The effect of physical therapy and rehabilitation modalities on sleep quality in patients with primary knee osteoarthritis: A single-blind, prospective, randomized-controlled study

The effects of aromatherapy massage in menopausal women with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

Knee Osteoarthritis (OA)'s prevalence increases during menopause. Aromatherapy massage with different oils is applied in the treatment of knee OA. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of aromatherapy massage with Bergamot essential oil (BEO) on pain, functionality, sleep quality and menopausal symptoms in menopausal women with knee OA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 60 menopausal participants diagnosed with grade II-III OA. Participants were randomly divided into three groups: BEO (n=20), placebo (n=20) and control (n=20). The participants in the BEO group, received aromatherapy massage with BEO, in the placebo group aromatherapy massage with sweet almond oil was applied twice a week for 4 weeks. All participants underwent conventional physiotherapy. Visual Analog Scale was used to assess the severity of pain, Osteoarthritis Index to assess functionality, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index to assess sleep quality and Menopausal Symptoms Rating Scale to assess menopausal symptoms. All measurements were performed before and after the study.

RESULTS

The results of the study showed that all three groups were effective on pain, functionality, sleep quality and menopausal symptoms (p<0.001). The results of the study showed that, aromatherapy massage with BEO was found to be more effective on functionality (p<0.001), pain (p<0.001) and menopausal symptoms (somatic and psychological symptoms) (p<0.001) compared to the control and placebo groups. It was determined that aromatherapy massage with BEO did not create a significant difference between the sleep quality scale scores in the control group and the placebo group (p=0.454).

CONCLUSION

This study found that aromatherapy massage with BEO improved functionality, reduced pain and menopausal symptoms, and did not affect sleep quality. We consider that its application in addition to routine treatment may be useful to reduce symptoms.

Physical activity and depression symptoms in people with osteoarthritis-related pain: A cross-sectional study

Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of chronic pain and is associated with high rates of depression. Physical activity reduces depression symptoms and pain levels. It remains unknown if physical activity is associated with lower symptoms of depression irrespective of pain levels in individuals with osteoarthritis. We explored whether pain mediated or moderated the relationship between levels of physical activity engagement and depression symptoms. Individuals with osteoarthritis who were waiting for an orthopaedic consultation at a public hospital in Melbourne, Australia, were recruited. Data collected on pain levels, physical activity engagement and depression symptoms. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise participant characteristics. Moderation and mediation analyses were used to establish the impact of pain on the relationship between physical activity and depression, after adjusting for demographic and joint specific characteristics. The results indicated that the inverse association between physical activity and depression depended on the level of pain, such that the association was stronger in people with greater pain. The mediation results confirm that participating in physical activity is indirectly, inversely associated with symptoms of depression through lower levels of pain. The highest levels of pain were associated with the most potential benefit in terms of reduction in symptoms of depression from engaging in physical activity. Physical activity may be particularly important to manage depression symptoms in people with greater osteoarthritis-related pain as patients with the highest pain may have the greatest benefits.

The interplay between symptoms of insomnia and pain in people with osteoarthritis: A narrative review of the current evidence

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability worldwide and clinical pain is the major symptom of OA. This clinical OA-related pain is firmly associated with symptoms of insomnia, which are reported in up to 81% of people with OA. Since understanding the association between both symptoms is critical for their appropriate management, this narrative review synthesizes the existing evidence in people with OA on i) the mechanisms underlying the association between insomnia symptoms and clinical OA-related pain, and ii) the effectiveness of conservative non-pharmacological treatments on insomnia symptoms and clinical OA-related pain. The evidence available identifies depressive symptoms, pain catastrophizing and pain self-efficacy as mechanisms partially explaining the cross-sectional association between insomnia symptoms and pain in people with OA. Furthermore, in comparison to treatments without a specific insomnia intervention, the ones including an insomnia intervention appear more effective for improving insomnia symptoms, but not for reducing clinical OA-related pain. However, at a within-person level, treatment-related positive effects on insomnia symptoms are associated with a long-term pain reduction. Future longitudinal prospective studies offering fundamental insights into neurobiological and psychosocial mechanisms explaining the association between insomnia symptoms and clinical OA-related pain will enable the development of effective treatments targeting both symptoms.

