Realignment treatment for medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis: randomised trial

Knee braces for knee osteoarthritis: A scoping review and narrative 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.

The mediation effects of malalignment on the relation of sex to the risk of incidence tibiofemoral osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate to what extent the higher risk of tibiofemoral radiographic osteoarthritis (TFROA) in females vs. males can be explained by knee malalignment.

DESIGN

Using data from Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST) and Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), we examined the relation of sex to the incident medial and lateral TFROA and performed mediation analyses to assess to what extent varus and valgus malalignments account for sex differences in the incident medial or lateral TFROA.

RESULTS

Of the 3462 knees without medial and lateral TFROA in MOST, the 7-year risks of medial and lateral TFROA were 16.9% and 10.0% in females, and 15.8% and 4.2% in males, respectively. Females had 2.31-fold (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.73 to 3.08) higher incident lateral TFROA than males, and the relative risk (RR) of the indirect effect of sex on lateral TFROA through valgus malalignment was 1.15 (95% CI: 1.09 to 1.20), accounting for 23% of its total effect on lateral TFROA. In OAI (n = 3095 knees), females had 1.54-fold (95% CI: 1.15 to 2.04) higher incident lateral TFROA than males, and RR of the indirect effect of sex on lateral TFROA through valgus malalignment was 1.10 (95% CI: 1.04 to 1.21), accounting for 26% of its total effect on lateral TFROA. No apparent sex difference in the incident medial TFROA was found in MOST (RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.25) or OAI (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.19).

CONCLUSION

Females had a higher risk of developing lateral TFROA than males; however, valgus malalignment only modestly explained such a difference.

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

OBJECTIVE

This pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare the effectiveness, safety, and cost-utility of a custom-made knee brace versus usual care over 1 year in medial knee osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

120 patients with medial knee OA (VAS pain at rest >40/100), classified as Kellgren-Lawrence grade II-IV, were randomized into two groups: ODRA plus usual care (ODRA group) and usual care alone (UCA group). The primary effectiveness outcome was the change in VAS pain between M0 and M12. Secondary outcomes included changes over 1 year in KOOS (function) and OAKHQOL (quality of life) scores. Drug consumption, compliance, safety of the knee brace, and cost-utility over 1 year were also assessed.

RESULTS

The ODRA group was associated with a higher improvement in: VAS pain (adjusted mean difference of -11.8; 95% CI: -21.1 to -2.5); all KOOS subscales (pain: +8.8; 95% CI: 1.4-16.2); other symptoms (+10.4; 95% CI: 2.7-18); function in activities of daily living (+9.2; 95% CI: 1.1-17.2); function in sports and leisure (+12.3; 95% CI: 4.3-20.3); quality of life (+9.9; 95% CI: 0.9-15.9), OAKHQOL subscales (pain: +14.8; 95% CI: 5.0-24.6); and physical activities (+8.2; 95% CI: 0.6-15.8), and with a significant decrease in analgesics consumption at M12 compared with the UCA group. Despite localized side-effects, observance was good at M12 (median: 5.3 h/day). The ODRA group had a more than 85% chance of being cost-effective for a willingness-to-pay threshold of €45 000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERGONOMIE RCT demonstrated significant clinical benefits of an unloader custom-made knee brace in terms of improvements in pain, function, and some aspects of quality of life over 1 year in medial knee OA, as well as its potential cost-utility from a societal perspective.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of bracing in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis management: protocol for a multicentre, primary care, randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial

BACKGROUND

Brace effectiveness for knee osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear and international guidelines offer conflicting recommendations. Our trial will determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding knee bracing (matched to patients' clinical and radiographic presentation and with adherence support) to a package of advice, written information and exercise instruction delivered by physiotherapists.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A multicentre, pragmatic, two-parallel group, single-blind, superiority, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and nested qualitative study. 434 eligible participants with symptomatic knee OA identified from general practice, physiotherapy referrals and self-referral will be randomised 1:1 to advice, written information and exercise instruction and knee brace versus advice, written information and exercise instruction alone. The primary analysis will be intention-to-treat comparing treatment arms on the primary outcome (Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS)-5) (composite knee score) at the primary endpoint (6 months) adjusted for prespecified covariates. Secondary analysis of KOOS subscales (pain, other symptoms, activities of daily living, function in sport and recreation, knee-related quality of life), self-reported pain, instability (buckling), treatment response, physical activity, social participation, self-efficacy and treatment acceptability will occur at 3, 6, and 12 months postrandomisation. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression will model continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Treatment effect estimates will be presented as mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs. Economic evaluation will estimate cost-effectiveness. Semistructured interviews to explore acceptability and experiences of trial interventions will be conducted with participants and physiotherapists delivering interventions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

North West Preston Research Ethics Committee, the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research in Wales approved the study (REC Reference: 19/NW/0183; IRAS Reference: 247370). This protocol has been coproduced with stakeholders including patients and public. Findings will be disseminated to patients and a range of stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN28555470.

