ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To review and indirectly compare the outcomes of genicular artery embolization (GAE), radiofrequency (RF) ablation, and intra-articular (IA) injection for the treatment of knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review of the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was conducted with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement in June 2020. The visual analog scale (VAS) was recorded at baseline and at all available time points for each therapy. Standard mean differences were calculated at each time point and compared between treatments to assess the magnitude of the treatment effect. RESULTS: All 3 treatments demonstrated significant differences in VAS scores after therapy. RF ablation produced the greatest significant mean reduction in relative VAS score from baseline at 1 year of follow-up (mean, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.59; P = .03). GAE reported the most significant reductions in VAS scores across all measured time points. Overall, the comparison did not demonstrate a significant difference in VAS scores among patients receiving IA injections, RF ablation, and GAE. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence does not suggest a significant difference in outcomes among IA injection, RF ablation, and GAE for knee pain secondary to OA.
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.
Revista»Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to know, based on the available randomized controlled trials, if the non-surgical and non-pharmacological interventions commonly used for knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients are effective and which are the most effective ones.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs were identified through electronic databases respecting the following terms to guide the search strategy: PICO (Patients - Humans with knee OA; Intervention - Non-surgical and non-pharmacological interventions; Comparison - Pharmacological, surgical, placebo, no intervention, or other non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions; Outcomes - Pain, physical function and patient global assessment). The methodological quality of the selected publications was evaluated using the PEDro and GRADE scales. Additionally, a meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan. Only studies with similar control group, population characteristics, outcomes, instruments and follow-up, were compared in each analysis.
RESULTS: Initially, 52 RCTs emerge however, after methodological analysis, only 39 had sufficient quality to be included. From those, only 5 studies meet the meta-analysis criteria. Exercise (especially resistance training) had the best positive effects on knee OA patients. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields and Moxibustion showed to be the most promising interventions from the others. Balance Training, Diet, Diathermy, Hydrotherapy, High Level Laser Therapy, Interferential Current, Mudpack, Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation, Musculoskeletal Manipulations, Shock Wave Therapy, Focal Muscle Vibration, stood out, however more studies are needed to fully recommend their use. Other interventions did not show to be effective or the results obtained were heterogeneous.
CONCLUSIONS: Exercise is the best intervention for knee OA patients. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields and Moxibustion showed to be the most promising interventions from the others options available.
CONTEXT: Amid extensive debate, evidence surrounding the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for musculoskeletal injuries has rapidly proliferated, and an overall assessment of efficacy of PRP across orthopaedic indications is required.
OBJECTIVES: (1) Does PRP improve patient-reported pain in musculoskeletal conditions? and (2) Do PRP characteristics influence its treatment effect?
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science libraries were searched through February 8, 2017. Additional studies were identified from reviews, trial registries, and recent conferences.
STUDY SELECTION: All English-language randomized trials comparing platelet-rich therapy with a control in patients 18 years or older with musculoskeletal bone, cartilage, or soft tissue injuries treated either conservatively or surgically were included. Substudies of previously reported trials or abstracts and conference proceedings that lacked sufficient information to generate estimates of effect for the primary outcome were excluded.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1.
DATA EXTRACTION: All data were reviewed and extracted independently by 3 reviewers. Agreement was high between reviewers with regard to included studies.
RESULTS: A total of 78 randomized controlled trials (5308 patients) were included. A standardized mean difference (SMD) of 0.5 was established as the minimum for a clinically significant reduction in pain. A reduction in pain was associated with PRP at 3 months (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.20) and sustained until 1 year (SMD, -0.60; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.39). Low- to moderate-quality evidence supports a reduction in pain for lateral epicondylitis (SMD, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.23) and knee osteoarthritis (SMD, -0.91; 95% CI, -1.41 to -0.41) at 1 year. PRP characteristics did not influence results.
CONCLUSION: PRP leads to a reduction in pain; however, evidence for clinically significant efficacy is limited. Available evidence supports the use of PRP in the management of lateral epicondylitis as well as knee osteoarthritis.
OBJECTIVE: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of intra-articular methylprednisolone and hyaluronic acid (HA) in term of pain reduction and improvements of knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched for literature up to January 2018. RCTs involving HA and methylprednisolone in knee OA were included. Two independent reviewers performed independent data abstraction. The I
RESULTS: Five RCTs with 1004 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The present meta-analysis indicated that there were no significant differences in terms of WOMAC pain, physical function and stiffness at 4 week, 12 weeks and 26 weeks between HA and methylprednisolone groups. No increased risk of adverse events were identified in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Both HA and methylprednisolone injections were effective therapies for patients with knee OA. Methylprednisolone showed comparable efficacy in reducing pain and improving functional recovery to HA. And no significant difference was found in long-term of follow-up in terms of adverse effects.
INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a significant health problem with lifetime risk of development estimated to be 45%. Effective nonsurgical treatments are needed for the management of symptoms.
METHODS: We designed a network meta-analysis to determine clinically relevant effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA platelet-rich plasma, and IA hyaluronic acid compared with each other as well as with oral and IA placebos. We used PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to perform a systematic search of KOA treatments with no date limits and last search on October 7, 2015. Article inclusion criteria considered the following: target population, randomized controlled study design, English language, human subjects, treatments and outcomes of interest, ≥30 patients per group, and consistent follow-up. Using the best available evidence, two abstractors independently extracted pain and function data at or near the most common follow-up time.
RESULTS: For pain, all active treatments showed significance over oral placebo, with IA corticosteroids having the largest magnitude of effect and significant difference only over IA placebo. For function, no IA treatments showed significance compared with either placebo, and naproxen was the only treatment showing clinical significance compared with oral placebo. Cumulative probabilities showed naproxen to be the most effective individual treatment, and when combined with IA corticosteroids, it is the most probable to improve pain and function.
DISCUSSION: Naproxen ranked most effective among conservative treatments of KOA and should be considered when treating pain and function because of its relative safety and low cost. The best available evidence was analyzed, but there were instances of inconsistency in the design and duration among articles, potentially affecting uniform data inclusion.
