Effectiveness, safety, and cost-utility of a knee brace in medial knee osteoarthritis: the ERGONOMIE randomized controlled trial

KNEE BRACES FOR KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS: A SCOPING REVIEW AND NARRARIVE SYNTHESIS OF INTERVENTIONS IN RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALS

OBJECTIVE

To identify and synthesise the content of knee bracing interventions in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

In this scoping review, three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane) were searched up to 10th June 2024. Nineteen previous systematic reviews of knee bracing for knee OA and four recent international clinical practice guidelines were also hand searched. Identified studies were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers. Information on bracing interventions was extracted from included RCT reports, informed by Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guidelines. Data were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

Thirty-one RCTs testing 47 different bracing interventions were included. Braces were broadly grouped as valgus/varus, patellofemoral, sleeve, neutral hinged, or control/placebo knee braces. Brace manufacturer and models varied, as did amount of recommended brace use. Only three interventions specifically targeted brace adherence. Information on brace providers, setting, number of treatment sessions, and intervention modification over time was poorly reported. Adherence to brace use was described for 32 (68%) interventions, most commonly via self-report. Several mechanisms of action for knee braces were proposed, broadly grouped as biomechanical, neuromuscular, and psychological.

CONCLUSIONS

Many different knee brace interventions have been tested for knee OA, with several proposed mechanisms of action, a lack of focus on adherence, and a lack of full reporting. These issues may be contributing to the heterogeneous findings and inconsistent guideline recommendations about the clinical effectiveness of knee bracing for knee OA to date.

Knee braces and foot orthoses multimodal 3-month treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis in a randomised crossover trial

PURPOSE

Immediate biomechanical and functional benefits of knee braces and lateral wedge foot orthoses (FO) are often reported on patients with medial knee osteoarthritis. However, the effectiveness of their combined use in a longer-term orthotic treatment remains unclear. The aim was to evaluate pain, function, comfort and knee adduction moment (KAM) during the stance phase of gait with three modalities of orthotic treatment.

METHODS

Twenty-two patients with knee osteoarthritis were analysed in a randomised crossover trial including a knee brace with valgus and external rotation functions (VER), FO and their combined use (VER + FO). Western Ontario and McMaster Universities scale (WOMAC) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores and KAM during gait were obtained before and after each orthotic treatment of 3 months. Repeated measures analyses of variance contrasted the factors orthosis (VER, FO, VER + FO), treatment (pre and post) and wear (without and with) on pain, function, comfort and KAM.

RESULTS

An interaction between orthosis and treatment on the WOMAC pain (effect size [ES] = 0.17) and a main effect on the pain visual analogue score (ES = 0.24) indicated that VER and VER + FO were more alleviating than FO. The three modalities of orthotic treatment significantly improved functional scores (ES > 0.2) and reduced discomfort (ES = 0.25). A significant multivariate interaction between orthosis and wear (ES = 0.73) showed that the KAM reduction while wearing the orthoses was more pronounced with the VER and VER + FO than the FO.

CONCLUSION

The VER-brace obtained more effectiveness than FO on pain and KAM after 3 months for medial knee osteoarthritis and the combined treatment did not substantially improve biomechanical and functional outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study level I randomised crossover trial.

Comparing the effects of lower limb orthoses on knee pain, function, quality of life, and knee joint alignment in people with medial knee osteoarthritis

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of three types of orthoses (knee orthosis, ankle foot orthosis (AFO), and foot orthosis) on knee alignment, pain, function, and quality of life in individuals with medial knee osteoarthritis (MKOA).

Method

Thirty patients took part in this study and were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 10 in each group) based on the type of intervention. Knee function was assessed using the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) questionnaire, and knee alignment was evaluated by measuring angles using the images of bony prominence (AMI) method.

Results

After using knee orthosis and AFO, all subscales of KOOS showed significant improvement (p < .05). However, there was no significant difference in the results after using foot orthosis (p > .05).

Conclusion

The findings indicate that knee orthosis or AFO for 6 weeks can improve clinical outcomes for individuals with MKOA. This suggests that clinicians can consider using knee orthosis and AFO among the available treatment options to improve clinical outcomes.