The Effects of Knee Orthosis with Two Degrees of Freedom Joint Design on Gait and Sit-to-Stand Task in Patients with Medial Knee Osteoarthritis

Objectives

Knee bracing as a conservative treatment option for patients with medial knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is of great interest to health practitioners and patients alike. Optimal orthotic knee joint structure is essential to achieve biomechanical and clinical effectiveness. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the effects of a knee orthosis with a new two-degrees-of-freedom (DOF) joint design on selected gait parameters and in a sit-to-stand task in patients with mild-to-moderate medial KOA.

Methods

This study was conducted both at the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinic in Shahid Modarres Academic Hospital and the Biomechanical Laboratory of Rehabilitation Faculty of Iran University of medical Sciences in Tehran, Iran from September 2015 to October 2017. The gait performance of 16 patients was assessed without an orthosis, using a common one-DOF (DOF) knee orthosis and using the same knee orthosis with a two-DOF orthotic joint design. The interactive shearing force between limb and brace in the shell area during a sit-to-stand test was also identified. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to analyse the data.

Results

Compared with walking with no orthosis, both orthosis conditions reduced the external knee adduction moment significantly (P ≤0.05). A significant increase between the one-DOF and two-DOF conditions in terms of walking speed (P = 0.041 and P = 0.009, respectively) and stride length (P = 0.028 and P = 0.038, respectively) was observed. In a sit-to-stand test, wearing the orthosis significantly decreased knee transverse plane range of motion (P ≤0.05). There was a 41.31 ± 8.34 Newtons reduction in knee flexion constraint force.

Conclusion

The two-DOF knee orthosis was more comfortable compared to the one-DOF knee orthosis during deep knee flexion. Otherwise, the one-DOF- and two-DOF-braces performed similarly.

Valgus knee bracing may have no long-term effect on pain improvement and functional activity in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA), with a high incidence in old-age population, adversely affects their life quality. The valgus knee bracing is an important physical therapy for KOA, but its clinical effects on pain release and functional improvement remained unclear. This meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the clinical outcomes of valgus knee bracing in patients with KOA.

Methods

A meta-analysis of clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pain and functional changes in patients with KOA after using valgus knee braces. The search period was ranged from the inception of the database to May 2020. The enrolled research databases included PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Two investigators independently formulated inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria and screened and determined the final enrolled literature. Then the outcome indicators were extracted and organized from the included literature, and the risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane Handbook 5.0.1.

Results

A total of 10 articles were included in this study, including 739 patients. Eight articles were related to the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and the results showed that RR = − 0.29, 95% CI − 0.73, 0.15], P = 0.20; four articles were related to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function score, and the results showed that RR = − 0.15, 95% CI [− 0.41, 0.11], P = 0.26; two articles were related to the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the results showed that RR = 0.58, 95% CI [− 4.25, 5.42], P = 0.81; and three articles were related to the KOOS Activities of Daily Living (KOOS-ADL), and the results showed that RR = 0.04, 95% CI [− 0.62, 0.69], P = 0.91. These results indicated that the valgus knee bracing has no statistical significance in pain and functional activity improvement of patients with KOA. The subgroup analysis showed that the follow-up time was the source of the heterogeneity of the VAS pain score.

Conclusion

Our current evidence suggests that valgus knee bracing may not improve pain release and function activates in KOA patients in the long-term period, but only being beneficial to the short-term rehabilitation.

The morphology of proximal tibiofibular joint (PTFJ) predicts incident radiographic osteoarthritis: data from Osteoarthritis Initiative

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the morphology of proximal tibiofibular joint (PTFJ) is associated with increased risk of incident radiographic osteoarthritis (iROA) over 4 years in the OA Initiative (OAI) study.

METHODS

A nested matched case-control study design was used to select participants from OAI study. Case knees were defined as those with iROA. Control knees were matched one-to-one by sex, age and radiographic status with case knees. T2-weighted MR images were assessed at P0 (the visit when incident ROA was found on radiograph), P1 (1 year prior to P0) and at OAI baseline. The contacting area of PTFJ (S) and its projection areas onto the horizontal (load-bearing area, Sτ), sagittal (lateral stress-bolstering area, Sφ) and coronal plane (posterior stress-bolstering area, Sυ) were assessed, respectively.

RESULTS

354 case knees and 354 matched control knees were included, with a mean age of 60 and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 28 kg/m². Baseline PTFJ morphological parameters (S, Sτ and Sυ) were significantly associated with iROA over 4 years, and these associations remained unchanged after adjustment for BMI, number of knee bending activities, self-reported knee injury and surgery. S, Sτ and Sυ were also significantly associated with iROA at P1 and P0. In subgroup analysed, S, Sτ and Sυ were associated with risks of incident joint space narrowing in the medial, but not the lateral tibiofemoral compartment.

CONCLUSION

Greater contacting area, load-bearing area and posterior stress-bolstering area of PTFJ were associated with increased risks of iROA, largely in the medial tibiofemoral compartment.

