PURPOSE: To determine whether the basic science evidence supports the use of continuous passive motion (CPM) after articular cartilage injury in the knee. METHODS: A systematic review was performed identifying and evaluating studies in animal models that focused on the basic science of CPM of the knee. Databases included in this review were PubMed, Biosis Previews, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and EMBASE. All functional, gross anatomic, histologic, and histochemical outcomes were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Primary outcomes of CPM analyzed in rabbit animal models (19 studies) included histologic changes in articular cartilage (13 studies), biomechanical changes and nutrition of intra-articular tissue (3 studies), and anti-inflammatory biochemical changes (3 studies). Nine studies specifically examined osteochondral defects, 6 of which used autogenous periosteal grafts. Other pathologies included were antigen-induced arthritis, septic arthritis, medial collateral ligament reconstruction, hemarthrosis, and chymopapain-induced proteoglycan destruction. In comparison to immobilized knees, CPM therapy led to decreased joint stiffness and complications related to adhesions while promoting improved neochondrogenesis with formation and preservation of normal articular cartilage. CPM was also shown to create a strong anti-inflammatory environment by effectively clearing harmful, inflammatory particles from within the knee. CONCLUSIONS: Current basic science evidence from rabbit studies has shown that CPM for the knee significantly improves motion and biological properties of articular cartilage. This may be translated to potentially improved outcomes in the management of articular cartilage pathology of the knee. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: If the rabbit model is relevant to humans, CPM may contribute to improved knee health by preventing joint stiffness, preserving normal articular tissue with better histologic and biologic properties, and improving range of motion as compared with joint immobilization and intermittent active motion.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the basic science evidence supports the use of continuous passive motion (CPM) after articular cartilage injury in the knee. METHODS: A systematic review was performed identifying and evaluating studies in animal models that focused on the basic science of CPM of the knee. Databases included in this review were PubMed, Biosis Previews, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and EMBASE. All functional, gross anatomic, histologic, and histochemical outcomes were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Primary outcomes of CPM analyzed in rabbit animal models (19 studies) included histologic changes in articular cartilage (13 studies), biomechanical changes and nutrition of intra-articular tissue (3 studies), and anti-inflammatory biochemical changes (3 studies). Nine studies specifically examined osteochondral defects, 6 of which used autogenous periosteal grafts. Other pathologies included were antigen-induced arthritis, septic arthritis, medial collateral ligament reconstruction, hemarthrosis, and chymopapain-induced proteoglycan destruction. In comparison to immobilized knees, CPM therapy led to decreased joint stiffness and complications related to adhesions while promoting improved neochondrogenesis with formation and preservation of normal articular cartilage. CPM was also shown to create a strong anti-inflammatory environment by effectively clearing harmful, inflammatory particles from within the knee. CONCLUSIONS: Current basic science evidence from rabbit studies has shown that CPM for the knee significantly improves motion and biological properties of articular cartilage. This may be translated to potentially improved outcomes in the management of articular cartilage pathology of the knee. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: If the rabbit model is relevant to humans, CPM may contribute to improved knee health by preventing joint stiffness, preserving normal articular tissue with better histologic and biologic properties, and improving range of motion as compared with joint immobilization and intermittent active motion.
Authors: Rick W Wright; Emily Preston; Braden C Fleming; Annunziato Amendola; Jack T Andrish; John A Bergfeld; Warren R Dunn; Chris Kaeding; John E Kuhn; Robert G Marx; Eric C McCarty; Richard C Parker; Kurt P Spindler; Michelle Wolcott; Brian R Wolf; Glenn N Williams Journal: J Knee Surg Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Jesse E Bible; Andrew K Simpson; Debdut Biswas; Richard R Pelker; Jonathan N Grauer Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-02-27 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Artur Kroell; Paul Marks; Jaskarndip Chahal; Mark Hurtig; Tim Dwyer; Daniel Whelan; John Theodoropoulos Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Eoghan T Hurley; Martin S Davey; M Shazil Jamal; Amit K Manjunath; Michael J Alaia; Eric J Strauss Journal: Cartilage Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Marco Kawamura Demange; Camilo Partezani Helito; Paulo Victor Partezani Helito; Felipe Ferreira de Souza; Riccardo Gomes Gobbi; Alexandre Fogaça Cristante Journal: Rev Bras Ortop Date: 2016-02-02
Authors: Michael Stark; Somnath Rao; Brendan Gleason; Robert A Jack; Bradford Tucker; Sommer Hammoud; Kevin B Freedman Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-07-27
Authors: Christiane Kabst; Xinggui Tian; Christian Kleber; Michael Amlang; Lisa Findeisen; Geoffrey Lee; Stefan Zwingenberger Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Joshua D Harris; Brandon J Erickson; Gregory L Cvetanovich; Geoffrey D Abrams; Frank M McCormick; Anil K Gupta; Nikhil N Verma; Bernard R Bach; Brian J Cole Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2014-02-07