Anxiety, depression, and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis before and after knee joint replacement

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 8
Author(s):  
AmrS Shalaby ◽  
AmrS El-Sayed
BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e046169
Author(s):  
Shiraz A Sabah ◽  
Elizabeth A Hedge ◽  
Simon G F Abram ◽  
Abtin Alvand ◽  
Andrew J Price ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo identify: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to evaluate symptoms, health status or quality of life following discretionary revision (or re-revision) knee joint replacement, and (2) validated joint-specific PROMs, their measurement properties and quality of evidence.Design(1) Scoping review; (2) systematic review following the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 1 July 2020 using the Oxford PROM filter unlimited by publication date or language.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies reporting on the development, validation or outcome of a joint-specific PROM for revision knee joint replacement were included.Results51 studies reported PROM outcomes using eight joint-specific PROMs. 27 out of 51 studies (52.9%) were published within the last 5 years. PROM development was rated ‘inadequate’ for each of the eight PROMs studied. Validation studies were available for only three joint-specific PROMs: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). 25 out of 27 (92.6%) measurement properties were rated insufficient, indeterminate or not assessed. The quality of supporting evidence was mostly low or very low. Each of the validated PROMs was rated ‘B’ (potential for recommendation but require further evaluation).ConclusionJoint-specific PROMs are increasingly used to report outcomes following revision knee joint replacement, but these instruments have insufficient evidence for their validity. Future research should be directed toward understanding the measurement properties of these instruments in order to inform clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the outcomes from joint-specific PROMs.


Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Fortuna ◽  
David A. Hart ◽  
Keith A. Sharkey ◽  
Rachel A. Schachar ◽  
Kelly Johnston ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic and painful condition where the articular cartilage surfaces progressively degenerate, resulting in loss of function and progressive disability. Obesity is a primary risk factor for the development and progression of knee OA, defined as the “metabolic OA” phenotype. Metabolic OA is associated with increased fat deposits that release inflammatory cytokines/adipokines, thereby resulting in systemic inflammation which can contribute to cartilage degeneration. There is currently no cure for OA. Prebiotics are a type of dietary fiber that can positively influence gut microbiota thereby reducing systemic inflammation and offering protection of joint integrity in rodents. However, no human clinical trials have tested the effects of prebiotics in adults with obesity suffering from knee OA. Therefore, the purpose of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial is to determine if prebiotic supplementation can, through positive changes in the gut microbiota, improve knee function and physical performance in adults with obesity and knee OA. Methods Adults (n = 60) with co-morbid obesity (BMI > 30 kg/m2) and knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade II–III) will be recruited from the Alberta Hip and Knee Clinic and the Rocky Mountain Health Clinic and surrounding community of Calgary, Canada, and randomized (stratified by sex, BMI, and age) to prebiotic (oligofructose-enriched inulin; 16 g/day) or a calorie-matched placebo (maltodextrin) for 6 months. Anthropometrics, performance-based tests, knee pain, serum inflammatory markers and metabolomics, quality of life, and gut microbiota will be assessed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months (end of prebiotic supplementation), and 3 months following the end of the prebiotic supplementation. Clinical significance There is growing pressure on health care systems for aggressive OA treatment such as total joint replacement. Less aggressive, yet effective, conservative treatment options have the potential to address the growing prevalence of co-morbid obesity and knee OA by delaying the need for joint replacement or ideally preventing its need altogether. The results of this clinical trial will provide the first evidence regarding the efficacy of prebiotic supplementation on knee joint function and pain in adults with obesity and knee OA. If successful, the results may provide a simple, safe, and easy to adhere to intervention to reduce knee joint pain and improve the quality of life of adults with co-morbid knee OA and obesity. Trial registration Clinical Trials.gov NCT04172688. Registered on 21 November 2019.


Author(s):  
Antonio Oliviero ◽  
Lorenzo Giordano ◽  
Nicola Maffulli

Abstract Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is a most common orthopaedic condition, often complicated by inflammatory features. Sources of data A systematic search in PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and Scopus databases (to January 2019) was performed to define the effect obtained in patients with OA of the knee by injections of ozone, on pain and physical function. Six RCTs and 353 patients were included. Areas of agreement Recently, an increasing number of physicians have used ozone therapy to alleviate the symptoms of acute and chronic OA of the knee. Ozone can allow greater mobility of the knee joint, pain relief and decrease in effusion. Areas of controversy The volume and concentration of ozone injected are different in the various treatment protocols published. Growing points The action of ozone is unclear, but it is a promising therapeutic modality capable of impacting, favourably, function and quality of life. Areas timely for developing research The lack of a clear protocol of use is a major limitation, and to date there is no clear evidence of long-term efficacy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document