Combined effects of knee brace, laterally wedged insoles, and toe-out gait on knee adduction moment and fall risk in moderate medial knee osteoarthritis patients

BACKGROUND:

Knee osteoarthritis is a major contributor to the global burden of disease. There is a need of reducing knee joint load and to improve balance and physical function among knee osteoarthritis patients.

OBJECTIVES:

To test the hypothesis that toe-out gait will reduce second peak knee adduction moment further and increase fall risk when combined with knee brace and laterally wedged insole in knee osteoarthritis patients.

STUDY DESIGN:

Single visit study with repeated measures.

METHODS:

First and second peak knee adduction moments, fall risk and comfort level. First and second peak knee adduction moments were determined from three-dimensional gait analysis, completed under six randomized conditions: (1) natural, (2) knee brace, (3) knee brace + toe-out gait, (4) laterally wedged insole, (5) laterally wedged insole + toe-out gait, and (6) knee brace + laterally wedged insole + toe-out gait. Fall risk was assessed by Biodex Balance System using three randomized stability settings: (1) static, (2) moderate dynamic setting (FR12), and (3) high dynamic setting (FR8).

RESULTS:

The reduction in first peak knee adduction moment and second peak knee adduction moment was greatest (7.16% and 25.55%, respectively) when toe-out gait combine with knee brace and laterally wedged insole. Significant increase in fall risk was observed with knee brace + laterally wedged insole + toe-out gait (42.85%) at FR12. Similar significant balance reductions were found at FR8 condition for knee brace + toe-out gait (35.71%), laterally wedged insole + toe-out gait (28.57%), and knee brace + laterally wedged insole + toe-out gait (50%) as compared to natural. However, knee brace decreased fall risk at FR12 by 28.57%.

CONCLUSION:

There is a synergistic effect of toe-out when combined with knee brace and laterally wedged insole concurrently in second peak knee adduction moment reduction but with a greater degree of fall risk. Simultaneous use of conservative treatments also decreases comfort level.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Patients with mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis are usually prescribed conservative treatment techniques. This study will provide an insight whether or not a combination of these techniques have a synergistic effect in reducing knee joint load.

Effectiveness of Valgus Offloading Knee Braces in the Treatment of Medial Compartment Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT:

Knee osteoarthritis affects 9.3 million adults over age 45 years in the United States. There is significant disability associated with this condition. Given the potential complications and the significant cost to the health care system with the dramatic increase in total knee arthroplasties performed for this condition, assessment of the efficacy of nonoperative modalities, such as offloading knee braces, is essential as part of optimizing nonoperative treatment for this condition.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the effectiveness of valgus offloader braces in improving clinical outcomes for patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis.

DATA SOURCES:

Three databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) were searched from database inception through July 28, 2017.

STUDY SELECTION:

Studies reporting outcomes of valgus offloader knee braces in the treatment of medial compartment knee osteoarthritis were included.

STUDY DESIGN:

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:

Level 4.

DATA EXTRACTION:

Data pertaining to demographics, descriptive statistics, and clinical outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated.

RESULTS:

A total of 31 studies were included, with a total of 619 patients. The majority of studies reported improved pain outcomes using valgus offloader braces. However, variable results were reported as to whether valgus offloader braces significantly improved functional outcomes and stiffness. Offloader bracing was more effective at reducing pain when compared with neutral braces or neoprene sleeves.

CONCLUSION:

Valgus offloader bracing is an effective treatment for improving pain secondary to medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The literature remains unclear on the effectiveness of valgus offloader braces with regard to functional outcomes and stiffness. Larger prospective randomized trials with consistent outcome assessment tools and consideration of patient compliance would be beneficial to more accurately determine treatment effects of valgus offloader bracing.

Combined versus individual effects of a valgus knee brace and lateral wedge foot orthotic during stair use in patients with knee osteoarthritis

The aim of this study was to investigate the combined and individual biomechanical effects of a valgus knee brace and a lateral wedge foot orthotic during stair ascent and descent in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Thirty-five patients with varus alignment and medial knee OA were prescribed a custom valgus knee brace and lateral wedge foot orthotic. Knee angles and moments in the frontal and sagittal planes were determined from 3D gait analysis completed under four randomized conditions: (1) control (no knee brace or foot orthotic), (2) knee brace, (3) foot orthotic, and (4) combined knee brace and foot orthotic. Additional measures included the vertical ground reaction force, trunk lean, toe out and gait speed. During the combined use of a knee brace and foot orthotic, significant decreases in the knee adduction angle (2.17, 95%CI: 0.50-3.84, p=0.013) and 2nd peak EKAM (0.35, 95%CI: 0.17-0.52, p<0.001) were observed during stair descent; and significant increases in the EKFM were observed during stair ascent (0.54, 95%CI: 0.30-0.78, p<0.001) and descent (1stpk: 0.48, 95%CI: 0.15-0.80, p=0.005; 2ndpk: 0.55, 95%CI: 0.34-0.76, p<0.001). Fewer gait compensations were observed between conditions during stair descent compared to ascent, except for toe out. Findings suggest greater effects on gait when both knee brace and foot orthotic are used together, resulting in a more normal gait pattern. However, whether or not a true change in knee joint load can be inferred when using these orthoses remains unclear. Further research is required to determine the clinical importance of the observed changes.

