E Coudeyre1, A G Jegu2, M Giustanini3, J P Marrel3, P Edouard4, B Pereira5. 1. Service de médecine physique et de réadaptation, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, 58, rue Montalembert, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France; Université Clermont Auvergne, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France; INRA, unité de nutrition humaine (UNH, UMR 1019), CRNH Auvergne, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France. Electronic address: ecoudeyre@chu-clermontferrand.fr. 2. Service de médecine physique et de réadaptation, site du Tampon, CHU Sud Réunion, CHU Réunion, 97448 Saint-Pierre, France. 3. Service de médecine physique et de réadaptation, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, 58, rue Montalembert, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France. 4. Laboratoire de physiologie de l'exercice (LPE EA 4338), hôpital de Bellevue, faculté de médecine Jacques-Lisfranc, université Jean-Monnet, CHU de Saint-Étienne, 42055 Saint-Étienne cedex 2, France. 5. CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Biostatistics Unit, délégation recherche clinique & innovation (DRCI), Villa annexe IFSI, 63003 Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of scientific evidence and the place in the rehabilitation framework of isokinetic muscle strengthening (IMS) for knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A systematic review of the English literature in MEDLINE via PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and PEDro databases for only randomized comparative trials. Data that were sufficiently homogeneous underwent comprehensive meta-analysis. Methodological assessment was done by using the CLEAR scale for non-pharmacologic trials. RESULTS: We identified articles for 9 trials (696 patients). All trials were of low to moderate quality. Tolerance of IMS was considered good. Improvement in muscle strength was better with an IMS program than no treatment or an isometric exercise but did not differ with an aerobic program. We found an important effect for pain (standardized mean difference 1.218 [95% CI 0.899-1.54], P<0.001) and functional Lequesne index (1.61 [0.40-2.81], P=0.009) and a moderate effect for the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscore C for disability (0.58 [0.04-1.11], P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: IMS is an effective way to propose dynamic muscle strengthening for knee OA rehabilitation and has a significant effect on pain and disability. Because of the weak methodology and the great heterogeneity of studies, particularly in IMS protocol and outcome measures, insufficient data are available to provide guidelines about efficacy and strategy. Future clinical trials are needed, but more attention should be paid to the methods of such studies to clarify the role of IMS in the therapeutic armamentarium of knee OA.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the level of scientific evidence and the place in the rehabilitation framework of isokinetic muscle strengthening (IMS) for knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A systematic review of the English literature in MEDLINE via PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and PEDro databases for only randomized comparative trials. Data that were sufficiently homogeneous underwent comprehensive meta-analysis. Methodological assessment was done by using the CLEAR scale for non-pharmacologic trials. RESULTS: We identified articles for 9 trials (696 patients). All trials were of low to moderate quality. Tolerance of IMS was considered good. Improvement in muscle strength was better with an IMS program than no treatment or an isometric exercise but did not differ with an aerobic program. We found an important effect for pain (standardized mean difference 1.218 [95% CI 0.899-1.54], P<0.001) and functional Lequesne index (1.61 [0.40-2.81], P=0.009) and a moderate effect for the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscore C for disability (0.58 [0.04-1.11], P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: IMS is an effective way to propose dynamic muscle strengthening for knee OA rehabilitation and has a significant effect on pain and disability. Because of the weak methodology and the great heterogeneity of studies, particularly in IMS protocol and outcome measures, insufficient data are available to provide guidelines about efficacy and strategy. Future clinical trials are needed, but more attention should be paid to the methods of such studies to clarify the role of IMS in the therapeutic armamentarium of knee OA.
Authors: Josien C van den Noort; Marike van der Leeden; Gerard Stapper; Wolfgang Wirth; Mario Maas; Leo D Roorda; Willem F Lems; Joost Dekker; Martin van der Esch Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: James M Gwinnutt; Maud Wieczorek; Giulio Cavalli; Andra Balanescu; Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari; Annelies Boonen; Savia de Souza; Annette de Thurah; Thomas E Dorner; Rikke Helene Moe; Polina Putrik; Javier Rodríguez-Carrio; Lucía Silva-Fernández; Tanja Stamm; Karen Walker-Bone; Joep Welling; Mirjana I Zlatković-Švenda; Francis Guillemin; Suzanne M M Verstappen Journal: RMD Open Date: 2022-03
Authors: Jose A Parraca; José Carmelo Adsuar; Francisco Javier Domínguez-Muñoz; Sabina Barrios-Fernandez; Pablo Tomas-Carus Journal: Biology (Basel) Date: 2022-05-24
Authors: Daniel Borges Pereira; Tatiane Silva de Souza; Carolina Tayama Fuzinato; Rodrigo Jugue Hagihara; Ana Paula Ribeiro Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Bjarki T Haraldsson; Christoffer H Andersen; Katrine T Erhardsen; Mette K Zebis; Jéssica K Micheletti; Carlos M Pastre; Lars L Andersen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 3.390