Impact of Cane Use on Bone Marrow Lesion Volume in People With Medial Knee Osteoarthritis (CUBA Trial)

EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: 2023 update

INTRODUCTION

Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are increasingly common with a significant impact on individuals and society. Non-pharmacological treatments are considered essential to reduce pain and improve function and quality of life. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee OA were published in 2013. Given the large number of subsequent studies, an update is needed.

METHODS

The Standardised Operating Procedures for EULAR recommendations were followed. A multidisciplinary Task Force with 25 members representing 14 European countries was established. The Task Force agreed on an updated search strategy of 11 research questions. The systematic literature review encompassed dates from 1 January 2012 to 27 May 2022. Retrieved evidence was discussed, updated recommendations were formulated, and research and educational agendas were developed.

RESULTS

The revised recommendations include two overarching principles and eight evidence-based recommendations including (1) an individualised, multicomponent management plan; (2) information, education and self-management; (3) exercise with adequate tailoring of dosage and progression; (4) mode of exercise delivery; (5) maintenance of healthy weight and weight loss; (6) footwear, walking aids and assistive devices; (7) work-related advice and (8) behaviour change techniques to improve lifestyle. The mean level of agreement on the recommendations ranged between 9.2 and 9.8 (0-10 scale, 10=total agreement). The research agenda highlighted areas related to these interventions including adherence, uptake and impact on work.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2023 updated recommendations were formulated based on research evidence and expert opinion to guide the optimal management of hip and knee OA.

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.

Effect of cane use on bone marrow lesion volume in people with medial tibiofemoral knee osteoarthritis: randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effects of daily cane use for 3 months on medial tibiofemoral bone marrow lesion (BML) volumes in people with medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), 79 participants with medial tibiofemoral OA were randomized to either a cane group (using a cane whenever walking) or control group (not using any gait aid) for 3 months. The cane group received a single training session by a physiotherapist, using a biofeedback cane to teach optimal technique and body weight support and motor learning principles to facilitate retention of learning. The primary outcome was change in total medial tibiofemoral BML volume (per unit bone volume) measured from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were BML volumes (per unit bone volume) of the medial tibia and femur, and patient-reported outcomes of overall knee pain, knee pain on walking, physical function, perceived global symptom changes and health-related quality of life. MRI analyses were performed by a blinded assessor.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight participants (99%) completed the primary outcome. Mean (standard deviation) daily cane use was 2.3 (1.7) hours over 3 months. No evidence of between-group differences was found for change in total medial tibiofemoral BML volume (mean difference: -0.0010 (95% confidence intervals: -0.0022, 0.0003)). Most secondary outcomes showed minimal differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

Daily use of a cane during walking for 3 months aiming to reduce knee joint loading did not change medial tibiofemoral BML volumes compared to no use of gait aids.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12614000909628).

Body weight support through a walking cane in inexperienced users with knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Walking canes are a self-management strategy recommended for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) by clinical practice guidelines. Ensuring that an adequate amount of body-weight support (%BWS) is taken through the walking cane is important as this reduces measures of knee joint loading.

RESEARCH QUESTION

1) How much body weight support do people with knee OA place through a cane? 2) Do measures of body weight support increase following a brief simple training session?

METHODS

Seventeen individuals with knee pain who had not used a walking cane before were recruited. A standard-grip aluminum cane was then used for 1 week with limited manufacturer instructions. Following this, participants were evaluated using an instrumented force-measuring cane to assess body weight support (% total body weight) through the cane. Force data were recorded during a 430-metre walk undertaken twice; once before 10 min of cane training administered by a physiotherapist, and once immediately after training. Measures of BWS (peak force, average force, impulse equal to the average cane force times duration, and cane-ground contact duration) were extracted. Using bathroom scales, training aimed to take at least 10% body weight support through the cane.

RESULTS

Before training, the average peak BWS was 7.2 ± 2.5% of total body weight. Following 10 min of training, there was a significant increase in average peak BWS by 28%, average BWS by 25%, and BWS impulse by 54% (p < 0.05). However, individual BWS responses to training were variable. Duration of cane placement increased by 22% after training (p = 0.02). Timing of peak BWS through the cane occurred at 51% of contact phase before training, and at 53% after training (p = 0.05).

SIGNIFICANCE

A short training session can increase the transfer of body weight through a walking cane. However, more sophisticated feedback may be needed to achieve target levels of BWS.