VISCOSSUPLEMENTAÇÃO NO TRATAMENTO DE ARTRITE PÓS-TRAUMÁTICA DE JOELHO DURANTE 12 MESES

RESUMO Introdução: A artrite pós-traumática é uma complicação frequente nas fraturas intra-articulares de joelho, que ocasiona dor e limitação funcional. Uma opção terapêutica que tem mostrado resultados promissores é a infusão intra-articular do ácido hialurônico (viscossuplementação), associada ou não a exercícios e dieta para perder peso. Objetivo: Verificar a resposta ao tratamento de artrite pós-traumática de joelho com uso de viscossuplementação associada ou não a exercícios físicos. Métodos: Avaliaram-se o arco de movimento articular, ângulo de retração poplíteo, a escala visual de dor, o escore de Lysholm e a circunferência da coxa em pacientes submetidos à correção cirúrgica de fratura do platô tibial em nossa instituição, os quais, depois de alta cirúrgica e fisioterápica, foram tratados com viscossuplementação em infusão única associada ou não a exercícios físicos programados, durante seguimento de 12 meses. Resultados: Houve diferença significativa a favor do grupo submetido à viscossuplementação associada a exercícios para o ângulo de retração poplíteo (p = 0,012) e espessura da coxa 10 cm acima da patela (p = 0,047). Em todas as demais variáveis estudadas, os resultados nesse grupo também foram superiores, porém sem alcançar significância estatística correspondente. Todos os pacientes estariam dispostos a repetir a infusão após 12 meses. Conclusão: A viscossuplementação trouxe melhora da dor e função aos pacientes com artrite pós-traumática de joelho e a melhora é maior quando os exercícios são associados em seguimentos de 12 meses.

Strategies for the prevention of knee osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) has been thought of as a disease of cartilage that can be effectively treated surgically at severe stages with joint arthroplasty. Today, OA is considered a whole-organ disease that is amenable to prevention and treatment at early stages. OA develops slowly over 10-15 years, interfering with activities of daily living and the ability to work. Many patients tolerate pain, and many health-care providers accept pain and disability as inevitable corollaries of OA and ageing. Too often, health-care providers passively await final 'joint death', necessitating knee and hip replacements. Instead, OA should be viewed as a chronic condition, where prevention and early comprehensive-care models are the accepted norm, as is the case with other chronic diseases. Joint injury, obesity and impaired muscle function are modifiable risk factors amenable to primary and secondary prevention strategies. The strategies that are most appropriate for each patient should be identified, by selecting interventions to correct--or at least attenuate--OA risk factors. We must also choose the interventions that are most likely to be acceptable to patients, to maximize adherence to--and persistence with--the regimes. Now is the time to begin the era of personalized prevention for knee OA.

Does knee malalignment predict the efficacy of realignment therapy for patients with knee osteoarthritis?

BACKGROUND

Realignment therapies, including knee braces, foot orthoses and shoes are prescribed to patients with medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) with the goal of unloading the medial tibiofemoral (TF) compartment. It is uncertain whether realignment therapies have different effects in those with knee malalignment. We studied whether the efficacy of realignment therapy for pain and function in persons with medial TF OA is predicted by the severity of the baseline knee malalignment.

METHODS

The baseline characteristics of 48 participants with moderate to severe medial knee OA were collected. Participants' pain and function were measured using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scale before and after 12 weeks of realignment therapy using a valgus unloader knee brace plus bilateral neutral foot orthoses and motion control shoes. Anatomical axis (AA) was measured on weight-bearing knee radiographs by a blinded reader and knee malalignment was categorized as either varus malaligned (moderate or severe) or neutral according to the AA angle. We assessed for differences in response to treatment according to alignment category. General linear statistical models were generated to determine which of the measured alignment variables and covariates predicted change in the pain outcome.

RESULTS

Anatomical axis knee alignment was not a significant predictor of pain or function change with active treatment. Baseline WOMAC scores were the best predictor of change in WOMAC (P < 0.01 and P = 0.06 for pain and function, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline knee alignment did not predict the efficacy of 12 weeks realignment therapy in participants with medial tibiofemoral OA. [Correction added on 27 August 2015, after first online publication: 'did predict' has been corrected to 'did not predict' in the conclusions of the abstract section.].

Valgus bracing for knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of valgus knee bracing on pain and function, and compliance and complications, in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared changes in patient-reported pain and/or function in patients with medial knee OA was performed. Seven databases were searched from their inception to January 2014. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility, rated risk of bias, and extracted data. Pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for standardized mean differences (SMDs) for the improvement in pain (and function) were calculated. Event rates (proportions) were calculated for studies that reported complications.

