Physiotherapy - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Effect of foot orthoses vs sham insoles on first metatarsophalangeal joint osteoarthritis symptoms: a randomized controlled trial
    Paterson, KL ; Hinman, RS ; Metcalf, BR ; McManus, F ; Jones, SE ; Menz, HB ; Munteanu, SE ; Bennell, KL (ELSEVIER SCI LTD, 2022-06)
    OBJECTIVES: To compare contoured foot orthoses to sham flat insoles for first MTP joint OA walking pain. DESIGN: This was a participant- and assessor-blinded, sham-controlled, multi-centre randomized clinical trial set in community-based private practices. Eighty-eight adults aged ≥45 years with symptomatic radiographic first MTP joint OA were randomized to receive contoured foot orthoses (n = 47) or sham flat insoles (n = 41), worn at all times when wearing shoes for 12 weeks. Primary outcome was change in first MTP joint walking pain (11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), 0-10) over 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional first MTP joint and foot pain measures, physical function, quality of life and physical activity. Separate linear regression models for primary and secondary outcomes on treatment group were fit, adjusting for the outcome at baseline and podiatrist. Other measures included adverse events. RESULTS: 88 participants were randomized and 87 (99%) completed the 12-week primary outcome. There was no evidence foot orthoses were superior to sham insoles for reducing pain (mean difference -0.3 NRS units (95% CI -1.2 to 0.6), p = 0.53). Similarly, foot orthoses were not superior to sham on any secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Adverse events were generally minor and transient. CONCLUSION: Contoured foot orthoses are no more effective than flat sham insoles for the clinical management of first MTP joint OA. Given the dearth of evidence on treatments for first MTP joint OA, further research is needed to identify effective management approaches for this common and debilitating condition.
  • Item
    No Preview Available
    Walking-related knee contact forces and associations with knee pain across people with mild, moderate and severe radiographic knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study
    Wu, W ; Bryant, AL ; Hinman, RS ; Bennell, KL ; Metcalf, BR ; Hall, M ; Campbell, PK ; Paterson, KL (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.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Effect of motion control versus neutral walking footwear on pain associated with lateral tibiofemoral joint osteoarthritis: a comparative effectiveness randomised clinical trial
    Paterson, KL ; Bennell, KL ; Metcalf, BR ; Campbell, PK ; McManus, F ; Lamb, KE ; Hinman, RS (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.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Podiatry Intervention Versus Usual General Practitioner Care for Symptomatic Radiographic Osteoarthritis of the First Metatarsophalangeal Joint: A Randomized Clinical Feasibility Study
    Paterson, KL ; Hinman, RS ; Metcalf, BR ; Campbell, PK ; Menz, HB ; Hunter, DJ ; Bennell, KL (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.