DESIGN: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL were systematically searched (1990-April 2020) for studies describing the prevalence of NP and PS in knee and hip osteoarthritis using self-report questionnaires. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Statistical heterogeneity between studies and sub-groups (affected joint and population source as a proxy for disease severity) was assessed (I2 statistic and the Chi-squared test).
RESULTS: From 2,706 non-duplicated references, 39 studies were included (2011-2020). Thirty-six studies reported on knee pain and six on hip pain. For knee osteoarthritis, the pooled prevalence of NP was: using PainDETECT, possible NP(score ≥13) 40% (95%CI 32-48%); probable NP(score >18) 20% (95%CI 15-24%); using Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs, 32% (95%CI 26-38%); using Douleur Neuropathique (DN4) 41% (95% CI 24-59%). The prevalence of PS using Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) was 36% (95% CI 12-59%). For hip osteoarthritis, the pooled prevalence of NP was: using PainDETECT, possible NP 29% (95%CI 22-37%%); probable NP 9% (95%CI 6-13%); using DN4 22% (95%CI 12-31%) in one study. The prevalence of possible NP pain was higher at the knee (40%) than the hip (29%) (difference 11% (95% CI 0-22%), P = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Using self-report questionnaire tools, NP was more prevalent in knee than hip osteoarthritis. The prevalence of NP in knee and hip osteoarthritis were similar for each joint regardless of study population source or tool used. Whether defining NP using self-report questionnaires enables more effective targeted therapy in osteoarthritis requires investigation.
METHODS: Nine full-text articles in English that reported the clinical and radiological outcomes of KA TKA were included. Five studies had a control group of patients who underwent MA TKA. Data on patient demographics, clinical scores, and radiological results were extracted. There were two level I, one level II, three level III, and three level IV studies. Six of the nine studies used patient-specific instrumentation, one study used computer navigation, and two studies used manual instrumentation.
RESULTS: The clinical outcomes of KA TKA were comparable or superior to those of MA TKA with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Limb and knee alignment in KA TKA was similar to those in MA TKA, and component alignment showed slightly more varus in the tibial component and slightly more valgus in the femoral component. The JLOA in KA TKA was relatively parallel to the floor compared to that in the native knee and not oblique (medial side up and lateral side down) compared to that in MA TKA. The implant survivorship and complication rate of the KA TKA were similar to those of the MA TKA.
CONCLUSION: Similar or better clinical outcomes were produced by using a KA TKA at early-term follow-up and the component alignment differed from that of MA TKA. KA TKA seemed to restore function without catastrophic failure regardless of the alignment category up to midterm follow-up. The JLOA in KA TKA was relatively parallel to the floor similar to the native knee compared to that in MA TKA. The present review of nine published studies suggests that relatively new kinematic alignment is an acceptable and alternative alignment to mechanical alignment, which is better understood. Further validation of these findings requires more randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
RESULTS: Participants in the RPG and CG reported a statistically significant reduction in knee pain and stiffness (p ≤ 0.05) within the group. The reduction in the scores of knee pain was higher in participants in the RPG than that in participants in the CG (p=0.001). Additionally, participants in the RPG reported greater satisfaction (p=0.001) and higher self-reported exercise adherence (p=0.010) and coordinator-reported exercise adherence (p=0.046) than the participants in the CG.
CONCLUSION: Short-term effects of the LLRP appear to reduce knee pain and stiffness only, but not physical function and BMI.
METHODS: Osteoarthritis was induced at the right knee of sheep by complete resection of ACL and medial meniscus. Stem cells from sheep were induced to chondrogenic lineage. Test sheep received 5 mls single doses of 2 × 107 autologous PKH26-labelled ADSCs or BMSCs, while controls received basal medium. Functional recovery of the knees was evaluated via electromyography.
RESULTS: Induced ADSCs had 625, 255, 393, 908, 409, 157 and 1062 folds increases of collagen I, collagen II, aggrecan, SOX9, cartilage oligomeric protein, chondroadherin and fibromodullin compare to uninduced cells, while BMSCs had 702, 657, 321, 276, 337, 233 and 1163 respectively; p = .001. Immunocytochemistry was positive for these chondrogenic markers. 12 months post-treatment, controls scored 4 in most regions using ICRS, while the treated had 8; P = .001. Regenerated cartilages were positive to PKH26 and demonstrated the presence of condensing cartilages on haematoxylin and eosin; and Safranin O. OA degenerations caused significant amplitude shift from right to left hind limb. After treatments, controls persisted with significant decreases; while treated samples regained balance.
CONCLUSIONS: Both ADSCs and BMSCs had increased chondrogenic gene expressions using TGF-β3 and BMP-6. The treated knees had improved cartilage scores; PKH26 can provide elongated tracking, while EMG results revealed improved joint recoveries. These could be suitable therapies for osteoarthritis.