RESULTS

Six studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was a statistically significant difference favoring the valgus brace group for improvement in pain (SMD 0.33 [95% CI 0.13, 0.52], P = 0.001) and function (SMD 0.22 [95% CI 0.02, 0.41], P = 0.03). When compared to a control group that did not use an orthosis, the effect size was moderate for pain (SMD 0.56 [95% CI 0.03, 1.09], P = 0.04) and function (SMD 0.48 [95% CI 0.02, 0.95], P = 0.04). When compared to a control group that used a control orthosis, only a small, statistically significant effect for pain remained (SMD 0.33 [95% CI 0.08, 0.58], P = 0.01). Instructions for brace use varied considerably and compliance ranged from 45% to 100%. Up to 25% of patients reported minor complications with brace use.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis of randomized trials suggests valgus bracing for medial knee OA results in small-to-moderate improvements in pain. Effect sizes vary based on study design and warrant future research.

A randomised trial of a brace for patellofemoral osteoarthritis targeting knee pain and bone marrow lesions

OBJECTIVE

Braces used to treat (PF) osteoarthritis (OA) may reduce contact stress across the PF joint. We hypothesised that in PF OA, braces would decrease knee pain and shrink PF bone marrow lesions (BMLs).

METHODS

Eligible subjects had painful PF OA. Subjects were randomly allocated to brace or no brace for 6 weeks. Knee MRIs were acquired at baseline and 6 weeks. We measured BMLs on post-contrast fat suppressed sagittal and proton density weighted axial images. The primary symptom outcome was change in pain at 6 weeks during a preselected painful activity, and the primary structural outcome was BML volume change in the PF joint. Analyses used multiple linear regression.

RESULTS

We randomised 126 subjects aged 40-70 years (mean age 55.5  years; 72 females (57.1%)). Mean nominated visual analogue scale (0-10 cm) pain score at baseline was 6.5 cm. 94 knees (75%) had PF BMLs at baseline. Subjects wore the brace for a mean of 7.4 h/day. 6 subjects withdrew during the trial. After accounting for baseline values, the brace group had lower knee pain than the control group at 6 weeks (difference between groups -1.3 cm, 95% CI -2.0 to -0.7; p<0.001) and reduced PF BML volume (difference -490.6 mm(3), 95% CI -929.5 to -51.7; p=0.03) but not tibiofemoral volume (difference -53.9 mm(3), 95% CI -625.9 to 518.2; p=0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

A PF brace reduces BML volume in the targeted compartment of the knee, and relieves knee pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UK. ISRCTN50380458.

Strength and Functional Improvement Using Pneumatic Brace with Extension Assist for End-Stage Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Randomized trial

Pneumatic unloader bracing with extension assists have been proposed as a non-operative modality that may delay the need for knee surgery by reducing pain and improving function. This prospective, randomized trial evaluated 52 patients who had knee osteoarthritis for changes in: (1) muscle strength; (2) objective functional improvements; (3); subjective functional improvements; (4) pain; (5) quality of life; and (6) conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) compared to standard of care. Patient outcomes were evaluated at a minimum 3 months. Braced patient's demonstrated significant improvements in muscle strength, several functional tests, and patient reported outcomes when compared to the matched cohort. These results are encouraging and suggest that this device may represent a promising alternative to standard treatment methods for knee osteoarthritis.

Braces and orthoses for treating osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND

