| Literature DB >> 32802114 |
Qi Wang1,2, Hui Lv2, Zhao-Tian Sun2, Jian-Feng Tu3, Yong-Wei Feng2, Tian-Qi Wang3, Cun-Zhi Liu1,3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of evaluating the effectiveness and safety of electroacupuncture versus sham electroacupuncture for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32802114 PMCID: PMC7414333 DOI: 10.1155/2020/1686952
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flowchart of the trial: patients of each group received three sessions weekly for eight weeks (one session every other day).
Baseline characteristics of intention-to-treat population.
| Characteristics | Electroacupuncture ( | Sham electroacupuncture ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Female, no. (%) | 13 (86.7) | 11 (73.3) | 0.361 |
| Male, no. (%) | 2 (13.3) | 4 (26.7) | 0.361 |
| Age, mean (SD), years | 63.5 (8.4) | 65.2 (7.6) | 0.572 |
| BMI, mean (SD), kg/m2 | 24.2 (2.8) | 26.0 (2.9) | 0.110 |
| Duration, mean (SD), months | 61.3 (47.6) | 68.2 (62.4) | 0.737 |
| Kellgren criteria | |||
| Kellgren 2, no. (%) | 7 (46.7) | 7 (46.7) | 1.000 |
| Kellgren 3, no. (%) | 8 (53.3) | 8 (53.3) | |
| AROM, mean (SD), ° | 116.8 (13.3) | 115.4 (14.2) | 0.775 |
| PROM, mean (SD), ° | 124.9 (13.6) | 124.2 (14.6) | 0.887 |
| Quadriceps muscle strength score, mean (SD) | 9.9 (1.2) | 10.4 (1.5) | 0.350 |
| Hamstring muscle strength score, mean (SD) | 8.7 (0.9) | 9.0 (1.2) | 0.395 |
| Lequesne index score, mean (SD) | 10.6 (3.2) | 10.7 (3.7) | 0.958 |
| TUG, mean (SD), s | 13.8 (4.0) | 12.9 (4.8) | 0.594 |
| 9-SCT, mean (SD), s | 21.3 (12.0) | 18.7 (11.6) | 0.564 |
BMI: body mass index; AROM: active maximum flexion knee range of motion; PROM: passive maximum flexion knee range of motion; TUG: Timed Up and Go Test; 9-SCT: 9-step stair-climb test. Significant P < 0.05.
Comparison of variables between the two groups (intention-to-treat).
| Variables | Electroacupuncture ( | Sham electroacupuncture ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Proportion of responders, no. (%) | |||
| Week 8 | 8 (53.3%) | 4 (26.7%) | 0.264 |
|
| |||
| TUG, mean (SD), s | |||
| Week 8 | 11.4 (3.5) | 11.6 (3.9) | 0.856 |
| Week 16 | 10.4 (3.2) | 12.6 (5.8) | 0.208 |
| Week 26 | 10.5 (3.4) | 12.6 (6.1) | 0.239 |
| Change from baseline and 8 weeks | 2.4 (2.3) | 1.3 (1.9) | 0.162 |
|
| |||
| AROM, mean (SD), ° | |||
| Week 8 | 121.2 (13.6) | 114.7 (16.1) | 0.240 |
| Week 16 | 118.7 (19.0) | 115.4 (17.5) | 0.621 |
| Week 26 | 118.1 (19.4) | 112.9 (18.8) | 0.468 |
| Change from baseline and 8 weeks | 4.4 (6.7) | −0.7 (5.2) | 0.027 |
|
| |||
| PROM, mean (SD), ° | |||
| Week 8 | 132.4 (9.3) | 122.6 (16.9) | 0.059 |
| Week 16 | 127.8 (17.6) | 121.5 (18.4) | 0.347 |
