool and received subgroup-specific, protocolized, 4-month, exercise therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility of this model of stratified exercise therapy was explored by multiple process parameters, outcome measures (physical functioning and knee pain; at baseline and 4-months follow-up) and experiences from patients and PTs. RESULTS: From 97 potentially eligible patients, fifty patients were included and allocated to the 'high muscle strength subgroup' (n=17), 'depression subgroup' (n=4), 'obesity subgroup' (n=6) or 'low muscle strength subgroup' (n=23). Three patients dropped out during the study period. PTs provided relatively low numbers of sessions (on average 10 sessions), although exceedance of the recommended maximum number of sessions did occur frequently. We found clinically relevant improvements on physical functioning and knee pain (P<0.001 for both) for the total group. In general, the model of stratified exercise therapy was considered to be easily applicable and of added value for daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: Our model of stratified exercise therapy seems to be feasible in primary care, although a number of limitations were reported. Future research should determine the (cost-)effectiveness of an adapted model, compared to usual, non-stratified exercise therapy.

Development of a core capability framework for qualified health professionals to optimise care for people with osteoarthritis: an OARSI initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Develop a generic trans-disciplinary, skills-based capability framework for health professionals providing care for people with OA. DESIGN: e-Delphi survey. An international inter-professional Delphi Panel (researchers; clinicians; consumer representatives) considered a draft framework (adapted from elsewhere) of 131 specific capabilities mapped to 14 broader capability areas across four domains (A: person-centred approaches; B: assessment, investigation and diagnosis; C: management, interventions and prevention; D: service and professional development). Over three rounds, the Panel rated their agreement (Likert or numerical rating scales) on whether each specific capability in Domains B and C was essential (core) for all health professionals when providing care for all people with OA. Those achieving consensus (≥80% of Panel) rating of ≥ seven out of ten (Round 3) were retained. Generic domains (A and D) were included in the final framework and amended based on Panel comments. RESULTS: 173 people from 31 countries, spanning 18 disciplines and including 26 consumer representatives, participated. The final framework comprised 70 specific capabilities across 13 broad areas i) communication; ii) person-centred care; iii) history-taking; iv) physical assessment; v) investigations and diagnosis; vi) interventions and care planning; vii) prevention and lifestyle interventions; viii) self-management and behaviour change; ix) rehabilitative interventions; x) pharmacotherapy; xi) surgical interventions; xii) referrals and collaborative working; and xiii) evidence-based practice and service development). CONCLUSION: Experts agree that health professionals require an array of skills in person-centred approaches; assessment, investigation and diagnosis; management, interventions and prevention; and service and professional development to provide optimal care for people with OA.

The influence of sex and pre-operative obesity on biomechanics two years after total knee arthroplasty: A longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sex and obesity may influence knee biomechanics associated with poor outcomes following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) however their long-term impact has not been investigated. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does sex and/or pre-operative obesity influence change in gait biomechanics from pre-TKA to two-years after TKA, and do knee biomechanics return to normal two-years after TKA? METHODS: In this longitudinal study, gait analysis was performed on 78 patients undergoing TKA for knee osteoarthritis prior to surgery (baseline), and on 66 (85 %) of these who returned at the two year follow-up. Gait biomechanics were also collected on a reference sample of 40 asymptomatic participants. Knee variables were analyzed according to time (pre- and post-TKA), sex (men and women), pre-operative obesity (obese vs non-obese), and group (TKA vs reference). Mixed linear regression models were used to examine the effects of TKA, obesity status, gender and all interactions. RESULTS: There were two-year reductions in peak knee frontal plane angle (mean difference -7.21°; 95% confidence intervals -9.37 to -5.05), peak knee adduction moment (KAM) (-17.64Nm; -23.04 to -12.24) and KAM impulse (-9.40Nm.s; -12.04 to -6.77) in males. These and other variables were unchanged in women. At two years, men exhibited a greater varus-valgus thrust excursion (4.9°; 2.7-7.2), and a lower peak knee frontal plane angle (-4.4°; -7.1 to -1.7) and peak KAM (-13.1Nm; -20.9 to -5.4), compared to the reference sample. Biomechanics at two years did not differ between pre-operative obesity subgroups, or between female TKA patients and the reference sample. SIGNIFICANCE: Changes in gait biomechanics two years after TKA are influenced by sex but not obesity. Men but not women showed altered knee biomechanics two years following TKR and compared to a reference sample. It is unknown whether these altered biomechanics in men impact longer term clinical outcomes and satisfaction following surgery.

OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis

To update and expand upon prior Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) guidelines by developing patient-focused treatment recommendations for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular osteoarthritis (OA) that are derived from expert consensus and based on objective review of high-quality meta-analytic data. We sought evidence for 60 unique interventions. A systematic search of all relevant databases was conducted from inception through July 2018. After abstract and full-text screening by two independent reviewers, eligible studies were matched to PICO questions. Data were extracted and meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan software. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence Profiles were compiled using the GRADEpro web application. Voting for Core Treatments took place first. Four subsequent voting sessions took place via anonymous online survey, during which Panel members were tasked with voting to produce recommendations for all joint locations and comorbidity classes. We designated non-Core treatments to Level 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, or 5, based on the percentage of votes in favor, in addition to the strength of the recommendation. Core Treatments for Knee OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs with or without dietary weight management. Core Treatments for Hip and Polyarticular OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were strongly recommended for individuals with Knee OA (Level 1A). For individuals with gastrointestinal comorbidities, COX-2 inhibitors were Level 1B and NSAIDs with proton pump inhibitors Level 2. For individuals with cardiovascular comorbidities or frailty, use of any oral NSAID was not recommended. Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA hyaluronic acid, and aquatic exercise were Level 1B/Level 2 treatments for Knee OA, dependent upon comorbidity status, but were not recommended for individuals with Hip or Polyarticular OA. The use of Acetaminophen/Paracetamol (APAP) was conditionally not recommended (Level 4A and 4B), and the use of oral and transdermal opioids was strongly not recommended (Level 5). A treatment algorithm was constructed in order to guide clinical decision-making for a variety of patient profiles, using recommended treatments as input for each decision node. These guidelines offer comprehensive and patient-centered treatment profiles for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular OA. The treatment algorithm will facilitate individualized treatment decisions regarding the management of OA.

OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To update and expand upon prior Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) guidelines by developing patient-focused treatment recommendations for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular osteoarthritis (OA) that are derived from expert consensus and based on objective review of high-quality meta-analytic data. METHODS: We sought evidence for 60 unique interventions. A systematic search of all relevant databases was conducted from inception through July 2018. After abstract and full-text screening by two independent reviewers, eligible studies were matched to PICO questions. Data were extracted and meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan software. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence Profiles were compiled using the GRADEpro web application. Voting for Core Treatments took place first. Four subsequent voting sessions took place via anonymous online survey, during which Panel members were tasked with voting to produce recommendations for all joint locations and comorbidity classes. We designated non-Core treatments to Level 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, or 5, based on the percentage of votes in favor, in addition to the strength of the recommendation. RESULTS: Core Treatments for Knee OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs with or without dietary weight management. Core Treatments for Hip and Polyarticular OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were strongly recommended for individuals with Knee OA (Level 1A). For individuals with gastrointestinal comorbidities, COX-2 inhibitors were Level 1B and NSAIDs with proton pump inhibitors Level 2. For individuals with cardiovascular comorbidities or frailty, use of any oral NSAID was not recommended. Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA hyaluronic acid, and aquatic exercise were Level 1B/Level 2 treatments for Knee OA, dependent upon comorbidity status, but were not recommended for individuals with Hip or Polyarticular OA. The use of Acetaminophen/Paracetamol (APAP) was conditionally not recommended (Level 4A and 4B), and the use of oral and transdermal opioids was strongly not recommended (Level 5). A treatment algorithm was constructed in order to guide clinical decision-making for a variety of patient profiles, using recommended treatments as input for each decision node. CONCLUSION: These guidelines offer comprehensive and patient-centered treatment profiles for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular OA. The treatment algorithm will facilitate individualized treatment decisions regarding the management of OA.