Literature DB >> 33428439

The Effect of Flat Flexible Versus Stable Supportive Shoes on Knee Osteoarthritis Symptoms : A Randomized Trial.

Kade L Paterson1, Kim L Bennell1, Penny K Campbell1, Ben R Metcalf1, Tim V Wrigley1, Jessica Kasza2, Rana S Hinman1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Experts recommend that persons with knee osteoarthritis wear stable supportive shoes; however, evidence suggests that flat flexible shoes may be more beneficial.
OBJECTIVE: To compare flat flexible with stable supportive shoes for knee osteoarthritis symptoms.
DESIGN: Participant- and assessor-blinded randomized trial. (Prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry [ACTRN12617001098325]).
SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: 164 patients with moderate to severe symptomatic radiographic medial knee osteoarthritis. INTERVENTION: Flat flexible (n = 82) or stable supportive shoes (n = 82), worn for at least 6 hours a day for 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were changes in walking pain (measured by an 11-point numerical rating scale) and physical function (as assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index subscale of 0 to 68 points) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included additional pain and function measures, physical activity, and quality of life. Other measures included adverse events.
RESULTS: Of 164 participants recruited, 161 (98%) completed 6-month primary outcomes. No evidence was found that flat flexible shoes were superior to stable supportive shoes in primary outcomes. Evidence did show a between-group difference in change in pain favoring stable supportive shoes (mean difference, 1.1 units [95% CI, 0.5 to 1.8 units]; P = 0.001) but not function (mean difference, 2.3 units [CI, -0.9 to 5.5 units]; P = 0.167). Improvements in knee-related quality of life and ipsilateral hip pain favored stable supportive shoes (mean difference, -5.3 units [CI, -10.0 to -0.5 units] and 0.7 units [CI, 0.0 to 1.4 units], respectively). Flat flexible shoes were not superior to stable supportive shoes for any secondary outcome. Fewer participants reported adverse events with stable supportive shoes (n = 12 [15%]) compared with flat flexible shoes (n = 26 [32%]) (risk difference, -0.17 [CI, -0.30 to -0.05]). LIMITATION: No "usual shoes" control group and a select patient subgroup, which may limit generalizability.
CONCLUSION: Flat flexible shoes were not superior to stable supportive shoes. Contrary to our hypothesis, stable supportive shoes improved knee pain on walking more than flat flexible shoes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Health and Medical Research Council.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33428439     DOI: 10.7326/M20-6321

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  4 in total

1.  Protocol for a randomised, assessor-blinded, parallel group feasibility trial of flat flexible school shoes for adolescents with patellofemoral pain.

Authors:  Natalie Mazzella; Aaron Fox; Natalie Saunders; Danielle Trowell; Bill Vicenzino; Jason Bonacci
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 3.050

2.  Tibiofemoral contact force differences between flat flexible and stable supportive walking shoes in people with varus-malaligned medial knee osteoarthritis: A randomized cross-over study.

Authors:  Scott Starkey; Rana Hinman; Kade Paterson; David Saxby; Gabrielle Knox; Michelle Hall
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 3.752

3.  Top studies of 2021 relevant to primary care: From the PEER team.

Authors:  Samantha S Moe; Betsy Thomas; Michael R Kolber; Christina S Korownyk; Adrienne J Lindblad; Nicolas Dugré; Ricky D Turgeon; Emélie Braschi; G Michael Allan
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 3.025

4.  Effect of motion control versus neutral walking footwear on pain associated with lateral tibiofemoral joint osteoarthritis: a comparative effectiveness randomised clinical trial.

Authors:  Kade L Paterson; Kim L Bennell; Ben R Metcalf; Penny K Campbell; Fiona McManus; Karen E Lamb; Rana S Hinman
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 3.006

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.