Comment on “The Effects of Bariatric Surgery Weight Loss on Knee Pain in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Knee”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It was with great interest that we read “The Effects of Bariatric Surgery Weight Loss on Knee Pain in Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Knee” by Edwards et al. [1]. As other studies have shown, obesity is an incrementally modifiable risk factor for the development and progression of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) [2, 3]. Any opportunity to treat obesity and potentially limit KOA progression and disability will be an important public health strategy. Bariatric surgery is superior to regimented dietary and exercise programs in helping obese patients achieve and maintain weight loss [4, 5], and thus we think the authors focused on an important potential option to help obese patients avoid total joint replacement surgery. We found it valuable that the authors conducted a joint-driven and hypothesis-driven study to track pain and functional improvement in patients who underwent the three types of bariatric surgery: gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy, and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB). We agree with the authors that the existing literature is limited in examining the effect of bariatric surgery on KOA, particularly with confirmation of patients' radiographic KOA and the utilization of validated tools such as Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Index of Osteoarthritis, Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). The authors provided encouraging data, but it was unclear whether medications including acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tramadol, narcotics, topical agents, or intra-articular injections were given to patients for their knee pain during the study period. Any change in a patient's treatment regimen for KOA may contribute to the improvement of pain and function, beyond weight loss alone from bariatric surgery, and impact the findings. While it is unreasonable to ask patients to avoid any pain medication during such studies, it would be helpful to the readers to view the treatments and draw their own conclusions. In addition, the study does not report the individual ages (ranging from 18 to 70 years), demographics, or body mass indices (BMIs) of the 24 patients enrolled, or, perhaps, mean ages and BMIs of the 3 surgical subgroups. In our center we are seeing a subcohort of often younger patients with painful knee OA but only mild-moderate obesity (BMI 30–35) who would qualify for the less-invasive LAGB by recent FDA guidelines [6], but insurance companies are often unwilling to pay for the surgery. Thus, we are currently piloting a prospective study for patients with mild-moderate obesity (BMI 30–35) and severe pain from KOA, evaluating the effectiveness of LAGB that has shown retrospective promise for such knee pain with minimal risks [7–9]. In conclusion, this study supports recent arguments [10–12] that weight loss from bariatric surgery can provide a significant improvement in patient-reported KOA-related pain and disability. In addition to the mechanical load reduction, each of the three surgical methods may have distinct biochemical and metabolic consequences on knee OA—as other authors have begun to explore the role of inflammation and joint biomarkers from adipose tissue [13]. Such investigation will only further our understanding of the interplay between mechanical and cytokine-driven effects of obesity on knee pain and function.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».