Fundamentals of osteoarthritis. Rehabilitation: Exercise, diet, biomechanics, and physical therapist-delivered interventions

Insights related to the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis (OA) have informed rehabilitative treatments that aim to mitigate the influence of several known impairments and risk factors for OA, with the goal to improve pain, function, and quality of life. The purpose of this invited narrative review is to provide fundamental knowledge to non-specialists about exercise and education, diet, biomechanical interventions, and other physical therapist-delivered treatments. In addition to summarizing the rationale for common rehabilitative therapies, we provide a synthesis of current core recommendations. Robust evidence based on randomized clinical trials supports exercise with education and diet as core treatments for OA. Structured, supervised exercise therapy is advised. The mode of exercise may vary but should be individualized. The dose should be based on an initial assessment, the desired physiological changes, and progressed when appropriate. Diet combined with exercise is strongly recommended and studies demonstrate a dose-response relationship between the magnitude of weight loss and symptom improvement. Recent evidence suggests the use of technology to remotely deliver exercise, diet and education interventions is cost-effective. Although several studies support the mechanisms for biomechanical interventions (e.g., bracing, shoe inserts) and physical therapist-delivered (passive) treatments (e.g., manual therapy, electrotherapeutic modalities) fewer rigorous randomized trials support their clinical use; these therapies are sometimes recommended as adjuncts to core treatments. The mechanisms of action for all rehabilitative interventions include contextual factors such as attention and placebo effects. These effects can challenge our interpretation of treatment efficacy from clinical trials, yet also provide opportunities to maximize patient outcomes in clinical practice. When evaluating rehabilitative interventions, the field may benefit from increased emphasis on research that considers contextual factors while evaluating mechanistic, longer-term, clinically-important and policy-relevant outcome measures.

Osteoarthritis year in review 2022: rehabilitation

This year in review presents key highlights from research relating to osteoarthritis (OA) rehabilitation published from the 1^st April 2021 to the 18^th 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.

Adjunctive therapies in addition to land-based exercise therapy for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee

BACKGROUND

Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside exercise in hip or knee osteoarthritis management, but cumulative evidence for adjuncts to land-based exercise therapy is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of adjunctive therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy compared with placebo adjunctive therapy added to land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy only for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and clinical trials registries up to 10 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis comparing adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy (experimental group) versus placebo adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy (control groups). Exercise had to be identical in both groups. Major outcomes were pain, physical function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life (QOL), radiographic joint structural changes, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We evaluated short-term (6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (12 months onwards) effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 62 trials (60 RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs) totalling 6508 participants. One trial included people with hip osteoarthritis, one hip or knee osteoarthritis and 59 included people with knee osteoarthritis only. Thirty-six trials evaluated electrophysical agents, seven manual therapies, four acupuncture or dry needling, or taping, three psychological therapies, dietary interventions or whole body vibration, two spa or peloid therapy and one foot insoles. Twenty-one trials included a placebo adjunctive therapy. We presented the effects stratified by different adjunctive therapies along with the overall results. We judged most trials to be at risk of bias, including 55% at risk of selection bias, 74% at risk of performance bias and 79% at risk of detection bias. Adverse events were reported in eight (13%) trials. Comparing adjunctive therapies plus land-based exercise therapy against placebo therapies plus exercise up to six months (short-term), we found low-certainty evidence for reduced pain and function, which did not meet our prespecified threshold for a clinically important difference. Mean pain intensity was 5.4 in the placebo group on a 0 to 10 numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (lower scores represent less pain), and 0.77 points lower (0.48 points better to 1.16 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 10% (6% to 15% better) (22 studies; 1428 participants). Mean physical function on the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) 0 to 68 physical function (lower scores represent better function) subscale was 32.5 points in the placebo group and reduced by 5.03 points (2.57 points better to 7.61 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 12% (6% better to 18% better) (20 studies; 1361 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies did not improve QOL (SF-36 0 to 100 scale, higher scores represent better QOL). Placebo group mean QOL was 81.8 points, and 0.75 points worse (4.80 points worse to 3.39 points better) in the placebo adjunctive therapy group; relative improvement 1% (7% worse to 5% better) (two trials; 82 participants). Low-certainty evidence (two trials; 340 participants) indicates adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared to placebo therapies plus exercise (31% versus 13%; risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 21.90). Participant-reported global assessment was not measured in any studies. Compared with land-based exercise therapy, low-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive electrophysical agents alongside exercise produced short-term (0 to 6 months) pain reduction of 0.41 points (0.17 points better to 0.63 points better); mean pain in the exercise-only group was 3.8 points and 0.41 points better in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group (0 to 10 NPRS); relative improvement 7% (3% better to 11% better) (45 studies; 3322 participants). Mean physical function (0 to 68 WOMAC subscale) was 18.2 points in the exercise group and 2.83 points better (1.62 points better to 4.04 points better) in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group; relative improvement 9% (5% better to 13% better) (45 studies; 3323 participants). These results are not clinically important. Mean QOL in the exercise group was 56.1 points and 1.04 points worse in the adjunctive therapies plus exercise therapy group (1.04 points worse to 3.12 points better); relative improvement 2% (2% worse to 5% better) (11 studies; 1483 participants), indicating no benefit (low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise probably result in a slight increase in participant-reported global assessment (short-term), with success reported by 45% in the exercise therapy group and 17% more individuals receiving adjunctive therapies and exercise (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) (5 studies; 840 participants). One study (156 participants) showed little difference in radiographic joint structural changes (0.25 mm less, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.18 mm); 12% relative improvement (6% better to 18% better). Low-certainty evidence (8 trials; 1542 participants) indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared with exercise only (8.6% versus 6.5%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.27).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed no difference in pain, physical function or QOL between adjunctive therapies and placebo adjunctive therapies, or in pain, physical function, QOL or joint structural changes, compared to exercise only. Participant-reported global assessment was not reported for placebo comparisons, but there is probably a slight clinical benefit for adjunctive therapies plus exercise compared with exercise, based on a small number of studies. This may be explained by additional constructs captured in global measures compared with specific measures. Although results indicate no increased adverse events for adjunctive therapies used with exercise, these were poorly reported. Most studies evaluated short-term effects, with limited medium- or long-term evaluation. Due to a preponderance of knee osteoarthritis trials, we urge caution in extrapolating the findings to populations with hip osteoarthritis.

