S P Messier1, M Pater2, D P Beavers3, C Legault4, R F Loeser5, D J Hunter6, P DeVita7. 1. Department of Health and Exercise Science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; Section on Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Wake Forest University, School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: messier@wfu.edu. 2. Department of Health and Exercise Science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. Electronic address: mhoops2@uic.edu. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 4. Department of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. Electronic address: clegault@wfubmc.edu. 5. Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology Thurston Arthritis Research Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, USA. Electronic address: rloeser@wfubmc.edu. 6. Rheumatology Department, Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: david.hunter@sydney.edu.au. 7. Department of Kinesiology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA. Electronic address: devitap@ecu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the influences of frontal plane knee alignment and obesity on knee joint loads in older, overweight and obese adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Cross-sectional investigation of alignment and obesity on knee joint loads using community dwelling older adults (age ≥ 55 years; 27 kg m(-2) ≥ body mass or body mass index (BMI) ≤ 41 kg m(-2); 69% female) with radiographic knee OA that were a subset of participants (157 out of 454) enrolled in the Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis (IDEA) clinical trial. RESULTS: A higher BMI was associated with greater (P = 0.0006) peak knee compressive forces [overweight, 2411 N (2182, 2639), class 1 obesity, 2772 N (2602, 2943), class 2+ obesity, 2993 N (2796, 3190)] and greater (P = 0.004) shear forces [overweight, 369 N (322, 415), class 1 obesity, 418 N (384, 453), class 2+ obesity, 472 N (432, 513)], independent of alignment, and varus alignment was associated (P < 0.0001) with greater peak external knee adduction moments, independent of BMI [valgus, 18.7 Nm (15.1, 22.4), neutral, 27.7 Nm (24.0, 31.4), varus, 37.0 Nm (34.4, 39.7)]. CONCLUSION: BMI and alignment were associated with different joint loading measures; alignment was more closely associated with the asymmetry or imbalance of loads across the medial and lateral knee compartments as reflected by the frontal plane external adduction moment, while BMI was associated with the magnitude of total tibiofemoral force. These data may be useful in selecting treatment options for knee OA patients (e.g., diet to reduce compressive loads or bracing to change alignment).
OBJECTIVE: To determine the influences of frontal plane knee alignment and obesity on knee joint loads in older, overweight and obese adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Cross-sectional investigation of alignment and obesity on knee joint loads using community dwelling older adults (age ≥ 55 years; 27 kg m(-2) ≥ body mass or body mass index (BMI) ≤ 41 kg m(-2); 69% female) with radiographic knee OA that were a subset of participants (157 out of 454) enrolled in the Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis (IDEA) clinical trial. RESULTS: A higher BMI was associated with greater (P = 0.0006) peak knee compressive forces [overweight, 2411 N (2182, 2639), class 1 obesity, 2772 N (2602, 2943), class 2+ obesity, 2993 N (2796, 3190)] and greater (P = 0.004) shear forces [overweight, 369 N (322, 415), class 1 obesity, 418 N (384, 453), class 2+ obesity, 472 N (432, 513)], independent of alignment, and varus alignment was associated (P < 0.0001) with greater peak external knee adduction moments, independent of BMI [valgus, 18.7 Nm (15.1, 22.4), neutral, 27.7 Nm (24.0, 31.4), varus, 37.0 Nm (34.4, 39.7)]. CONCLUSION: BMI and alignment were associated with different joint loading measures; alignment was more closely associated with the asymmetry or imbalance of loads across the medial and lateral knee compartments as reflected by the frontal plane external adduction moment, while BMI was associated with the magnitude of total tibiofemoral force. These data may be useful in selecting treatment options for knee OA patients (e.g., diet to reduce compressive loads or bracing to change alignment).
Authors: Marius Henriksen; Erik B Simonsen; Tine Alkjaer; Hans Lund; Thomas Graven-Nielsen; Bente Danneskiold-Samsøe; Henning Bliddal Journal: Knee Date: 2006-09-29 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: S P Messier; C Legault; R F Loeser; S J Van Arsdale; C Davis; W H Ettinger; P DeVita Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2010-12-04 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Harvi F Hart; Marienke van Middelkoop; Joshua J Stefanik; Kay M Crossley; Sita Bierma-Zeinstra Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Dean Wang; Brian J Rebolledo; David M Dare; Mollyann D Pais; Matthew R Cohn; Kristofer J Jones; Riley J Williams Journal: Cartilage Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: A Batushansky; S Zhu; R K Komaravolu; S South; P Mehta-D'souza; T M Griffin Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2021-09-17 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Guangping Shen; Songning Zhang; Hunter J Bennett; James C Martin; Scott E Crouter; Eugene C Fitzhugh Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Phyllis A Richey; Karen C Johnson; Rebecca H Neiberg; Judy L Bahnson; Kunal Singhal; Mace Coday; Fridtjof Thomas; Cora E Lewis; William M Mihalko Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 4.757