Individuals with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee can be treated with a knee brace or a foot/ankle orthosis. The main purpose of these aids is to reduce pain, improve physical function and, possibly, slow disease progression. This is the second update of the original review published in Issue 1, 2005, and first updated in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of braces and foot/ankle orthoses in the treatment of patients with OA of the knee.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE (current contents, HealthSTAR) up to March 2014. We screened reference lists of identified trials and clinical trial registers for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and controlled clinical trials investigating all types of braces and foot/ankle orthoses for OA of the knee compared with an active control or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the 'Risk of bias' tool of The Cochrane Collaboration. We analysed the quality of the results by performing an overall grading of evidence by outcome using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. As a result of heterogeneity of studies, pooling of outcome data was possible for only three insole studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (n = 1356): four studies in the first version, three studies in the first update and six additional studies (n = 529 participants) in the second update. We included studies that reported results when study participants with early to severe knee OA (Kellgren & Lawrence grade I-IV) were treated with a knee brace (valgus knee brace, neutral brace or neoprene sleeve) or an orthosis (laterally or medially wedged insole, neutral insole, variable or constant stiffness shoe) or were given no treatment. The main comparisons included (1) brace versus no treatment; (2) foot/ankle orthosis versus no treatment or other treatment; and (3) brace versus foot/ankle orthosis. Seven studies had low risk, two studies had high risk and four studies had unclear risk of selection bias. Five studies had low risk, three studies had high risk and five studies had unclear risk of detection bias. Ten studies had high risk and three studies had low risk of performance bias. Nine studies had low risk and four studies had high risk of reporting bias.Four studies compared brace versus no treatment, but only one provided useful data for meta-analysis at 12-month follow-up. One study (n = 117, low-quality evidence) showed lack of evidence of an effect on visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores (absolute percent change 0%, mean difference (MD) 0.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.84 to 0.84), function scores (absolute percent change 1%, MD 1.0, 95% CI -2.98 to 4.98) and health-related quality of life scores (absolute percent change 4%, MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.04) after 12 months. Many participants stopped their initial treatment because of lack of effect (24 of 60 participants in the brace group and 14 of 57 participants in the no treatment group; absolute percent change 15%, risk ratio (RR) 1.63, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.82). The other studies reported some improvement in pain, function and health-related quality of life (P value ≤ 0.001). Stiffness and treatment failure (need for surgery) were not reported in the included studies.For the comparison of laterally wedged insole versus no insole, one study (n = 40, low-quality evidence) showed a lower VAS pain score in the laterally wedged insole group (absolute percent change 16%, MD -1.60, 95% CI -2.31 to -0.89) after nine months. Function, stiffness, health-related quality of life, treatment failure and adverse events were not reported in the included study.For the comparison of laterally wedged versus neutral insole after pooling of three studies (n = 358, moderate-quality evidence), little evidence was found of an effect on numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores (absolute percent change 1.0%, MD 0.1, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.65), Western Ontario-McMaster Osteoarthritis Scale (WOMAC) stiffness scores (absolute percent change 0.1%, MD 0.07, 95% CI -4.96 to 5.1) and WOMAC function scores (absolute percent change 0.9%, MD 0.94, 95% CI - 2.98 to 4.87) after 12 months. Evidence of an effect on health-related quality of life scores (absolute percent change 1.0%, MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.03) was lacking in one study (n = 179, moderate-quality evidence). Treatment failure and adverse events were not studied for this comparison in the included studies.Data for the comparison of laterally wedged insole versus valgus knee brace could not be pooled. After six months' follow-up, no statistically significant difference was noted in VAS pain scores (absolute percent change -2.0%, MD -0.2, 95% CI -1.15 to 0.75) and WOMAC function scores (absolute percent change 0.1%, MD 0.1, 95% CI -7.26 to 0.75) in one study (n = 91, low-quality evidence); however both groups showed improvement. Stiffness, health-related quality of life, treatment failure and adverse events were not reported in the included studies for this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence was inconclusive for the benefits of bracing for pain, stiffness, function and quality of life in the treatment of patients with medial compartment knee OA. On the basis of one laterally wedged insole versus no treatment study, we conclude that evidence of an effect on pain in patients with varus knee OA is lacking. Moderate-quality evidence shows lack of an effect on improvement in pain, stiffness and function between patients treated with a laterally wedged insole and those treated with a neutral insole. Low-quality evidence shows lack of an effect on improvement in pain, stiffness and function between patients treated with a valgus knee brace and those treated with a laterally wedged insole. The optimal choice for an orthosis remains unclear, and long-term implications are lacking.

Biomechanical effects of valgus knee bracing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To review and synthesize the biomechanical effects of valgus knee bracing for patients with medial knee osteoarthritis (OA). Electronic databases were searched from their inception to May 2014. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility, rated study quality and extracted data. Where possible, data were combined into meta-analyses and pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated. Thirty studies were included with 478 subjects tested while using a valgus knee brace. Various biomechanical methods suggested valgus braces can decrease direct measures of medial knee compressive force, indirect measures representing the mediolateral distribution of load across the knee, quadriceps/hamstring and quadriceps/gastrocnemius co-contraction ratios, and increase medial joint space during gait. Meta-analysis from 17 studies suggested a statistically significant decrease in the external knee adduction moment (KAM) during walking, with a moderate-to-high effect size (SMD = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.83; P < 0.001). Meta-regression identified a near-significant association for the KAM effect size and duration of brace use only (β, -0.01; 95% CI: -0.03, 0.0001; P = 0.06); with longer durations of brace use associated with smaller treatment effects. Minor complications were commonly reported during brace use and included slipping, discomfort and poor fit, blisters and skin irritation. Systematic review and meta-analysis suggests valgus knee braces can alter knee joint loads through a combination of mechanisms, with moderate-to-high effect sizes in biomechanical outcomes.

Do laterally wedged insoles or valgus braces unload the medial compartment of the knee in patients with osteoarthritis?

BACKGROUND

The results of conservative treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) are generally evaluated in epidemiological studies with clinical outcome measures as primary outcomes. Biomechanical evaluation of orthoses shows that there are potentially beneficial biomechanical changes to joint loading; however, evaluation in relation to clinical outcome measures in longitudinal studies is needed.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We asked (1) is there an immediate effect on gait in patients using a laterally wedged insole or valgus knee brace; (2) is there a late (6 weeks) effect; and (3) is there a difference between subgroups within each group with respect to patient compliance, body mass index, and OA status?

