| Literature DB >> 35692543 |
Armin H Paravlic1,2,3, Cécil J Meulenberg1, Kristina Drole2.
Abstract
Introduction: For patients with osteoarthritis who have undergone total knee arthroplasty (TKA), quadriceps strength is a major determinant of general physical function regardless of the parameters adopted for functional assessment. Understanding the time course of quadriceps strength recovery and effectiveness of different rehabilitation protocols is a must. Therefore, the aim of this study was to: (i) determine the magnitude of maximal voluntary strength (MVS) loss and the time course of recovery of the quadriceps muscle following TKA, (ii) identify potential moderators of strength outcomes, and (iii) investigate whether different rehabilitation practices can moderate the strength outcomes following TKA, respectively. Design: General scientific databases and relevant journals in the field of orthopedics were searched, identifying prospective studies that investigated quadriceps' MVS pre-to post-surgery.Entities:
Keywords: body mass index (BMI); functional performance; knee osteoarthritis; rehabilitation; total knee replacement; voluntary activation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35692543 PMCID: PMC9174520 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.865412
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
FIGURE 1Flow diagram of the process of study selection.
FIGURE 2Funnel plot of the standard differences in means vs. standard errors for all included effect sizes.
Quality assessment of the included studies (n = 17).
| Study name | Item 1 | Item 2 | Item 3 | Item 4 | Item 5 | Item 6 | Item 7 | Item 8 | Item 9 | Item 10 | Item 11 | Item 12 | Total |
| Bade and Stevens-Lapsley ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 17 |
| Collados-Maestre et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 24 |
| Holm et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 15 |
| McKay et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 18 |
| Mizner et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 14 |
| Mizner et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 18 |
| Mizner et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 18 |
| Mizner et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 18 |
| Nutton et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 21 |
| Pua et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 13 |
| Smith et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 19 |
| Stevens et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 18 |
| Stevens-Lapsley et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 21 |
| Stevens-Lapsley et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 21 |
| Wada et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 22 |
| Yoshida et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 22 |
| Paravlic et al. ( | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 21 |
Item 1, a clearly stated aim; Item 2, inclusion of consecutive patients; Item 3, prospective collection of data; Item 4, endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study; Item 5, unbiased assessment of the study endpoint; Item 6, follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study; Item 7, loss in follow-up less than 5%; Item 8, prospective calculation of study size; Item 9, an adequate control group; Item 10, contemporary groups; Item 11, baseline equivalence of the groups; Item 12, adequate statistical analyses.
Quality of the evidence assessment using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.
| Outcome (MVS) | Trials ( | Participants ( | Effect size | LLCI | HLCI |
| MINORS score | Quality of evidence (GRADE) |
| 3 days after | 1 | 24 | –2.65 | –3.85 | –1.46 | 0 | 15 | Moderate quality |
| 14 days after | 2 | 107 | –1.77 | –2.13 | –1.41 | 0 | 18 | Moderate quality |
| 1 month after | 4 | 130 | –1.47 | –2.01 | –0.94 | 81 | 17.5 | Low quality |
| 1.5–3 months after | 7 | 282 | –0.38 | –0.60 | –0.17 | 52 | 19 | Low quality |
| 6 months after | 7 | 449 | 0.28 | –0.02 | 0.59 | 79 | 21 | Moderate quality© |
| 12 months after | 6 | 496 | 0.77 | 0.30 | 1.24 | 85 | 20 | Moderate quality© |
| 24 months after | 1 | 237 | 1.64 | 1.37 | 1.92 | 0 | 24 | Moderate quality |
| 60 months after | 1 | 237 | 1.68 | 1.40 | 1.96 | 0 | 24 | Moderate quality |
Abbreviations: MVS, maximum voluntary strength; n, number; GRADE, Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; LLCI, lower limit of 95% confidence interval; HLCI, higher limit of 95% confidence interval.
*Downgraded because of imprecision based on small sample size (<300 for each pooled outcome).
Effects of total knee arthroplasty on maximal isometric strength normalized to kilograms of body mass or BMI, considering different time periods of post-surgery evaluation.