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.

The effect of neuropathic pain on quality of life, depression levels, and sleep quality in patients with combat-related extremity injuries

Purpose

There is limited research on the effects of neuropathic pain (NP) on quality of life, depression levels, and sleep quality in patients with combat-related extremity injuries. This study evaluated whether patients with combat-related extremity injuries with and without NP had differences in quality of life, sleep quality, and depression levels.

Methods

A total of 98 patients with combat-related extremity injuries, 52 with NP and 46 without, were included in this cross-sectional study. The presence of NP was determined using the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs questionnaire. The outcome measures were a visual analogue scale (VAS), the 36-Item Short Form Survey, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI).

Results

The VAS subparameter scores for pain (all P<0.05), PSQI sleep duration subscale scores (P=0.025), PSQI sleep disturbance subscale scores (P=0.016), and PSQI total scores (P=0.020) were significantly higher in patients with NP than those without. Logistic regression analysis showed that VAS scores of 5 and above for average pain during the previous 4 weeks contributed independently to the prediction of NP.

Conclusions

Patients with combat-related extremity injuries with NP had more pain and poorer sleep quality than those without NP. Sleep quality should be evaluated as part of the diagnostic work-up in patients with combat-related extremity injury with NP, and interventions to improve sleep quality may help manage NP in this patient group.

Predictors of the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) in SF-36 in Knee Osteoarthritis Patients: A Multimodal Model With Moderators and Mediators

Purpose

The study aimed to examine associations between the 36-item short form health survey (SF-36) in clinical and neurophysiological measures to identify its predictors in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) in a rehabilitation program.

Methods

We analyzed data from our cohort study (DEFINE cohort). We analyzed data from our KOA arm, with 107 patients, including clinical assessments, demographic data, pain scales, motor function (Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), 10 meters walk test, and 6-minute walk), balance (BBS), sleepiness (ESS), and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) and Electroencephalography (EEG).

Results

Our results showed 83.19% of patients were female with an average age of 68.6 years and an average number of days of pain was 96 days; around 31.86% were using more than five medications per day. Regarding the multimodal model to explain SF-36, the main variables relevant to the quality of life (QoL) were related to emotional aspects, such as anxiety and depression. Moreover, our study added findings with polymorphism (OPRM1/rs1799971) predicting mental aspects. Cognitive variables were important in predicting the mental health, emotional, and social support dimensions of the SF-36. In the physical domain, pain-related variables predominantly predicted QoL in these relationships. The domain of vitality significantly predicted all dimensions studied, except for mental and general health.

Conclusion

The results help in understanding the aspects that contribute to QoL and are discussed considering the general literature on physical rehabilitation and specific to this clinical group. Furthermore, the statistical methods allowed us to explore and effectively understand the dimensions related to QoL.

Characterising the Features of 381 Clinical Studies Evaluating Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Pain Relief: A Secondary Analysis of the Meta-TENS Study to Improve Future Research

Background and Objectives: Characterising the features of methodologies, clinical attributes and intervention protocols, of studies is valuable to advise directions for research and practice. This article reports the findings of a secondary analysis of the features from studies screened as part of a large systematic review of TENS (the meta-TENS study). Materials and Methods: A descriptive analysis was performed on information associated with methodology, sample populations and intervention protocols from 381 randomised controlled trials (24,532 participants) evaluating TENS delivered at a strong comfortable intensity at the painful site in adults with pain, irrespective of diagnosis. Results: Studies were conducted in 43 countries commonly using parallel group design (n = 334) and one comparator group (n = 231). Mean ± standard deviation (SD) study sample size (64.05 ± 58.29 participants) and TENS group size (27.67 ± 21.90 participants) were small, with only 13 of 381 studies having 100 participants or more in the TENS group. Most TENS interventions were ‘high frequency’ (>10 pps, n = 276) and using 100 Hz (109/353 reports that stated a pulse frequency value). Of 476 comparator groups, 54.2% were active treatments (i.e., analgesic medication(s), exercise, manual therapies and electrophysical agents). Of 202 placebo comparator groups, 155 used a TENS device that did not deliver currents. At least 216 of 383 study groups were able to access other treatments whilst receiving TENS. Only 136 out of 381 reports included a statement about adverse events. Conclusions: Clinical studies on TENS are dominated by small parallel group evaluations of high frequency TENS that are often contaminated by concurrent treatment(s). Study reports tended focus on physiological and clinical implications rather than the veracity of methodology and findings. Previously published criteria for designing and reporting TENS studies were neglected and this should be corrected in future research using insights gleaned from this analysis.