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of data from a previous randomized controlled trial of patients with early medial knee OA. A total of 91 patients were enrolled in that trial, and 73 (80%) completed it after 6 months. Of the enrolled patients, 80 (88%) met prespecified inclusion criteria for analysis in the present study. The patients were randomized to an insole or brace. Gait was analyzed with and without wearing the orthosis (insole or brace) at baseline and after 6 weeks. Measurements were taken of the knee adduction moment, ground reaction force, moment arm, walking speed, and toe-out angle. Data were analyzed with regression analyses based on an intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

A mean reduction of 4% (±10) (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.147 to -0.03, p=0.003) of the peak knee adduction moment and 4% (±13) (95% CI, -0.009 to -0.001, p=0.01) of the moment arm at baseline was observed in the insole group when walking with an insole was compared with walking without an insole. A mean reduction of 1% (±10) (95% CI, -0.002 to -0.001, p=0.001) of the peak knee adduction moment and no reduction of the moment arm were measured after 6 weeks. No reduction of knee adduction moment, moment arm, or ground reaction force was seen in the brace group at baseline and after 6 weeks. Subgroup analysis showed no differences in biomechanical effect for obesity, stage of OA, and whether patients showed a clinical response to the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Laterally wedged insoles unload the medial compartment only at baseline in patients with varus alignment and by an amount that might not be clinically important. No biomechanical alteration was seen after 6 weeks of wearing the insole. Valgus brace therapy did not result in any biomechanical alteration. Taken together, this study does not show a clinically relevant biomechanical effect of insole and brace therapy in patients with varus medial knee OA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

An algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis in Europe and internationally: a report from a task force of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO)

OBJECTIVES

Existing practice guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) analyze the evidence behind each proposed treatment but do not prioritize the interventions in a given sequence. The objective was to develop a treatment algorithm recommendation that is easier to interpret for the prescribing physician based on the available evidence and that is applicable in Europe and internationally. The knee was used as the model OA joint.

METHODS

ESCEO assembled a task force of 13 international experts (rheumatologists, clinical epidemiologists, and clinical scientists). Existing guidelines were reviewed; all interventions listed and recent evidence were retrieved using established databases. A first schematic flow chart with treatment prioritization was discussed in a 1-day meeting and shaped to the treatment algorithm. Fine-tuning occurred by electronic communication and three consultation rounds until consensus.

RESULTS

Basic principles consist of the need for a combined pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment with a core set of initial measures, including information access/education, weight loss if overweight, and an appropriate exercise program. Four multimodal steps are then established. Step 1 consists of background therapy, either non-pharmacological (referral to a physical therapist for re-alignment treatment if needed and sequential introduction of further physical interventions initially and at any time thereafter) or pharmacological. The latter consists of chronic Symptomatic Slow-Acting Drugs for OA (e.g., prescription glucosamine sulfate and/or chondroitin sulfate) with paracetamol at-need; topical NSAIDs are added in the still symptomatic patient. Step 2 consists of the advanced pharmacological management in the persistent symptomatic patient and is centered on the use of oral COX-2 selective or non-selective NSAIDs, chosen based on concomitant risk factors, with intra-articular corticosteroids or hyaluronate for further symptom relief if insufficient. In Step 3, the last pharmacological attempts before surgery are represented by weak opioids and other central analgesics. Finally, Step 4 consists of end-stage disease management and surgery, with classical opioids as a difficult-to-manage alternative when surgery is contraindicated.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed treatment algorithm may represent a new framework for the development of future guidelines for the management of OA, more easily accessible to physicians.

Osteoarthritis year in review: outcome of rehabilitation

PURPOSE

This review highlights seminal publications of rehabilitation interventions for osteoarthritis (OA) since April 2012.

METHODS

Medline in process, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched from April 2012 through February 2013 for English language publications using key words osteoarthritis, rehabilitation, physiotherapy, physical therapy, and exercise. Rehabilitation intervention studies included randomized trials or systematic reviews/meta-analyses or pre-post studies. Pilot randomized trials, feasibility studies and studies of surgical interventions unless they included evaluation of a rehabilitation intervention were excluded.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were identified for inclusion and grouped thematically. The short-term benefits (i.e., to 3 months) of variable types and dosages of exercise were demonstrated for a number of outcomes including pain, stiffness, function, balance, biomarkers, and executive function and dual task performance (related to falling) in people with knee OA. Modalities such as 890-nm radiation, interferential current, short wave diathermy, ultrasound and neuromuscular functional electrical stimulation did not demonstrate benefit over sham controls in those with knee OA. Spa therapy improved pain over the period of treatment in those with knee and hand OA. Supervised self-management based on cognitive therapy principles resulted in improved outcomes for people with knee OA. Shock absorbing insoles compared to normal footwear minimally improved knee pain and but not function and did not decrease knee load. Neuromuscular and motor training improved function in those with total hip replacement. Accelerated weight-bearing and rehabilitation (8 versus 11 weeks) was demonstrated to be safe and effective at 5 years following matrix autologous chondrocyte implantation for cartilage defects in the knee.

