| Literature DB >> 29114623 |
Massimo Innocenti1, Michele Mancini1, Marina Faccio1, Christian Carulli1, Paolo Buselli2, Sara Messina2, Giuseppe Quattrone3, Piergiorgio Spaggiari4.
Abstract
Purpose After total knee arthroplasty (TKA), pain and swelling, especially in older and less cooperative patients, can limit the retrieval of a good range of motion and muscle tone and consequently the achievement of an optimal function outcome. A high-tech knee pad made of metal fibers emitting infrared energy was used in a group of patients undergoing TKA to assess its efficacy in the postoperative period with respect to a group with a placebo. Methods Twelve patients used knee pads after surgery for 3 weeks and were evaluated using visual analog scale (VAS), Knee Society Rating Score, Cincinnati Knee Rating Score, and painkillers at specific timings. Results At 3 weeks, all scores improved in a significant manner in the treated group compared with the placebo group. At 2 months after surgery, VAS was better in the study group than the control group, whereas other parameters were similar. However, the use of rescue drugs was less in the study group than in the placebo group. Conclusion A high-tech knee pad may contribute to a faster recovery within the first week after a knee replacement, limiting the use of painkillers and allowing a quick functional recovery by the control of pain and postoperative effusion. Level of Evidence Level II, randomized prospective study with small sample size.Entities:
Keywords: high-tech device; knee pad; postoperative effusion; replacement; total knee arthroplasty
Year: 2017 PMID: 29114623 PMCID: PMC5672854 DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1601406
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Joints ISSN: 2512-9090
Fig. 1Knee pad. ( A ) Ultrastructure at the electronic microscopy. ( B ) Detail of the knee pad tissue. ( C ) Gross appearance of the device.
Demographic data of the enrolled patients (expressed as mean values)
| Age (y) | BMI | Cause of knee OA |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 71.92 | 27.84 | 11/12 primary OA; 1/12 posttraumatic OA |
n.s.
|
| Group B | 70.36 | 28.35 | 10/12 primary OA; 2/12 posttraumatic OA |
Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; OA, osteoarthritis.
Nonsignificant difference.
Flowchart of the study protocol and number of recruited patients
| Selected patients | Inclusion/exclusion | T0 | T1 | T2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 14 | 12/2 | 12 | 12 | 12 |
| Group B | 13 | 12/1 | 12 | 12 | 12 |
Descriptive statistics of the outcome variable at T0
| Variable | Group A | Group B |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| KSS | 45.1 ± 11.5 | 50.3 ± 9.2 |
n.s.
|
| Functional KSS | 39.6 ± 17.6 | 44.2 ± 15.5 |
n.s.
|
| CKRS | 39.2 ± 9.1 | 41.6 ± 5.1 |
n.s.
|
Abbreviations: CKRS, Cincinnati Knee Rating Scale; KSS, Knee Society Rating System.
Nonsignificant difference.
Fig. 2Comparison between case and control groups for visual analog scale outcome.
Average values of outcome scores at T0-T2
| Variable | T0 | T1 | T2 |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | |||||
| KSS | 45.1 ± 11.5 | 67.4 ± 11.6 | 77.1 ± 10.7 | 40.5 |
|
| Functional KSS | 39.6 ± 17.6 | 62.9 ± 13.8 | 77.9 ± 9.2 | 29.4 |
|
| CKRS | 39.2 ± 9.1 | 56.8 ± 8.9 | 65.0 ± 8.7 | 40.1 |
|
| Group B | |||||
| KSS | 50.3 ± 9.2 | 62.2 ± 8.2 | 75.6 ± 7.0 | 31.2 |
|
| Functional KSS | 44.2 ± 15.5 | 59.6 ± 9.9 | 76.2 ± 7.1 | 32.8 |
|
| CKRS | 41.6 ± 5.1 | 55 ± 4.3 | 66.8 ± 6.4 | 239.5 |
|
Abbreviations: CKRS, Cincinnati Knee Rating Scale; KSS, Knee Society Rating System.
p -Values are referred to the differences within groups over time, computed by the analysis of variance.
Fig. 3Comparison between case and control groups for Cincinnati Knee Rating Score ( A ), Knee Society Rating System (KSS) ( B ), and functional KSS ( C ) outcomes.