Stretching, Bracing, and Devices for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis-Associated Joint Contractures in Nonoperated Joints: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

CONTEXT: Many patients with osteoarthritis (OA) develop range of motion (ROM) restrictions in their affected joints (contractures), associated with worse outcomes and rising healthcare costs. Effective treatment guidance for lost ROM in OA-affected joints is lacking. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of stretching and/or bracing protocols on native (nonoperated) joint ROM in the setting of radiographically diagnosed OA. DATA SOURCES: Seven databases, English-language. STUDY SELECTION: Studies including participants with radiographically diagnosed OA in any native joint evaluating the effect of stretching or bracing on ROM. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and assessed risk of bias in included trials. Primary outcomes were ROM, pain, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: We identified 6284 articles. A total of 9 randomized controlled trials, all evaluating the knee, met eligibility criteria. For stretching, 3 pooled studies reported total ROM, which improved by mean difference (MD) of 9.3° (95% CI 5.0°,13.5°) versus controls. Two pooled studies showed improved knee flexion ROM (MD 10.8° [7.3°,14.2°]) versus controls. Five studies were pooled for knee extension with mean improvement 9.1° [3.4°,14.8°] versus controls. Seven pooled studies showed reduced pain (standardized MD 1.9 [1.2,2.6]). One study reported improved knee extension of 3.7° [2.9°,4.5°] with use of a device. No studies used orthoses. One study reported on AEs, with none noted. Performance bias was present in all included studies, and only 3 studies clearly reported blinding of outcome assessors. Strength of evidence for primary outcomes was considered moderate. CONCLUSION: There was moderate-quality evidence that stretching is an effective strategy for improving knee total, flexion and extension ROM, and pain. Our findings suggest that stretching to regain joint ROM in OA is not futile and that stretching appears to be an appropriate conservative intervention to improve patient outcomes as part of a comprehensive knee OA treatment plan before arthroplasty.

Effectiveness of stretching and bracing for the treatment of osteoarthritis-associated joint contractures prior to joint replacement: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with osteoarthritis (OA) develop restrictions in passive range of motion (ROM) of their affected joints (called contractures), leading to increased pain and reduced function. Effective treatment to reverse OA-associated contractures is lacking. Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of stretching and bracing on native (non-operated) joint contractures in people with radiographically diagnosed OA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search the following databases without time restriction: Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SCI-EXPANDED (ISI Web of Knowledge) and PEDro. Other sources will include WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, reference lists of included studies, relevant systematic reviews and textbooks. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies and case-control studies that include participants ≥18 years of age with radiographic evidence of OA. Participants with inflammatory arthropathies or those that have undergone joint arthroplasty will be excluded. Interventions will include therapist-administered or patient-administered stretching, use of an orthosis (static or dynamic), use of serial casting and/or adjunctive modalities. Outcomes will include joint ROM (active and passive), pain (rest and/or activity related), stiffness, activity limitations, participation restrictions, quality of life and adverse events. Studies will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Study inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed using appropriate tools for each study design. Data synthesis will be performed using Cochrane Review Manager software. If sufficient data are available, meta-analysis will be conducted. We will summarise the quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, and the effect size of interventions for RCT and non-RCT studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval not required because individual patient data are not included. Findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019127244.

Shoe Lifts for Leg Length Discrepancy in Adults With Common Painful Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether shoe lifts effectively treat leg length discrepancy (LLD)-associated morbidities in adults with common painful musculoskeletal conditions. DATA SOURCES: Trip database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database, PubMed database, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and National Guideline Clearinghouse database. The search was performed in September 2017, was limited to English only, and had no time constraints. STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility. Inclusion criteria were (1) participants ≥18 years old with musculoskeletal-related complaints and LLD; (2) a shoe lift intervention was used; and (3) the study reported on pain, function, range of motion, patient satisfaction, quality of life, or adverse events. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled intervention, cohort, before-and-after, case series, and case report studies were included. Three-hundred and nineteen articles were screened, and 9 guidelines were reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data pertaining to participant demographic characteristics, study setting, recruitment, randomization, method of LLD measurement, shoe lift characteristics, treatment duration, and outcome measures. We included 10 studies, including 1 RCT. DATA SYNTHESIS: LLD was associated with low back pain, scoliosis, and osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Description of LLD correction strategy was often inadequate. Study quality was very low or poor. In non-RCT studies reporting on the proportion of participants who improved with a shoe lift, 88%±3% of 349 participants treated had partial or complete pain relief (effect size range, 66.7%-100%). All 22 RCT participants receiving treatment experienced pain relief (mean pain reduction, 27±9mm on a 150-mm visual analog scale). Two of 9 guidelines recommended shoe lift use based on consensus and were of moderate-to-high quality. CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence that shoe lifts reduce pain and improve function in patients with LLD and common painful musculoskeletal conditions. High-quality research evaluating a threshold LLD to correct and a strategy to do so is necessary. Developing an appropriate comparison group to test clinically relevant outcome measures would make a valuable contribution in this regard.