MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comparative study was conducted on 32 patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of knees. While the neutral group of 16 patients was constituted of those with an anatomical-lateral-femoro-tibial-angle (aFTA) 176-180º, varus group comprised an equal number of patients with an aFTA >180º. A home-based 12-week strength-training program involving weekly visits to hospital for supervised sessions was administered. The outcome measures were visual-analog-scale (VAS), medial patello-femoral joint tenderness (MPFJT), time-up-and-go-test (TUGT), stair-climb test, step test, WOMAC, IKDC scores, aFTA, hip-knee-ankle (HKA) angle, lateral-tibio-femoral-joint-separation (LTFJS), and horizontal-distance-from-centre-of-knee-to-Mikulicz-line.
RESULTS: There was a significant increase in quadriceps strength (p<0.01) in both groups. Values for neutral group with VAS score (p=0.01), MPFJT (p=0.01), TUGT (p=0.01), timing of the stair climb test (p=0.01), WOMAC (p<0.01), and IKDC (p=0.03) were better compared to varus group with VAS score (p=0.13), MPFJT (p=0.03), TUGT (p=0.90), timing of stair climb test (p=0.68), WOMAC (p<0.02), and IKDC (p=0.05). Varus group also showed an increase in aFTA and LTFJS in 12 patients, increase in HKA in 11, and increase in horizontal distance from the centre of knee to the Mikulicz line in 7 patients.
CONCLUSION: The present study brings to the fore the paradoxical role played by QSEs in management of medial knee OA. While there is a radiological progression of the disease in both neutral and varus mal-aligned knees more so in the latter than the former.
METHODS: The national nephrology societies of the region; responded to the questionnaire; based on latest registries, acceptable community-based studies and society perceptions. The countries in the region were classified into Group 1 (High|higher-middle-income) and Group 2 (lower|lowermiddle income). Student t-test, Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were used for comparison.
RESULTS: Fifteen countries provided the data. The average incidence of ESKD was estimated at 226.7 per million population (pmp), (Group 1 vs. Group 2, 305.8 vs. 167.8 pmp) and average prevalence at 940.8 pmp (Group 1 vs. Group 2, 1306 vs. 321 pmp). Group 1 countries had a higher incidence and prevalence of ESKD. Diabetes, hypertension and chronic glomerulonephritis were most common causes. The mean age in Group 2 was lower by a decade (Group 1 vs. Group 2-59.45 vs 47.7 years).
CONCLUSION: Haemodialysis was the most common kidney replacement therapy in both groups and conservative management of ESKD was the second commonest available treatment option within Group 2. The disease burden was expected to grow >20% in 50% of Group 1 countries and 78% of Group 2 countries along with the parallel growth in haemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.
Methods: Fifteen countries of SA and SEA categorized as HE and LE, represented by the representatives of the national nephrology societies, participated in this questionnaire and interview-based assessment of the impact of economic status on renal care.
Results: Average incidence and prevalence of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) per million population (pmp) are 1.8 times and 3.3 times higher in HE. Hemodialysis is the main renal replacement therapy (RRT) (HE-68%, LE-63%). Funding of dialysis in HE is mainly by state (65%) or insurance bodies (30%); out of pocket expenses (OOPE) are high in LE (41%). Highest cost for hemodialysis is in Brunei and Singapore, and lowest in Myanmar and Nepal. Median number of dialysis machines/1000 ESKD population is 110 in HE and 53 in LE. Average number of machines/dialysis units in HE is 2.7 times higher than LE. The HE countries have 9 times more dialysis centers pmp (median HE-17, LE-02) and 16 times more nephrologist density (median HE-14.8 ppm, LE-0.94 ppm). Dialysis sessions >2/week is frequently followed in HE (84%) and <2/week in LE (64%). "On-demand" hemodialysis (<2 sessions/week) is prevalent in LE. Hemodialysis dropout rates at one year are lower in HE (12.3%; LE 53.4%), death being the major cause (HE-93.6%; LE-43.8%); renal transplants constitute 4% (Brunei) to 39% (Hong Kong) of the RRT in HE. ESKD burden is expected to increase >10% in all the HE countries except Taiwan, 10%-20% in the majority of LE countries.
Conclusion: Economic disparity in SA and SEA is reflected by poor dialysis infrastructure and penetration, inadequate manpower, higher OOPE, higher dialysis dropout rates, and lesser renal transplantations in LE countries. Utility of RRT can be improved by state funding and better insurance coverage.