| Independent variables |
|
| 95% |
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||
| Fixed effect | –2.65 | 0.61 | -3.85 to -1.46 | –4.35 | < 0.001 | 1 | 0.0 (1.0) |
|
| |||||||
| Fixed effect | –1.77 | 0.18 | -2.13 to -1.41 | –9.58 | < 0.001 | ||
| Random effect | –1.77 | 0.18 | -2.13 to -1.41 | –9.58 | < 0.001 | 4 | 0.0 (0.425) |
|
| |||||||
| Fixed effect | –1.22 | 0.11 | -1.42 to -1.01 | –11.50 | < 0.001 | ||
| Random effect | –1.47 | 0.27 | -2.01 to -0.94 | –5.43 | < 0.001 | 14 | 81.09 (<0.001) |
|
| |||||||
| Fixed effect | –0.34 | 0.07 | -0.48 to -0.20 | –4.86 | < 0.001 | ||
| Random effect | –0.38 | 0.11 | -0.60 to -0.17 | –3.51 | < 0.001 | 20 | 51.8 (0.004) |
|
| |||||||
| Fixed effect | 0.37 | 0.06 | 0.25 to 0.50 | 5.78 | < 0.001 | ||
| Random effect | 0.28 | 0.15 | -0.02 to 0.59 | 1.86 | 0.063 | 14 | 79.02 (<0.001) |
|
| |||||||
| Fixed effect | 0.90 | 0.09 | 0.72 to 1.07 | 10.11 | < 0.001 | ||
| Random effect | 0.77 | 0.24 | 0.30 to 1.24 | 3.23 | 0.001 | 10 | 84.81 (<0.001) |
|
| |||||||
| Fixed effect | 1.64 | 0.14 | 1.37 to 1.92 | 11.70 | < 0.001 | ||
| Random effect | 1.64 | 0.14 | 1.37 to 1.92 | 11.70 | < 0.001 | 2 | 0.0 (0.768) |
|
| |||||||
| Fixed effect | 1.68 | 0.14 | 1.40 to 1.96 | 11.79 | < 0.001 | ||
| Random effect | 1.68 | 0.14 | 1.40 to 1.96 | 11.79 | < 0.001 | 2 | 0.0 (0.512) |
CI, confidence interval; ES, effect size; I
FIGURE 3The summarized effects of more than one effect size (closed circles) and one effect size only (open circles), demonstrating the time course of quadriceps muscle maximal voluntary isometric strength normalized by body weight (NMViC) (A) comparison of pre to post within patients and (B) compared with healthy age-matched controls. Data are presented as effect sizes and lower and upper limits of 95% confidence interval.
Meta-regression for variables to predict muscle strength at different time points following total knee arthroplasty.
| Coefficient | Standard error | 95% lower | 95% upper | ||||
|
| |||||||
| Post-surgery time of evaluation | 0.0458 | 0.0025 | 0.0409 | 0.0507 | 18.2461 |
|
|
| Age of patients (years) | 0.0893 | 0.0315 | 0.0276 | 0.1509 | 2.8381 | 0.0703 |
|
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.0986 | 0.0543 | –0.0077 | 0.2050 | 1.8178 | 0.0331 | 0.0691 |
| Sex ratio (males/females) | –0.4192 | 0.3100 | –1.0268 | 0.1883 | –1.3526 | 0.0182 | 0.1762 |
|
| |||||||
| Post-surgery time of evaluation | 0.8911 | 1.9702 | –2.9705 | 4.7528 | 0.4523 | 0.0035 | 0.6511 |
| Age of patients (years) | 0.1413 | 0.0582 | 0.0273 | 0.2554 | 2.4283 |
|
|
| BMI (kg/m2) | –0.2272 | 0.0994 | –0.4220 | –0.0323 | –2.2851 |
|
|
| Sex ratio (males/females) | –1.5759 | 0.5994 | –2.7507 | –0.4012 | –2.6293 |
|
|
|
| |||||||
| Post-surgery time of evaluation | 0.0039 | 0.0035 | –0.0029 | 0.0108 | 1.1247 | 0.0382 | 0.2607 |
| Age of patients (years) | 0.0558 | 0.0293 | –0.0015 | 0.1132 | 1.9086 | 0.1481 | 0.0563 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | –0.0294 | 0.0391 | –0.1061 | 0.0473 | –0.7515 | 0,0252 | 0.4524 |
| Sex ratio (males/females) | 0.0388 | 0.2781 | –0.5063 | 0.5839 | 0.1396 | 0.0009 | 0.8890 |
|
| |||||||
| Age of patients (years) | 0.0847 | 0.0349 | 0.0162 | 0.1532 | 2.4249 |
|
|
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.0409 | 0.0976 | –0.1504 | 0.2323 | 0.4193 | 0.0144 | 0.6750 |
| Sex ratio (males/females) | –0.6286 | 0.3278 | –1.2711 | 0.0141 | –1.9171 | 0.2006 | 0.0552 |
|
| |||||||
| Age of patients (years) | 0.0957 | 0.0539 | –0.0100 | 0.2015 | 1.7750 | 0.2999 | 0.0759 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.1510 | 0.1274 | –0.0987 | 0.4006 | 1.1853 | 0.1824 | 0.2359 |
| Sex ratio (males/females) | –0.9445 | 0.4388 | –1.8045 | –0.0846 | –2.1527 |
|
|
BMI, body mass index (kg/m