OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of exercise therapy (ET) compared with ET with adjunctive manual therapy (MT) for people with hip osteoarthritis (OA); and to identify if immediate commencement of treatment (ET or ET+MT) was more beneficial than a 9-week waiting period for either intervention. DESIGN: Assessor-blind randomized controlled trial with a 9-week and 18-week follow-up. SETTING:Four academic teaching hospitals in Dublin, Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=131) with hip OA recruited from general practitioners, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and other hospital consultants were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: ET (n=45), ET+MT (n=43), and waitlist controls (n=43). INTERVENTIONS: Participants in both the ET and ET+MT groups received up to 8 treatments over 8 weeks. Control group participants were rerandomized into either ET or ET+MT groups after 9 week follow-up. Their data were pooled with original treatment group data: ET (n=66) and ET+MT (n=65). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical function (PF) subscale. Secondary outcomes included physical performance, pain severity, hip range of motion (ROM), anxiety/depression, quality of life, medication usage, patient-perceived change, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in WOMAC PF between the ET (n=66) and ET+MT (n=65) groups at 9 weeks (mean difference, .09; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.93 to 3.11) or 18 weeks (mean difference, .42; 95% CI, -4.41 to 5.25), or between other outcomes, except patient satisfaction with outcomes, which was higher in the ET+MT group (P=.02). Improvements in WOMAC, hip ROM, and patient-perceived change occurred in both treatment groups compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported function, hip ROM, and patient-perceived improvement occurred after an 8-week program of ET for patients with OA of the hip. MT as an adjunct to exercise provided no further benefit, except for higher patient satisfaction with outcome.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of exercise therapy (ET) compared with ET with adjunctive manual therapy (MT) for people with hip osteoarthritis (OA); and to identify if immediate commencement of treatment (ET or ET+MT) was more beneficial than a 9-week waiting period for either intervention. DESIGN: Assessor-blind randomized controlled trial with a 9-week and 18-week follow-up. SETTING: Four academic teaching hospitals in Dublin, Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=131) with hip OA recruited from general practitioners, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and other hospital consultants were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: ET (n=45), ET+MT (n=43), and waitlist controls (n=43). INTERVENTIONS:Participants in both the ET and ET+MT groups received up to 8 treatments over 8 weeks. Control group participants were rerandomized into either ET or ET+MT groups after 9 week follow-up. Their data were pooled with original treatment group data: ET (n=66) and ET+MT (n=65). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical function (PF) subscale. Secondary outcomes included physical performance, pain severity, hip range of motion (ROM), anxiety/depression, quality of life, medication usage, patient-perceived change, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in WOMAC PF between the ET (n=66) and ET+MT (n=65) groups at 9 weeks (mean difference, .09; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.93 to 3.11) or 18 weeks (mean difference, .42; 95% CI, -4.41 to 5.25), or between other outcomes, except patient satisfaction with outcomes, which was higher in the ET+MT group (P=.02). Improvements in WOMAC, hip ROM, and patient-perceived change occurred in both treatment groups compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported function, hip ROM, and patient-perceived improvement occurred after an 8-week program of ET for patients with OA of the hip. MT as an adjunct to exercise provided no further benefit, except for higher patient satisfaction with outcome.
Authors: Clint T Miller; Patrick J Owen; Christian A Than; Jake Ball; Kate Sadler; Alessandro Piedimonte; Fabrizio Benedetti; Daniel L Belavy Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Russell J Coppack; James L Bilzon; Andrew K Wills; Ian M McCurdie; Laura Partridge; Alastair M Nicol; Alexander N Bennett Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Russell J Coppack; James L Bilzon; Andrew K Wills; Ian M McCurdie; Laura K Partridge; Alastair M Nicol; Alexander N Bennett Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2016-04-01
Authors: Peter Dh Wall; Edward J Dickenson; David Robinson; Ivor Hughes; Alba Realpe; Rachel Hobson; Damian R Griffin; Nadine E Foster Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Deirdre A Hurley; Amanda M Hall; Laura Currie-Murphy; Tamar Pincus; Steve Kamper; Chris Maher; Suzanne M McDonough; Chris Lonsdale; Nicola E Walsh; Suzanne Guerin; Ricardo Segurado; James Matthews Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 2.692