Ultrasound-guided genicular nerve block versus physical therapy for chronic knee osteoarthritis: a prospective randomised study

To compare the effectiveness of ultrasound-guided genicular nerve block (GNB) and physical therapy (PT) in patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis. A prospective randomised study with 102 patients (45–70 years) was performed wherein the patients received ultrasound-guided GNB (n = 51) and PT (n = 51) along with a standard home exercise programme. Scores for pain on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and 6-min walking test (6MWT) were assessed pre-treatment and at 2- and 12-weeks post-treatment. Both groups were comparable for sociodemographic characteristics. VAS scores (in mm) in the ultrasound-guided GNB group at 0, 2 and 12 weeks were 7.01 ± 1.36; 3.71 ± 2.18; 5.08 ± 2.22 (p < 0.001) and 6.64 ± 1.99; 4.35 ± 1.09; 5.25 ± 1.33, (p < 0.001) in the PT group. While the increase in the 6MWT test in the 2nd week was similar for both groups (p = 0.073), the increase in walking distance was greater in the ultrasound-guided GNB group at 12 weeks (p = 0.046). As compared to PT, ultrasound-guided GNB is beneficial in reducing pain and increasing functional and physical capacity, with greater retention of effects on the physical capacity seen at 12 weeks. Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04782401).

Self-administered acupressure and exercise for patients with osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Knee osteoarthritis is a prevalent degenerative joint disease and seriously affects the athletic abilities of middle-aged and elderly patients. Acupressure is a traditional non-pharmacological intervention that promotes blood circulation and muscle activity. Self-administrated acupressure and exercise can be potential management for knee osteoarthritis.

DESIGN

It is a randomized and controlled trial for knee osteoarthritis self-treatment.

SETTINGS

Cangzhou Hospital.

INTERVENTIONS

221 patients with knee osteoarthritis were recruited and randomly divided into 4 groups: control group (n = 55), exercise group (n = 56), acupressure group (n = 55) and exercise & acupressure group (n = 55). In the first eight weeks, corresponding training courses were provided to different groups of patients. The patients were asked to carry out their own corresponding interventions for 16 weeks. The patient's condition was evaluated in the sixteenth week.

MAIN MEASURES

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities global scores of knee osteoarthritis patients were assessed at the 8th and 16th week of our trial.

RESULTS

Self-administered acupressure and exercise significantly decreased visual analogue scale (3.75 ± 1.89 versus 2.93 ± 1.73, p < 0.05), pain (7.6 ± 2.8 versus 4.8 ± 2.7, p < 0.05), stiffness (3.75 ± 1.89 versus 2.93 ± 1.73, p < 0.05) at the 16th week (p < 0.05) in patients with knee osteoarthritis compared to other intervention. The combination of acupressure and exercise also improved the range of motion (114.4 ± 11.5 versus 120.4 ± 11.9, p < 0.05) and walk speed (1.48 ± 0.48 versus 1.76 ± 0.50, p < 0.05) of osteoarthritis patients (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Self-administrated exercise and acupressure alleviate the arthritic symptoms (swelling, pain, joint dysfunction and joint deformities) and improve the joint functions, supporting its potential use in the clinical management for osteoarthritis.