Physiotherapy - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableWalking-related knee contact forces and associations with knee pain across people with mild, moderate and severe radiographic knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study(ELSEVIER SCI LTD, 2022-06)OBJECTIVE: To investigate knee contact forces (KCFs), and their relationships with knee pain, across grades of radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA) severity. DESIGN: Cross-sectional exploratory analysis of 164 participants with medial knee OA. Radiographic severity was classified as mild (grade 2), moderate (grade 3) or severe (grade 4) using the Kellgren & Lawrence (KL) scale. Walking knee pain was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale. External knee adduction moment (external KAM) and internal muscle forces were used to calculate medial, lateral and total KCFs using a musculoskeletal computational model. Force-time series across stance phase of gait were compared across KL grades using Statistical Parametric Mapping. Associations between KCFs and pain across KL grades were assessed using linear models. RESULTS: Medial KCFs during early and middle stance were higher in participants with KL3 and KL4 compared to those with KL2. In contrast, lateral KCFs were higher in those with KL2 compared to KL3 and KL4 in middle to late stance. The external loading component (i.e., KAM) of the medial KCF during middle to late stance was also greater in participants with KL3 and KL4 compared to those with KL2, whereas the internal (i.e., muscle) component was greater in those with KL3 and KL4 compared to KL3 during early stance. There were no associations between medial KCF and knee pain in any KL grade. CONCLUSIONS: Medial and lateral KCFs differ between mild, moderate and severe radiographic knee OA but are not associated with knee pain severity for any radiographic OA grade.
-
ItemEffect of motion control versus neutral walking footwear on pain associated with lateral tibiofemoral joint osteoarthritis: a comparative effectiveness randomised clinical trial(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2022-09)OBJECTIVES: To determine if motion control walking shoes are superior to neutral walking shoes in reducing knee pain on walking in people with lateral knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Participant-blinded and assessor-blinded, comparative effectiveness, superiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: People with symptomatic radiographic lateral tibiofemoral OA from the community and our volunteer database. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to receive either motion control or neutral shoes and advised to wear them >6 hours/day over 6 months. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in average knee pain on walking over the previous week (11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), 0-10) at 6 months. The secondary outcomes included other measures of knee pain, physical function, quality of life, participant-perceived change in pain and function, and physical activity. RESULTS: We planned to recruit 110 participants (55 per arm) but ceased recruitment at 40 (n=18 motion control shoes, n=22 neutral shoes) due to COVID-19-related impacts. All 40 participants completed 6-month outcomes. There was no evidence that motion control shoes were superior to neutral shoes for the primary outcome of pain (mean between-group difference 0.4 NRS units, 95% CI -1.0 to 1.7) nor for any secondary outcome. The number of participants experiencing any adverse events was similar between groups (motion control shoes: n=5, 28%; neutral shoes: n=4, 18.2%) and were minor. CONCLUSIONS: Motion control shoes were not superior to neutral shoes in improving knee pain on walking in symptomatic radiographic lateral tibiofemoral joint OA. Further research is needed to identify effective treatments in this important but under-researched knee OA subgroup. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618001864213.
-
ItemPodiatry Intervention Versus Usual General Practitioner Care for Symptomatic Radiographic Osteoarthritis of the First Metatarsophalangeal Joint: A Randomized Clinical Feasibility Study(WILEY, 2021-02)OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a clinical trial comparing a podiatry intervention to usual general practitioner (GP) care for people with first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A 2-arm, participant- and assessor-blinded, randomized feasibility study was conducted over 12 weeks. Participants were age >40 years and had pain and radiographic OA in the first MTP joint. Participants in the podiatry group had 3 visits and received foot orthoses, exercise, manual therapy, and advice. Participants in the GP group had 1 visit and received medication advice/prescription and the same advice as the podiatry group. Primary outcomes were measures of feasibility (recruitment, attendance, and retention rates; percentage of prescribed exercise sessions completed; orthoses wear hours/day; treatment fidelity). Secondary outcomes included self-reported pain, function, satisfaction, adherence, adverse events, and dropouts. RESULTS: A total of 236 people were screened, and 30 (13%) were included. All except 1 participant in the podiatry group attended the required clinical visits, and retention rates were 93% (podiatry group) and 80% (GP group). Participants completed 66% of the exercise sessions and wore orthoses for an average of 6.3 hours/day. Adherence to medication use was 5.3 on an 11-point numeric rating scale. Both treatment approaches improved pain and function by clinically important differences at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: A clinical trial comparing a podiatry intervention to usual GP care for people with first MTP joint OA is feasible. Given the improvements in pain and function observed, a larger appropriately powered clinical trial is warranted to evaluate the superiority of one treatment approach over the other.
-
ItemFootwear for osteoarthritis of the lateral knee: protocol for the FOLK randomised controlled trial(BMC, 2020-04-15)BACKGROUND: Structural features of lateral tibiofemoral (TF) joint osteoarthritis (OA) occur in up to half of all people with knee OA, and co-existing lateral TF OA is associated with worse knee pain in people with mixed compartmental knee OA. Clinical guidelines for management of knee OA advocate advice about appropriate footwear, yet there is no research evaluating which types of footwear are best for managing pain associated with lateral TF OA. Biomechanical evidence suggests that "motion-control" footwear, which possess midsoles that are stiffer medially compared to laterally, may shift load away from the lateral compartment of the knee and thus may reduce knee pain associated with lateral TF OA. The primary aim of this study is to compare the effects of motion-control shoes to neutral shoes on knee pain in people with predominantly lateral TF OA. METHODS: This will be an assessor- and participant-blinded, two-arm, comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in Melbourne, Australia. We will recruit a minimum of 92 people with painful lateral TF OA from the community. Participants will be randomly allocated to receive either motion-control shoes or neutral shoes and will be instructed to wear their allocated shoes for a minimum of 6 h per day for 6 months. The primary outcome is change in self-reported knee pain on walking, measured using a numerical rating scale, assessed at baseline and 6 months. Secondary outcomes include other measures of knee pain, physical function, quality of life, participant-perceived change in pain and function, and physical activity levels. DISCUSSION: This study will compare the efficacy of motion-control shoes to neutral shoes for people with painful lateral TF OA. Findings will be the first to provide evidence of the effects of footwear on knee pain in this important subgroup of people with knee OA and allow clinicians to provide accurate advice about the most appropriate footwear for managing pain associated with lateral TF OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been prospectively registered by the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 15/11/2018 (reference: ACTRN12618001864213).