| Week 26 | 127.9 (17.7) | 119.6 (20.3) | 0.247 |
| Change from baseline and 8 weeks | 7.5 (12.0) | −1.5 (5.3) | 0.012 |
|
| |||
| Quadriceps muscle strength score, mean (SD) or median ( | |||
| Week 8 | 10.6 (1.1) | 10.7 (1.5) | 0.891 |
| Week 16 | 10.7 (1.1) | 12 (12, 10) | 0.233 |
| Week 26 | 10.8 (1.3) | 10.9 (1.4) | 0.785 |
| Change from baseline and 8 weeks | 0.0 (2.0, 0.0) | 0.0 (1.0, 0.0) | 0.539 |
|
| |||
| Hamstring muscle strength score, mean (SD) | |||
| Week 8 | 9.0 (1.3) | 9.1 (1.4) | 0.786 |
| Week 16 | 9.1 (1.5) | 9.0 (1.3) | 0.798 |
| Week 26 | 9.1 (1.4) | 8.9 (1.4) | 0.594 |
| Change from baseline and 8 weeks | 0.3 (1.0) | 0.1 (0.9) | 0.582 |
|
| |||
| Lequesne index score, mean (SD) | |||
| Week 8 | 7.0 (3.9) | 8.4 (4.5) | 0.383 |
| Week 16 | 6.4 (4.2) | 8.6 (4.8) | 0.192 |
| Week 26 | 6.2 (4.4) | 8.7 (4.5) | 0.128 |
| Change from baseline and 8 weeks | 3.6 (2.7) | 2.3 (2.8) | 0.211 |
|
| |||
| 9-SCT, mean (SD), s | |||
| Week 8 | 18.0 (8.6) | 18.8 (12.0) | 0.826 |
| Week 16 | 16.7 (8.7) | 18.7 (12.8) | 0.617 |
| Week 26 | 17.1 (8.4) | 19.1 (12.6) | 0.617 |
| Change from baseline and 8 weeks | 3.3 (5.8) | −0.1 (1.8) | 0.041 |
TUG: Timed Up and Go Test; AROM: active maximum flexion knee range of motion; PROM: passive maximum flexion knee range of motion; 9-SCT: 9-step stair-climb test. Significant P < 0.05.
Comparison of variables between the two groups (per-protocol analysis).
| Variables | Electroacupuncture ( | Sham electroacupuncture ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Proportion of responders, no. (%) | |||
| Week 8 | 8 (53.3%) | 4 (30.8%) | 0.276 |
Significant P < 0.05.
Mean (SD) comparison of variables in the two groups (intention-to-treat).
| Electroacupuncture ( | Sham electroacupuncture ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preintervention | Postintervention |
| Preintervention | Postintervention |
| |
| TUG, s | 13.8 (4.0) | 11.4 (3.5) | 0.001 | 12.9 (4.8) | 11.6 (3.9) | 0.020 |
| AROM, ° | 116.8 (13.3) | 121.2 (13.6) | 0.024 | 115.4 (14.2) | 114.7 (16.1) | 0.600 |
| PROM, ° | 124.9 (13.6) | 132.4 (9.3) | 0.029 | 124.2 (14.6) | 122.6 (16.9) | 0.285 |
| Quadriceps muscle strength score | 9.9 (1.2) | 10.6 (1.1) | 0.012 | 10.4 (1.5) | 10.7 (1.5) | 0.484 |
| Hamstring muscle strength score | 8.7 (0.9) | 9.0 (1.3) | 0.238 | 9.0 (1.2) | 9.1 (1.4) | 0.582 |
| Lequesne index score | 10.6 (3.2) | 7.0 (3.9) | ≤0.001 | 10.7 (3.7) | 8.4 (4.5) | 0.007 |
| 9-SCT, s | 21.3 (12.0) | 18.0 (8.6) | 0.001 | 18.7 (11.6) | 18.8 (12.0) | 0.883 |
TUG: Timed Up and Go Test; AROM: active maximum flexion knee range of motion; PROM: passive maximum flexion knee range of motion; 9-SCT: 9-step stair-climb test. Postintervention: at week eight. Significant P < 0.05.