Rehabilitation of Patients with Moderate Knee Osteoarthritis Using Hyaluronic Acid Viscosupplementation and Physiotherapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the most common public health problems which cannot be cured and ultimately leads to disability. Current management is largely limited to the treatment of the symptoms. To avoid the late stages of KOA that lead to knee replacement, the key point is to control and reduce destructive processes using efficient pharmacological products combined with physiotherapy (PT). Herein, we perform a monocentric observational study to compare the effect of combining a multi-modal physiotherapy regime and intra-articular (IA) injection with hyaluronic acid (HA) on the non-surgical treatment of KOA. Patients with mild KOA were randomly assigned to two groups to receive an HA injection with PT or an HA injection only. The assessment tools for pain, clinical disease severity, and disability were the total score on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) (scores range from 0 to 96, with higher scores indicating worse pain, function, and stiffness), knee range of motion (ROM), pain on the visual analog scale (VAS), and muscle strength testing (MST). All tests were evaluated every 3 months up to 1 year from the baseline. The study enrolled 52 patients with ages between 47 and 61 years who were divided into two groups. Thirty-seven (n = 37) patients were randomized in the pilot group (PG) and received IA injections with the viscoelastic hyaluronic acid product (HA) combined with a multi-modal PT regime. The PT program included 10 sessions of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, low-level laser therapy, ultrasound, physical exercise, and cryotherapy. Fifteen patients (n = 15) from the control group (CG) received the IA HA injections only. All patients were confirmed with mild KOA of Kellgren–Lawrence grade 2 on radiographs at the beginning of the treatment. The baseline characteristics, including the severity of pain and level of disability, were similar in the two groups. At baseline, the mean (±SD) WOMAC scores reported were 64.6 ± 4.08 in the CG and 64.5 ± 2.99 in the PG. Notably, at only 3 months into the study, the mean scores were significantly improved to 56.7 ± 5 in the CG and 48.27 ± 2.13 in the PG (mean between-group difference = 16.19 points; 95% confidence interval), finding favor for the combination of HA injections and physiotherapy. At the study’s endpoint (12 months), the scores were improved in both groups, with the mean between-group difference remaining significant (7.08 points, 95% confidence interval). A decrease in pain, as evaluated by the VAS scale, was reported for both groups, with the PG reporting a better VAS score that decreased from 5.7 to 2 when compared to the CG, which decreased from 5.7 to 3. The physical assessment parameters (ROM and MST) followed the same trend, with a rapid improvement in the ROM in the PG, changing from 98° to 115° in the first 3 months, and a slower and more steady evolution in the CG group, changing from 100° to 112° in 9 months. Herein, we report on the combination therapy of an intra-articularly administered HA viscoelastic product and a multi-modal physiotherapy regime, which can play a key role in the non-surgical treatment of KOA, effectively controlling pain, stiffness, and the ROM value and improving patients’ quality of life.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».