CONCLUSIONS

Exercise remains a mainstay of conservative management although most studies report only short-term outcomes. Self-management strategies also are beneficial in knee OA. There seems to be a placebo effect with most trials of physical modalities although spa therapy demonstrated very short-term effects.

Chronic in vivo load alteration induces degenerative changes in the rat tibiofemoral joint

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the relationship between the magnitude and duration of sustained compressive load alteration and the development of degenerative changes in the rat tibiofemoral joint.

METHODS

A varus loading device was attached to the left hind limb of mature rats to apply increased compression to the medial compartment and decreased compression to the lateral compartment of the tibiofemoral joint of either 0% or 100% body weight for 0, 6 or 20 weeks. Compartment-specific assessment of the tibial plateaus included biomechanical measures (articular cartilage aggregate modulus, permeability and Poisson's ratio, and subchondral bone modulus) and histological assessments (articular cartilage, calcified cartilage, and subchondral bone thicknesses, degenerative scoring parameters, and articular cartilage cellularity).

RESULTS

Increased compression in the medial compartment produced significant degenerative changes consistent with the development of osteoarthritis (OA) including a progressive decrease in cartilage aggregate modulus (43% and 77% at 6 and 20 weeks), diminished cellularity (38% and 51% at 6 and 20 weeks), and increased histological degeneration. At 20 weeks, medial compartment articular cartilage thickness decreased 30% while subchondral bone thickness increased 32% and subchondral bone modulus increased 99%. Decreased compression in the lateral compartment increased calcified cartilage thickness, diminished region-specific subchondral bone thickness and revealed trends for reduced cellularity and decreased articular cartilage thickness at 20 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Altered chronic joint loading produced degenerative changes consistent with those observed clinically with the development of OA and may replicate the slow development of non-traumatic OA in which mechanical loads play a primary etiological role.

Ambulatory measurement of the knee adduction moment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee

High knee joint-loading increases the risk and progression of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Mechanical loading on the knee is reflected in the external knee adduction moment (KAdM) that can be measured during gait with laboratory-based measurement systems. However, clinical application of these systems is limited. Ambulatory movement analysis systems, including instrumented force shoes (IFS) and an inertial and magnetic measurement system (IMMS), could potentially be used to determine the KAdM in a laboratory-free setting. Promising results have been reported concerning the use of the IFS in KAdM measurements; however its application in combination with IMMS has not been studied. The objective of this study was to compare the KAdM measured with an ambulatory movement analysis system with a laboratory-based system in patients with knee OA. Gait analyses of 14 knee OA patients were performed in a gait laboratory. The KAdM was concurrently determined with two the systems: (i) Ambulatory: IFS and IMMS in combination with a linked-segment model (to obtain joint positions); (ii) Laboratory: force plate and optoelectronic marker system. Mean differences in KAdM between the ambulatory and laboratory system were not significant (maximal difference 0.20%BW*H in late stance, i.e. 5.6% of KAdM range, P>0.05) and below clinical relevant and hypothesized differences, showing no systematic differences at group level. Absolute differences were on average 24% of KAdM range, i.e. 0.83%BW*H, particularly in early and late stance. To achieve greater accuracy for clinical use, estimation of joint position via a more advanced calibrated linked-segment model should be investigated.

Combined effects of a valgus knee brace and lateral wedge foot orthotic on the external knee adduction moment in patients with varus gonarthrosis

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that a custom-fit valgus knee brace and custom-made lateral wedge foot orthotic will have greatest effects on decreasing the external knee adduction moment during gait when used concurrently.

DESIGN

Proof-of-concept, single test session, crossover trial.

SETTING

Biomechanics laboratory within a tertiary care center.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (n=16) with varus alignment and knee osteoarthritis (OA) primarily affecting the medial compartment of the tibiofemoral joint (varus gonarthrosis).

INTERVENTIONS

Custom-fit valgus knee brace and custom-made full-length lateral wedge foot orthotic. Amounts of valgus angulation and wedge height were tailored to each patient to ensure comfort.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The external knee adduction moment (% body weight [BW]*height [Ht]), frontal plane lever arm (cm), and ground reaction force (N/kg), determined from 3-dimensional gait analysis completed under 4 randomized conditions: (1) control (no knee brace, no foot orthotic), (2) knee brace, (3) foot orthotic, and (4) knee brace and foot orthotic.

RESULTS

The reduction in knee adduction moment was greatest when concurrently using the knee brace and foot orthotic (effect sizes ranged from 0.3 to 0.4). The mean decrease in first peak knee adduction moment compared with control was .36% BW*Ht (95% confidence interval [CI], -.66 to -.07). This was accompanied by a mean decrease in frontal plane lever arm of .59cm (95% CI, -.94 to -.25).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that using a custom-fit knee brace and custom-made foot orthotic concurrently can produce a greater overall reduction in the knee adduction moment, through combined effects in decreasing the frontal plane lever arm.