AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of pre- and post-operative physiotherapy at home for unilateral total knee replacement (TKR). METHODS: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial set in participants' homes (four primary care trust areas) and physiotherapy outpatients in a South Yorkshire teaching hospital trust, 160 osteoarthritis patients waiting for unilateral TKR were randomly allocated to intervention (home) group (n=80) or control (hospital outpatient) group (n=80). The intervention group had pre- and post-operative home visits for assessment and treatment by a community physiotherapist. Outcome measures were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured by the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and the Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) pre-operatively and at 12 weeks post-TKR operation; patient satisfaction; and NHS resource use. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in the primary outcome measure, the WOMAC pain score, or any other HRQoL score. The home group had a significantly greater mean number of physiotherapy sessions than the hospital group [mean difference 5.2 sessions, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-6.3 to -4.1; P=0.001]. There was no significant difference in the total NHS costs per patient between groups. However, home physiotherapy for TKR was significantly more expensive (mean difference-pound136.5, 95% CI=- pound160 to-pound113; P=0.001). Patients were equally satisfied with physiotherapy at home or in hospital; however, more of the home group would choose their location for physiotherapy again. CONCLUSIONS: Although home physiotherapy was as effective and as acceptable to patients as hospital outpatient physiotherapy for unilateral TKR, it was more expensive. Additional pre-operative home physiotherapy did not improve patient-perceived health outcomes.
RCT Entities:
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of pre- and post-operative physiotherapy at home for unilateral total knee replacement (TKR). METHODS: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial set in participants' homes (four primary care trust areas) and physiotherapy outpatients in a South Yorkshire teaching hospital trust, 160 osteoarthritispatients waiting for unilateral TKR were randomly allocated to intervention (home) group (n=80) or control (hospital outpatient) group (n=80). The intervention group had pre- and post-operative home visits for assessment and treatment by a community physiotherapist. Outcome measures were health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured by the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and the Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) pre-operatively and at 12 weeks post-TKR operation; patient satisfaction; and NHS resource use. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups in the primary outcome measure, the WOMAC pain score, or any other HRQoL score. The home group had a significantly greater mean number of physiotherapy sessions than the hospital group [mean difference 5.2 sessions, 95% confidence interval (CI)=-6.3 to -4.1; P=0.001]. There was no significant difference in the total NHS costs per patient between groups. However, home physiotherapy for TKR was significantly more expensive (mean difference-pound136.5, 95% CI=- pound160 to-pound113; P=0.001). Patients were equally satisfied with physiotherapy at home or in hospital; however, more of the home group would choose their location for physiotherapy again. CONCLUSIONS: Although home physiotherapy was as effective and as acceptable to patients as hospital outpatient physiotherapy for unilateral TKR, it was more expensive. Additional pre-operative home physiotherapy did not improve patient-perceived health outcomes.
Authors: Kristin J Konnyu; Louise M Thoma; Wangnan Cao; Roy K Aaron; Orestis A Panagiotou; Monika Reddy Bhuma; Gaelen P Adam; Dan Pinto; Ethan M Balk Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2022-03-12 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Kristin J Konnyu; Louise M Thoma; Wangnan Cao; Roy K Aaron; Orestis A Panagiotou; Monika Reddy Bhuma; Gaelen P Adam; Ethan M Balk; Dan Pinto Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2022-03-12 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Remedios López-Liria; David Padilla Góngora; Daniel Catalán Matamoros; Clara Arrebola López; Pablo Garrido Fernández; María Del Carmen Martínez Cortés; Félix Zurita Ortega Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: Remedios López-Liria; David Padilla-Góngora; Daniel Catalan-Matamoros; Patricia Rocamora-Pérez; Sagrario Pérez-de la Cruz; Manuel Fernández-Sánchez Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: A Hamish R W Simpson; David F Hamilton; David J Beard; Karen L Barker; Timothy Wilton; James D Hutchison; Chris Tuck; Andrew Stoddard; Gary J Macfarlane; Gordon D Murray Journal: Trials Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Neil Artz; Karen T Elvers; Catherine Minns Lowe; Cath Sackley; Paul Jepson; Andrew D Beswick Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Chung-Wei Christine Lin; Lyn March; Jack Crosbie; Ross Crawford; Stephen Graves; Justine Naylor; Alison Harmer; Stephen Jan; Kim Bennell; Ian Harris; David Parker; Helene Moffet; Marlene Fransen Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 2.362