Consensus Guidelines on Interventional Therapies for Knee Pain (STEP Guidelines) from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience

Knee pain is second only to the back as the most commonly reported area of pain in the human body. With an overall prevalence of 46.2%, its impact on disability, lost productivity, and cost on healthcare cannot be overlooked. Due to the pervasiveness of knee pain in the general population, there are no shortages of treatment options available for addressing the symptoms. Ranging from physical therapy and pharmacologic agents to interventional pain procedures to surgical options, practitioners have a wide array of options to choose from - unfortunately, there is no consensus on which treatments are "better" and when they should be offered in comparison to others. While it is generally accepted that less invasive treatments should be offered before more invasive ones, there is a lack of agreement on the order in which the less invasive are to be presented. In an effort to standardize the treatment of this extremely prevalent pathology, the authors present an all-encompassing set of guidelines on the treatment of knee pain based on an extensive literature search and data grading for each of the available alternative that will allow practitioners the ability to compare and contrast each option.

Knee braces and foot orthoses multimodal treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Knee braces and lateral wedge foot orthoses are two treatment options recommended for medial knee osteoarthritis, but the combination of both of them could further improve their effectiveness.

RESEARCH QUESTION

The aim was to evaluate whether the combination of lateral wedge foot orthoses with two types of knee brace enhances the biomechanical effects and pain relief during the stance phase of gait while maintaining comfort.

METHODS

Ten patients with medial knee osteoarthritis were fitted with a standard valgus brace, an unloader brace with valgus and external rotation functions, and 7° lateral wedge foot orthoses. The pain relief, comfort, kinematics and kinetics of the lower limb were measured during walking without orthotics, with the combined and with the isolated treatments.

RESULTS

The valgus and external rotation brace significantly reduced the knee adduction moment and allowed more knee flexion both in isolation and in combination to foot orthoses compared to the valgus brace or without treatment. Pain relief was not significant with the different orthotic treatment modalities. The valgus brace and combined treatment with either brace significantly increased the discomfort level, whereas the valgus and external rotation brace or foot orthoses in isolation did not induce significant discomfort.

SIGNIFICANCE

Amongst the tested orthotic treatment modalities, the valgus and external rotation brace obtained better biomechanical outcomes while maintaining comfort. The combined treatment with foot orthoses enhanced the effectiveness of the valgus brace, however foot orthoses may be unnecessary with the valgus and external rotation brace.

Axial alignment is a critical regulator of knee osteoarthritis

Although osteoarthritis (OA), a leading cause of disability, has been associated with joint malalignment, scientific translational evidence for this link is lacking. In a clinical case study, we provide evidence of osteochondral recovery upon unloading symptomatic isolated medial tibiofemoral knee OA associated with varus malalignment. By mapping response correlations at high resolution, we identify spatially complex degenerative changes in cartilage after overloading in a clinically relevant ovine model. We further report that unloading diminishes OA cartilage degeneration and alterations of critical parameters of the subchondral bone plate in a similar topographic fashion. Last, therapeutic unloading shifted the articular cartilage and subchondral bone phenotype to normal and restored several physiological correlations disturbed in neutral and varus OA, suggesting a protective effect on the integrity of the entire osteochondral unit. Collectively, these findings identify modifiable trajectories with considerable translational potential to reduce the burden of human OA.

Mediale Kniegelenkarthrose: Was bringen entlastende Orthesen?

Valgus-Knieorthesen zielen darauf ab, den Druck auf das mediale tibiofemorale Gelenkkompartiment zu reduzieren. Profitieren Patientinnen und Patienten mit einer medialen Kniegelenkarthrose bezüglich der Schmerzbelastung vom Tragen einer solchen Orthese? Und wie sicher bzw. wie kosten-effektiv ist diese Behandlung? Diesen Fragen ging ein französisches Forscherteam nach.